Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Indeed there is. The word for that thing is "democracy".there is also such a thing as a “tyranny of the majority”.
Indeed there is. The word for that thing is "democracy".there is also such a thing as a “tyranny of the majority”.
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...The only thing I get out of that tweet is that Yevgeny (Eugene) Vindman is a hack. As repugnant as Flynn's comments were, they are devoid of imminent threat. I don't care if you the kind of lawyer who chases ambulances or dots i's and crosses t's in corporate contracts, every lawyer should be familiar with Brandenburg v. Ohio. Those remarks are so squarely covered by the Brandenburg v. Ohio precedent the case wouldn't make it in the front door before it was tossed.
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.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...
I think they are talking about people who are retired from the military. Not just anyone who has ever served in the military.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 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.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."
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
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.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.
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.
Well for one it hasn't actually happened yet, so there's that.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.
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.Flynn is a full-on POS.
you know well enough. It would be impolite to explain it to anyone else.What is my cause?
35% =/= "most", and it's only as high as 35% because of the relentless denial by some parts of the media.
Times are changing.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.
You really didn't respond to anything I said other than Flynn is a POS.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.
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.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.
I know my causes. I also know, based on our previous history, that you don't have a clue about them.you know well enough. It would be impolite to explain it to anyone else.
1) Do you agree with stripping these protections for active military members?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.
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.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?
What if they use their military ties and military experience to commit said crime?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.
No on the military experience. I see experience as something you own. You earned it. It is yours. It doesn't factor in.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.
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.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.
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.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.