HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why don't more military o...

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 11:51 PM

Why don't more military officers oppose the abandonment of the Kurds?

ďAny commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.Ē

What Determines Contempt Toward Officials
(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;

(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;

(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and

(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element

(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.

Maximum Punishment
Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.


https://www.thebalancecareers.com/punitive-articles-of-the-ucmj-3356854

22 replies, 894 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why don't more military officers oppose the abandonment of the Kurds? (Original post)
flotsam Wednesday OP
RockRaven Thursday #1
wasupaloopa Thursday #2
RockRaven Thursday #6
qazplm135 Thursday #22
qazplm135 Thursday #5
RockRaven Thursday #7
qazplm135 Thursday #8
RockRaven Thursday #10
stopdiggin Thursday #15
qazplm135 Thursday #21
California_Republic Thursday #3
msongs Thursday #4
flotsam Thursday #9
RockRaven Thursday #12
stopdiggin Thursday #14
OldRed2450 Thursday #11
Post removed Thursday #13
JimGinPA Thursday #17
Hekate Thursday #18
Hekate Thursday #19
dustyscamp Thursday #16
a la izquierda Thursday #20

Response to flotsam (Original post)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 12:01 AM

1. Maybe they care more about their own pecuniary benefit than their duty to the oaths they swore...?

Note: I'm NOT saying their potential losses are negligible.

But I *AM* saying that they are NOT oath- and duty-bound automatons.

Life is complicated. People are complicated. And crooks and traitors like Trump exploit that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockRaven (Reply #1)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 12:07 AM

2. Where you ever in the military?

Why didnít I just go AWOL in Vietnam when I began to see the war as wrong?


Iíd like it if it where you giving up who had to give up your life for principal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wasupaloopa (Reply #2)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 12:15 AM

6. Are you an automaton?

Or maybe you are more complicated than that? For example, it sounds like you considered more than one variable. Will you do so here?

What is one's duty when one has more than one simultaneous duty which conflict in a mutually-exclusive fashion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockRaven (Reply #6)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 10:24 AM

22. nonsense

you are just spouting nonsense. Work on clarity in your communication and get back with us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockRaven (Reply #1)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 12:14 AM

5. or maybe they are following the law

and doing what we want professional military to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm135 (Reply #5)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 12:18 AM

7. And when they find themselves in a corner case with conflicting laws... then what?

Which path do they take? Do they "punt" that decision to others (like purposefully-selected lawyers which enable them to hide behind an authority other than themselves)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockRaven (Reply #7)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 12:23 AM

8. what conflicting law?

There's no law against being an idiot President who makes bad decisions.

There's no law against pulling out troops even if it means leaving your allies to die.

Those are all political decisions. And guess what, the PEOPLE are responsible for that via whom they elect.

The Military does what they are told, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution, and nothing in this scenario does that.

I have no idea what the rest of that gobbledy-gook you just posted is supposed to mean by "purposefully selected lawyers." Are you talking about JAGs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm135 (Reply #8)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 12:58 AM

10. You have asserted that "nothing in this scenario" [violates the Constitution]...

So by all means prove *that* assertion.

That's usually hard to do in the negative, and even more so when you cannot possibly know *everything* there is to know about the situation (unless you are Donald Trump, and even then, self-awareness, yikes) -- especially when so many corruption crimes have an intent element in the statute. And if you want to go the "no indictment, only impeachment" route, then the Constitution merely outlines "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" with the latter term being undefined in the original text. So go ahead and prove that negative also or instead, upon which the purported military personnel are supposed to anchor their justification for staying silent, as the OP inquired about... in the face of a maximum penalty of loss of pay and pension and one year in jail (which as I pointed out was a pecuniary barrier)


But anyhow, let's move on...

Those oaths that the military swore also bind them to... well, let's quote it directly:

"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

So what are they supposed to do when the POTUS *is* the domestic enemy, or when the POTUS is the one whose orders *otherwise violate the UCMJ*? Acting as an automaton is not a defense, nor does it explain how they choose to proceed. So, please proceed, interlocutor...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockRaven (Reply #10)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 03:15 AM

15. gibberish (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockRaven (Reply #10)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 10:23 AM

21. ARe you an attorney?

Because I am.

Are you a judge advocate?

Because I am, senior in fact albeit retiring.

Nothing that you typed makes any sense in either vein. You strike me as someone who thinks they know WAY more than they do about the law in general, the UCMJ in particular and is very, very wrong about both. You also strike me as someone who has some axe to grind against the military.

No, I'm not going to prove your negative. You don't get to make an assertion, provide zero evidence for it, then when someone asks you to, tell them to prove the negative. Prove your own assertions. I don't really think you can because as someone as said, so far, it's gibberish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flotsam (Original post)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 12:08 AM

3. Don't ask the military to mix the problem created by the civilian s

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flotsam (Original post)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 12:09 AM

4. lesson at nuremburg? following orders is no defense. its a matter of personal integrity nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flotsam (Original post)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 12:44 AM

9. Anybody on this thread risking a year in prison?

Loss of career and pension? Or just talking shit? Anybody can do something flamboyant and get jail time-anybody here doing that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flotsam (Reply #9)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 02:06 AM

12. So any oath you swear that is in conflict with that particular penalty is easy to throw aside? Okay.

That says a lot about you and any oath sworn by you. Everyone should proportionally distrust your oaths as weighed against that particular penalty for violating them.

And one must assume since you are willing to throw such oaths aside that many other persons are of like mind... so we should not mindlessly trust any of these military personnel to fulfill their oaths either when faced with that penalty... well, that is very rational, indeed, even if depressing.

Well okay then, but the loss of trust, prestige, etc is forever resting upon those who treat oaths like toilet tissue. This is the end of any lionization of the patriotism of those in the military. Everyone else ought to treat them like mindless amoral stooges, if this path is to be followed. Well, if you so insist, so be it, and on your head it will be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockRaven (Reply #12)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 03:10 AM

14. what oaths?

and who is violating their oath? What actions (specifically by military personnel) are you either advocating -- or proscribing? I have no idea of what you're going on about.

The president did a really shitty (and probably stupid) thing -- which he clearly, stupid or not, has the power to do .. WHAT are you proposing that people currently serving in the military do about it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flotsam (Original post)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 01:04 AM

11. This is Trump's fault and not our troops.

It's shameful to even suggest they are an iota responsible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldRed2450 (Reply #11)


Response to Post removed (Reply #13)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 03:39 AM

17. You're Way Out Of Line nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #13)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 03:53 AM

18. JimGin's right -- that's out of line. If you want a military that is explicitly political...

...just look around at the kinds of countries that regularly get overthrown by generals.

The US military is supposed to stay out of politics -- that's a feature, not a bug.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldRed2450 (Reply #11)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 03:57 AM

19. Yes. He got there by political process&must be removed by political process. That's on us civilians.

And as I told RockRaven, that's a feature of our Constitutional government, not a bug.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flotsam (Original post)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 03:27 AM

16. This is a bad situation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dustyscamp (Reply #16)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 05:07 AM

20. That makes my heart hurt. It really does.

I have two Kurdish friends. They live here in the States now, but they are reeling.
What horrors this administration has unleashed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread