Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 226

Thread: McChrystal relieved of his command.

  1. #61
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Touche! Here you go:

    Georgetown Security Law Brief: Could McChrystal face a court-martial?

    And yes, the quote does include the claim I'm making which is that he could face a court martial for article 88 violation. QED
    It did include the claim, it didn't include anything to give any indication that the claim was being made by a George Town Professor.

  2. #62
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    It did include the claim, it didn't include anything to give any indication that the claim was being made by a George Town Professor.
    Damn you paying attention to details!
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  3. #63
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    It did include the claim, it didn't include anything to give any indication that the claim was being made by a George Town Professor.
    If you follow the link and read that little "Contributors" box in the right column you will see that the blog is written by Georgetown law professors.

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Damn you paying attention to details!
    Uh, more like inattention to details? By why let facts get in the way of a good rant, huh?
    Last edited by Guy Incognito; 06-23-10 at 04:19 PM.

  4. #64
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,740

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Still no quote of the quote in question GI?
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #65
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Umm.....Guy.

    You may want to do a bit more research into your links before you start tooting your own horn.

    There is nothing from your link showing any indication what so ever that a Georgetown professor is making this assertion or this statement. All you have is a georgetown law's news crawler. The satement from that website you linked is not a unique statement made by a Georgetown Professor. Instead it is a DIRECT QUOTE from the story its linking. Let me demonstrate.

    This is your links post:

    06/23/10: The Washington Times reports that when Gen. Stanley McChrystal shows up at the White House for his highly anticipated meeting with President Obama, he is certain to hear about his commander in chief's displeasure — and may even be fired or resign. But a close reading of military law suggests that an even more drastic remedy is theoretically available to Gen. McChrystal's superiors to punish him for denigrating senior members of the administration in interviews with Rolling Stone magazine — court-martial. Section 88 of the Uniform Military Code of Justice says that any officer who uses "contemptuous words" against the president, vice president, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, or certain other officials "shall be punished as a court martial directs."
    This is the opening three paragraphs of the WashTimes story:

    When Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, shows up in disgrace at the White House Wednesday for his highly anticipated meeting with President Obama, he is certain to hear about his commander in chief's displeasure — and may even be fired or feel obliged to resign.

    But a close reading of military law suggests that an even more drastic remedy is theoretically available to Gen. McChrystal's superiors to punish him for denigrating senior members of the administration in interviews with Rolling Stone magazine — court-martial.

    Section 88 of the Uniform Military Code of Justice says that any officer who uses "contemptuous words" against the president, vice president, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, or certain other officials "shall be punished as a court-martial directs."
    You should notice something. They're word for word the exact same thing. What you quoted was NOT a Georgetown Professors opinion or statement on the issue. It was the Washington Time's statement on the issue, reposted onto a page that simply is a collection of news story links. To suggest that is the view or words of the Georgetown Professor that runs the news linking blog would be like suggesting anytime Matt Drudge posted an excerpt from an AP story on his blog that it is actually HIS words and HIS view and opinion.

  6. #66
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    Umm.....Guy.

    You may want to do a bit more research into your links before you start tooting your own horn.
    Damn, you got me there. I hereby retract with apologies to you guys. I stand by my earlier remarks, however. Guess I'll have to look elsewhere for an expert.

  7. #67
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    If you follow the link and read that little "Contributors" box in the right column you will see that the blog is written by Georgetown law professors.
    Although the blog in question is written by Georgetown University law professors, not all of the blog's content was written by them. In this case, the blog references a Washington Times story written by The Times' staff person, Shaun Waterman.

    Could McChrystal face a court-martial? - Washington Times

    No Georgetown law professors offer opinions on the news story in question.

  8. #68
    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 donsutherland1 View Post
    Although the blog in question is written by Georgetown University law professors, not all of the blog's content was written by them. In this case, the blog references a Washington Times story written by The Times' staff person, Shaun Waterman.

    Could McChrystal face a court-martial? - Washington Times

    No Georgetown law professors offer opinions on the news story in question.
    Yeah, that totally escaped my notice. No excuse there, I epic failed.

  9. #69
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    I already gave a quote where be badmouthed the vice-president in violation of Article 88. He's known to have said something along the lines of "Obama looked scared" meeting with military brass for the first time, and I call that badmouthing the CIC. He tolerated contemptuously language from his advisors and staff. All this happened in front of the press. There are numerous other news outlets that can provide you with all the rest of quotes if you take the time to look them up. Honestly, why bother to defend this guy? He's a disgrace to the uniform.
    So do McChrystal's comments amount to insubordination? No, says Eugene Fidell, who teaches at Yale University School of Law and is president of the National Institute of Military Justice. “I don’t really think this is contemptuous," says Fidell. "I don’t think it makes the needle bounce under Article 88. There’s 'contemptuous words' and being disrespectful," Fidell added. "Those are two different things.”

    You can concede at any time now.

    TAPPED Archive | The American Prospect

    DITTO again.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #70
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: McChrystal relieved of his command.

    NP, honest mistake on that one. I clicked the link to see what it was referencing because it read eerily familiar to a story I had previously read which led me to discover it.

    Oh, and regards to the Appeal to Authority. If your only statement is that "This guy says its okay and he's an expert so its okay" that'd be an appeal to authority. Your only basis is that an expert said it so its true. However using an expert as one of many arguments IS a legitimate method of debating, and is completely legitimate especially when the opposition is offering up little to no evidence on their own hand.

    Let us look at the evidence when it comes to court matial.

    • You have anecdotal evidence of former military individuals stating it doesn't meet the standard needed.
    • You have authorative evidence of a military expert and scholar stating it doesn't meet the standard needed.
    • You have historical evidence as two former Generals removed in a similar fashion of McChrystal for arguably far more damning comments were neither court martialed.
    • You have factual evidence to the rarity of it from the very link your Georgetown Professor's blog provided, which states that only ONE court martial has ever actually occured under the rule and that was for an action FAR more obvious and unquestionably insubordinate than what McChrystal did (A soldier holding up a sign at a demonstration denouncing the President as Fascist)


    So throughout this there are numerous pieces of evidence to suggest that McChrystal shouldn't, and likely won't, be brought forward for a court martial. The ONLY evidence you've brought to the contrary so far has been your own reading of the rule and what you THINK should happen.

Page 7 of 23 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •