Protestors storm capital
- Thread starter LogGrad98
- Start date
Red
Well-Known Member
Thank you. It’s possible, since he was the whistleblower fired for questioning Trump’s Ukraine phone call, that it’s just a desire for revenge born of bitterness...
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
The mechanism being proposed, of making the retired General Flynn subject to UMCJ, is so ominous that I just don’t see it happening. If it does happen then things are going to get weird and not in a good way.
What they are proposing is that anyone who receives any sort of benefit from the US Military is now and forever a second class person who does not enjoy the protections of the US Constitution as do citizens. These sub-citizen people are subject to a different set of UMCJ laws that can’t be appealed in the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court only looks out for real citizens, not the lower class “veterans” who voluntarily surrendered their Constitutional privileges so they could serve our country.
Even if some twisted people think they can drag things in that direction, I sincerely hope cooler heads prevail.
I think they are talking about people who are retired from the military. Not just anyone who has ever served in the military.
Retired people still carry a military ID, have basic military base access, keep their full medical benefits, etc. The relationship of a retired general to the military is very different than that of "anyone who receives and sort of benefit from the US Military."
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
I have no doubt the relationship is different, but the law in question only looks at payment. If you are payed a benefit from the US Military, advocates are saying that is sufficient enough of a relationship to strip away the protections provided by the US Constitution.
Article 2(a)(4) - Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.
10 U.S. Code § 802 - Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter
I read that entire page. It does NOT include former service members in general. Only those who are retired and receiving pay. There is a significant difference between a former service member and a retired service member. I'm pretty sure that there is a way for a retired person to relinquish all military privileges including pay and thus exclude their self from any possible application of the UCMJ.I have no doubt the relationship is different, but the law in question only looks at payment. If you are payed a benefit from the US Military, advocates are saying that is sufficient enough of a relationship to strip away the protections provided by the US Constitution.
Article 2(a)(4) - Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.
10 U.S. Code § 802 - Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter
www.law.cornell.edu
The UCMJ doesn't mean a person is stripped of constitutional protections exactly, it just means those protections are modified by one's (currently voluntary) military oath as per the UCMJ.
The UCMJ does apply a standard above and beyond civilian law for many things, but it also provides due process in the application of those standards.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
I'm certainly not a lawyer, but even if it only applies to those who have served our country honorably for 20 or more years that seems like a kick in the teeth to use that service as an excuse to take away Constitutional protections from those people. It seems wrong.
Well for one it hasn't actually happened yet, so there's that.
A retired military person is not "out" of the military. As mentioned, they still have a military ID and access to most U.S. military bases that don't have special restrictions. They can go on base and use the golf course, the car wash, the car repair stalls, the store, the commissary, the medical facilities, the bowling ally, etc.. They retain their security clearance.
I don't know what the inactive reserve requirement is for retired officers and if it is different for Generals (O-7 and above). As a basic enlisted person I had 2 years of inactive reserve status after I left the Navy. During that time I was not considered to be completely separated from the military and it would have been possible that had inappropriate conduct been found from my active duty time I would be subject to discipline under the UCMJ. I also imagine that after leaving, if I used my military position, classified information or experience from my service to undermine the U.S. I could be subject to discipline under the UCMJ.
Flynn was dealt with according to civilian law and he's a criminal according to civilian law. He was pardoned inappropriately but pardoned all the same. If the military feels that his actions still warrant discipline that was denied due to his pardon then I don't have a problem with that. He used his status as a retired U.S. Army General to commit crimes and to harm the U.S..
Flynn is a full-on POS.
Last edited:
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
I also think Flynn is a POS but it is irrelevant to the principle at issue. The guiding legal principle in the regular legal system was set by Brandenburg v. Ohio. If you think Flynn is a POS, look up Clarence Brandenburg.
I'm a huge believer in Liberal ideal of "detest what you say but defend to the death your right to say it", even for a POS like Flynn.
