Page 11 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 226

Thread: McChrystal relieved of his command.

  1. #101
    Why so serious?

    Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,291

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Well, I still think that the Yale professor's comments go to my point that there is an argument to be made on both sides of the issue of whether this conduct rises to the level of an article 88 violation, but your point is well taken.

    Here is the best evidence I can scrounge up to support my argument atm, and then I have to go to work. You'll have to bear with me because it is a bit circuitous. According to US v. Howe, 17 U.S.C.M.A. 165 "[W]e emphasize the Article 88 is designed to cover the use of "contemptuous" words toward holders of certain offices named therein. "Contemptuous" is used in the ordinary sense as is evidenced by the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, paragraph 167. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary. " Merriam Webster defines contempt as "the act of despising : the state of mind of one who despises : disdain b : lack of respect or reverence for something." Contempt - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary So, I'd argue that the Yale prof is mistaken that "contemptuous" and "disrespectful" are materially different for purposes of an article 88 violation. That's all I've got for now, but I think it's a solid point.
    Just for fun, suppose you are correct and McChrystal did say something that could be considered a clear Article 88 violation. What do you suppose would happen then? An automatic court martial?

    In the military, charges are preferred by an individual's commander, not by a prosecutor. The results of any investigation would bebrought to the person's commander, and the commander would then decide whether to proceed to court martial, offer non-judicial punishment, or take no action at all. In a similar case that happened in 1993, the general officer that insulted President Clinton was given non-judicial punishment (also known as an Articel 15 or Captain's Mast) and fined $7,000. When I was in the Air Force, a person given non-judicial punishment could receive up to 30 days confinement and the loss of two month's base pay, all without ever seeing a judge (hence non-judicial). The individual had the option of refusing the Article 15 and demanding a court martial proceeding.

    I would guess that if anything is done to McChrystal, it will be an Article 15 with some loss of pay and he will retire.
    "I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."

    --Albert Einstein, 1929

  2. #102
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    We went in A-stan because B Laden was there and he is not there anymore...He is dead

    So, there's no reason for us to be there.
    Proof he's dead?
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  3. #103
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon View Post
    I would guess that if anything is done to McChrystal, it will be an Article 15 with some loss of pay and he will retire.
    Yes, I see now how my ignorance of military procedure led to my overstating my case, so I am going to have to concede that point to yourself, Hellhound, Zephlyn, joergen, et al. I still think it is a clear 88 violation, but I have to admit now that my earlier statement that he'd be lucky to get away without a court martial is overstating the facts. In fact, he is highly likely to get away without a court martial, even though he deserves one.

    Nonetheless, his behavior here disgusts me, and my reaction was based less on knowledge of the law (although I still stand by my assessment of it) and was more on a gut feeling that McChrystal did something wrong. Just a quick personal anecdote to explain where I'm coming from, my father-- a staunch Republican-- served as a military officer, part of which was during the Clinton years. Never did a disparaging word about President Clinton pass his lips, not so much as a joke at the height of the Lewinsky scandal, not even in the privacy of home. If he disapproved of the President I can only guess, because he never voiced any disapproval of the commander in chief. This is why McChrystal's comments made me blush. I never thought officers, especially generals in a time of war, would dare indulge in such mocking of the commander-in-chief in private, let alone in front of a reporter. It's just wrong, and I'm shocked to see people leaping to his defense, and it has nothing to do with partisanship. McChrystal might very well have been right about his opinions of Obama, it sounded like he had some valid opinions had he been a civilian, but that has nothing to do with it. He should have kept a lid on it, that's his duty.
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 06-23-10 at 10:21 PM.

  4. #104
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gibberish View Post
    Obama is a politician. General McChrystal is not. He does not have the luxury of having making negative comments in a public forum about his chain of command during war time.
    I'm just pointing out Obama's hypocrisy.

  5. #105
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    Proof he's dead?
    US intelligence (sharing and coordination with our ally counterparts) plus buttloads of local informers has yet to locate BL after, the non stop bombing at, theTora Bora mountain ranges near the PK-Astan border in 2001. The B-52's bombing and missile arsenal was devastating

    Impossible for him to survive such an attack. He is dead

  6. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,216

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    US intelligence (sharing and coordination with our ally counterparts) plus buttloads of local informers has yet to locate BL after, the non stop bombing at, theTora Bora mountain ranges near the PK-Astan border in 2001. The B-52's bombing and missile arsenal was devastating

    Impossible for him to survive such an attack. He is dead
    That's not 'proof' that OBL is dead. Nice try though.

  7. #107
    User
    Chappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    04-07-15 @ 01:50 AM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,443
    Blog Entries
    26

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    I think that General McChrystal is gone because he was incapable of carrying out or unwilling to carry out the mission he was assigned. Period. The article and all the other ‘noise’ surrounding this matter were just indicators of this underlying condition. There will be no charges brought although many military careers I suspect will be stunted by these events.

    Obama's action is solely directed at completing the mission; in tapping General Petraeus, he has selected everyone's first pick for the job.

    I found it interesting that Keith Olbermann's special comment the day before was about why McChrystal should be retained if possible and he made a good point: an apologetic and submissive general was better than a martyred and sympathetic general. My sense and hope is that McChrystal shall "just fade away" as General MacArthur did before him.
    “Real environmentalists live in cities, and they visit what's left of the wilderness as gently and respectfully as possible.” — Donna Moulton, letter to the editor, Tucson Weekly, published on August 23, 2001

  8. #108
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gibberish View Post
    I think Obama has no expertise in military affairs and cmpletely relies on the Generals. Obama gave General McChrystal 30,000 of the 40,000 troops he said he needed to win. With the 30,000 additional troops we have seen little to no change inA Afghan.
    That's the oddest thing about this, McChrystal got what he asked for.

    BTW, for the thread in general, I see nothing requiring a court martial. He properly resigned for using poor judgement. Not as surprising as him using that poor judgment to begin with.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #109
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gibberish View Post
    I think Obama has no expertise in military affairs and cmpletely relies on the Generals. Obama gave General McChrystal 30,000 of the 40,000 troops he said he needed to win. With the 30,000 additional troops we have seen little to no change inA Afghan.
    Uhm if it was "completley" as you suggested wouldnt there have been 40k not 30k more troops there almost 11 months earlier?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  10. #110
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,344
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    General McChrystal asked for 40,000 troops. President Obama agreed to 39,000 (34,000 U.S. troops + 5,000 from NATO countries). The Washington Post reported at the time the strategy was agreed, "The combined U.S. and NATO deployments would nearly reach the 40,000 requested last summer by U.S. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the coalition commander in Afghanistan, as part of an intensified counterinsurgency strategy."

    Obama to send 34,000 troops to Afghanistan - washingtonpost.com

    The difference of 1,000 is immaterial. The strategy is General McChrystal's. The toop number is virtually the same as what General McChrystal requested.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Uhm if it was "completley" as you suggested wouldnt there have been 40k not 30k more troops there almost 11 months earlier?
    Don covered this earlier in this very thread.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 11 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •