Page 16 of 23 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 226

Thread: McChrystal relieved of his command.

  1. #151
    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 Guy Incognito View Post
    Yeah, and I still don't get what you're talking about. What comments? These comments. The comments that got him fired, you know, the ones in Rolling Stone. It's well known he said Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" when he met with military officials for the first time. He made negative comments about Biden and other officials as well. Are you seriously trying to argue that McChrystal is innocent here? I'm perplexed.


    Not at all. I'm simply perplexed that stating "uncomfortable and intimidated" especially when true is tatamount to an article 88 violation as you claimed.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  2. #152
    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 Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Not at all. I'm simply perplexed that stating "uncomfortable and intimidated" especially when true is tatamount to an article 88 violation as you claimed.
    Even if true is has nothing to do with whether or not it is "contemptuous." Article 88 has nothing to do with truth. Furthermore, even if Gen. McChrystal is innocent of an article 88 violation-- which I don't grant-- he was at the least extremely impolitic, habitually, and deserved to get fired.

  3. #153
    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 Guy Incognito View Post
    Even if true is has nothing to do with whether or not it is "contemptuous." Article 88 has nothing to do with truth. Furthermore, even if Gen. McChrystal is innocent of an article 88 violation-- which I don't grant-- he was at the least extremely impolitic, habitually, and deserved to get fired.



    Seems like an observation to me, that in its narrow context of statement, seems to simply suggest an observation.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  4. #154
    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 Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Seems like an observation to me, that in its narrow context of statement, seems to simply suggest an observation.
    Yeah, it was a contemptuous observation. Article 88 doesn't make any exceptions for "observations." Nor does it look at the "narrow context" of the statement, but is rather much broader, requiring "That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used."

  5. #155
    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 Guy Incognito View Post
    Yeah, it was a contemptuous observation. Article 88 doesn't make any exceptions for "observations." Nor does it look at the "narrow context" of the statement, but is rather much broader, requiring "That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used."


    look I think McChrystal new exactly what he was doing, inviting the left wing rag to trapse around with him, and I have no real issue with Obama relieving him, however it is stupid to think this is an article 88 offense. Just ask some of us who have served, k?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  6. #156
    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 Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    look I think McChrystal new exactly what he was doing, inviting the left wing rag to trapse around with him, and I have no real issue with Obama relieving him, however it is stupid to think this is an article 88 offense. Just ask some of us who have served, k?
    I appreciate that, and I realize that only a single instance of an article 88 violation has ever been prosecuted. But does that mean McChrystal's words didn't constitute a violation, just because actual prosecution on this article is rare? Let's look at the law, shall we?

    Quote Originally Posted by Article 88 UCMJ
    “Any 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.”
    Contemptuous words about the President and Vice-President, check.

    Quote Originally Posted by Article 88 UCMJ
    "(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;"
    Check.

    Quote Originally Posted by Article 88 UCMJ
    "(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;"
    Check.

    Quote Originally Posted by Article 88 UCMJ
    "(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and"
    I'd say that's a big check, considering that it came out in Rolling Stone. Moreover, if you look at this text it doesn't just say "made to a media outlet" it says "came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused." So he can say what he likes about Obama looking at himself in the bathroom mirror, unless somebody is within earshot. And if he made such disrespectful remarks to a reporter, you have to wonder what he said to others in private. One wonders what an investigation would yield in this regard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Article 88 UCMJ
    "(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used."
    I've been over this earlier in this thread, but let me revisit it, since it's the real sticking point. Were the words "contemptuous?" What does "contempt" mean anyway? As Tex pointed out, our friend the Yale professor acknowledges that they were disrespectful. I think we can all agree that they were disrespectful. The USMCA in USA v. Howe, the only case tried on an article 88 violation, held that the word "contemptuous" was used in its plain dictionary meaning. Look in a dictionary under "contempt" and what do you find? Lo and behold, it means "disrespectful." So, check.

    I realize that those of you who serve and have served are in a unique position to understand the culture of the military, and those of you who have given this country your service have my everlasting respect and gratitude. But you don't have to have served to be able to read the law.

    So, on analysis, I don't see how any reasonable, unbiased person can argue it isn't an article 88 violation. Will he be prosecuted on it, likely not. But that doesn't change the facts.
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 06-24-10 at 12:53 PM.

  7. #157
    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.

    So what is my bias here?



    The only bias here is what you spewed yesterday calling this man a "disgrace to the uniform", for what crime? Suggesting Obama may be intimidated in front of military brass?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  8. #158
    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 Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    So what is my bias here?
    Frankly, I think you're biased against Obama.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    The only bias here is what you spewed yesterday calling this man a "disgrace to the uniform", for what crime? Suggesting Obama may be intimidated in front of military brass?
    I think I've made myself perfectly clear what crime McChrystal committed. If you disagree with the fact that it's an article 88 violation you sure haven't given any reasons. Are you trying to say that McChrystal's comments that Obama was intimidated by military brass were respectful? Or that "Biden? Who's that?" was a sign of respect?

  9. #159
    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 Guy Incognito View Post
    Frankly, I think you're biased against Obama.

    Actually see my latest thread, I list 4+ big things I think he is doing right. I have also in the past have defended him against some of the more right winged mouth foamers as well. I don't believe him to be a kenyan muslim who smokes crack and does the gay sex.... though I do admit to being biased against some of his management style, and choices. He seems like a likable enough fella.




    I think I've made myself perfectly clear what crime McChrystal committed. If you disagree with the fact that it's an article 88 violation you sure haven't given any reasons. Are you trying to say that McChrystal's comments that Obama was intimidated by military brass were respectful? Or that "Biden? Who's that?" was a sign of respect?

    I don't think it was "dissrespectful" enough for an article 88 charge and the evidence is supported by your point that only what 1 person has been charged with an 88 violation?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  10. #160
    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 Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Actually see my latest thread, I list 4+ big things I think he is doing right. I have also in the past have defended him against some of the more right winged mouth foamers as well. I don't believe him to be a kenyan muslim who smokes crack and does the gay sex.... though I do admit to being biased against some of his management style, and choices. He seems like a likable enough fella.
    I gotcha. Perhaps I am being unfair of accusing you of bias, so I am sorry about that. But I think your arguments that McChrystal's words weren't contemptuous are very weak.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    I don't think it was "dissrespectful" enough for an article 88 charge and the evidence is supported by your point that only what 1 person has been charged with an 88 violation?
    You might not think "disrespectful" is enough for an article 88 violation, but the United States Military Court of Appeals in USA v. Howe would disagree with you, and it is their opinion that matters here, not mine or yours. If you admit the comments he made were disrespectful then rationally you admit that they were "contemptuous," since the two words are synonyms and the court regards them as such. The fact that prosecutions on article 88 violations are rare means only that in practice they are seldom followed up on, due to real-world concerns. I would venture to speculate that they usually aren't pursued because they would normally be hard to prove, most disrespectful comments by officers being made in private to people who won't rat them out. Here, proof isn't the issue, but since McChrystal is a political football, it is politically unwise for Obama to pursue 88 charges. But in an ideal world where all laws on the books are followed McChrystal would be looking at a court martial over this.
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 06-24-10 at 01:13 PM.

Page 16 of 23 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... 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
  •