Last edited:
you know well enough. It would be impolite to explain it to anyone else.
I thought Jason's offers to PKM to buy out this site quite humorous. I believe he knew enough.
Social media is a sort of devil's playground, really. No one need assume anyone would pay or be paid to venture here, or any of thousands of similar sites.
Times are changing.
Flynn was a top Obama pick but he gagged on sending Iran aid. I know there is a high level of strategy involved and Trump didn't buy into it, and Flynn took his side and was a key advisor on that subject.
The day of values like yours is gone. On this site some have tried to prolong the inevitable changes. The new values replacing respect for others is control, submission and the good cause the smartest or most astute among us see as the right thing.
I'm a bit of a philosopher. Nature has taken the course over the ages to provide many alternatives for life, a sort of insurance policy against one system going all wrong.
Our friends here are dedicated to proving the calamity of one system prevailing with unfounded confidence in experts, authorities, elites, megabuck bigwheels and the attendant intolerance and propaganda.
shamefully dishonest, stinking corrupt "arrogance of power".
You really didn't respond to anything I said other than Flynn is a POS.
I think he is subject to the UCMJ as per my previous post. I think it is fair, I think it is consistent, I think it is perfectly normal. Even if Flynn was a super nice guy.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
I’m not sure what you were expecting. Okay, so it may be possible to strip Flynn’s Constitutional rights due to his service for the country just like it may be possible to strip the Constitutional rights for anyone who has served our nation’s military and retired in good standing. I can’t argue that it is not legally possible, but I think that is morally awful. Even convicted criminals have Constitutional protections. I do not think someone’s military service should be used against them in a way that makes them lesser than convicted criminals in the eyes of the law.
I would say that you are shifting the goalposts with your bit about warranting discipline that was denied due to his pardon. Those pursuing this retired-military-has-no-first-amendment-protections are pointing to the Myanmar comments which have nothing to do with the pardon. It is a separate issue.
Last edited:
I know my causes. I also know, based on our previous history, that you don't have a clue about them.
1) Do you agree with stripping these protections for active military members?
2) If retired military members wish to retain their quasi-military status, why should they not be subject to the same restrictions?
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
That is an outstanding pair of questions that I'm going to think on, but if I had to give an answer on the spot I'd put jurisdictional limitations on it. If it happens outside the borders of the US, or on military property such as a base, or if the soldier is on duty, then that soldier should be subject to the military justice. If the infraction is from an off-duty soldier while in the states and on private property I'm going to want to give that solider every Constitution right that American citizens are entitled to.
What if they use their military ties and military experience to commit said crime?
And in general if you're in the military and get in legal trouble "out in town" then you DO face civilian charges... and then you also face military punishment.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
No on the military experience. I see experience as something you own. You earned it. It is yours. It doesn't factor in.
As for military ties, if the off-duty, stateside, on-private-property member of the military were involved in some sort of conspiracy with military members who were on-base then some portion of the aggregate crime did take place on base and the off-base location of the soldier wouldn’t exempt the person from facing justice for the on-base crime. However, if the military ties are among his buddies whom he met in the military but were all civilians now while this off-base, off-duty infraction were committed then that soldier gets all Constitutional protections that American citizens are due.
By military experience, in this sense I mean knowledge of how the military works, knowledge about military equipment, etc. Using that against the U.S. to the benefit of our adversaries.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
If there are military secrets being divulged then I’d be onboard with your point and asking if I can help drive or if you need gas money, but I believe there are already laws on the books to address that. However if you are referring to knowledge of how the military works or military equipment knowledge that already exists in the public domain then I’d stick with my original answer regardless of receiving that knowledge first-hand.
Also, the “against the U.S.” and “to the benefit of our adversaries” are terms that make me nervous. There are times the theme song to Team America: World Police streams unironically non-stop in my head, and I am not trying to give those who would do America harm any extra wiggle room, but I have seen both of those phrases used in some awful justifications.