Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 151

Thread: Now Trump is at war with the generals

  1. #131
    defected to kekistan
    beerftw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    kekistan
    Last Seen
    03-17-19 @ 11:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    15,571

    Re: Now Trump is at war with the generals

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    No, you should know that an oath of office only applies as long as the office is held.

    If you had asked if the oath was only to uphold and defend the Constitution, I would have said no.
    But you asked what the oath was to.
    There is s difference between an oath to X and an oath to do Y.
    X is a noun: an oath to the constitution.
    Y is a verb; an oath to faithfully execute duties.

    I assumed you meant an oath to <noun>.
    I do not consider any oath only viable as long as a contract, if it is by contract then it is not an oath, and if the oath does not state as long as I serve, then it holds no expiration. Technichally those no longer in the armed forces are never prosecuted for violating the oath, but it never expires.
    Proposition 65 warning- my posts are known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

  2. #132
    Sage
    Tangmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Seaview Tower 5 Condo 2602
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    8,523

    Re: Now Trump is at war with the generals

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    Not quite. As the Manual of Courts Martial stipulates for Article 92 on the lawful orders: “However, the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.”

    So it’s not entirely up to the individual.
    Correct. Once it might be left up the individual moral conscience and the like -- as you quote -- we begin to move toward anarchy in the armed forces, discipline being number one and by far.

    It is rather a professional judgement rather than a judgement based on the individual personal persuasion(s). The judgement of an order is made on the professionalism of the soldier, sailor, marine, airman of any rank or position in the chain of command. The standards are the professional standards to include the history of the oath which is to the Constitution for both commissoned officers, warrant officers, nco, ep across the services active duty, reserve, national guard and so on.

    Even then and as the chiefs of staff/cno constantly remind everyone in uniform, if you're going to disobey an order you'd better be sure and certain you are right. No or few easy guarantees of that however is there. Still lots of lives have been saved and missions accomplished by guys who knew the only way to do it was to disobey orders. I like the one from history of one of Frederick's majors cussing out a young lieutenant: "The emperor gave you a commission because he thought you knew when to disobey an order."
    All Enemies Foreign and Domestic

  3. #133
    Sage
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,113

    Re: Now Trump is at war with the generals

    Quote Originally Posted by beerftw View Post
    I do not consider any oath only viable as long as a contract, if it is by contract then it is not an oath, and if the oath does not state as long as I serve, then it holds no expiration. Technichally those no longer in the armed forces are never prosecuted for violating the oath, but it never expires.
    Ah, so it is only your opinion. A civilian, who has fulfilled his/her obligations, is not subject to the UCMJ, and is not obligated to follow orders from a military officer. But your claim is that that is not true. Good luck finding any legal precedent to support that opinion.

    Caveat: retired officers are still officers and could be considered obligated to their oath. Note that they do not swear to follow orders, though. A retired General can still be considered obligated under his/her oath, but criticizing the President certainly doesn’t violate that oath.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  4. #134
    Sage
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,113

    Re: Now Trump is at war with the generals

    Quote Originally Posted by Tangmo View Post
    Correct. Once it might be left up the individual moral conscience and the like -- as you quote -- we begin to move toward anarchy in the armed forces, discipline being number one and by far.

    It is rather a professional judgement rather than a judgement based on the individual personal persuasion(s). The judgement of an order is made on the professionalism of the soldier, sailor, marine, airman of any rank or position in the chain of command. The standards are the professional standards to include the history of the oath which is to the Constitution for both commissoned officers, warrant officers, nco, ep across the services active duty, reserve, national guard and so on.

    Even then and as the chiefs of staff/cno constantly remind everyone in uniform, if you're going to disobey an order you'd better be sure and certain you are right. No or few easy guarantees of that however is there. Still lots of lives have been saved and missions accomplished by guys who knew the only way to do it was to disobey orders. I like the one from history of one of Frederick's majors cussing out a young lieutenant: "The emperor gave you a commission because he thought you knew when to disobey an order."
    Oh, and I have questioned orders I thought might be illegal. and refused unlawful orders (you may be a senior NCO, but if I am not assigned under you, you don’t have the authority to delegate your additional duties to me).
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  5. #135
    Guru RaleBulgarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:53 PM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,619

    Re: Now Trump is at war with the generals

    Quote Originally Posted by Tangmo View Post
    A retired career member of the armed forces receiving a pension is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. UCMJ does not apply to civilians, i.e., it applies to military personnel active duty or retired alike. The armed forces retiree retains the rank at retirement. The oath applies. Potus can call to active duty any or all retired career military consistent with law and UCMJ. FDR did it with MacArthur for example.

    Let's also stop assuming that when a courts martial is convened it is because the guy is guilty as charged. A court martial examines a prima face case as presented by prosecutors same as civilian courts do. There are different regs and processes and procedures however. If there might be one thing to keep in mind it should be the old saying that military justice is to justice as military music is to music. Trump has no doubt been informed and advised it would be hard to find a military judge and jury of oath takers to convict a fellow oath taker for pursuing his oath. Not likely to happen.
    An interesting excerpt from an article regarding the UCMJ as it applies to retirees: “The Manual for Courts-Martial, pt. IV, ¶ 12(c), however, narrows the scope of the offense: “If not personally contemptuous, adverse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article ... even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation”
    https://www.lawfareblog.com/law-reti...sements-primer

    Although military retirees are subject to the UCMJ, they/we do have much more latitude to voice our political opinions against any official publicly.

  6. #136
    Sage
    Tangmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Seaview Tower 5 Condo 2602
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    8,523

    Re: Now Trump is at war with the generals

    Quote Originally Posted by beerftw View Post
    Depends are you arguing the oath is only to the constitution?

    Fyi all but dco's also have to swear the enlistment oath which never expires, and dco's are limited to certain fields and can not be in command positions.
    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    Where in that oath do you see swearing to anything but the Constitution?
    And the oaths are for as long as you hold the position. Every time I re-enlisted or changed Federal agencies, I had to re-swear. Are you seriously trying to claim that someone who delisted thirty years ago, did four years active, four years IRR, is still legally obligated under the oath? No.
    You gentlemen represent the two opposite schools of though in respect of the oath, its applicability and, in particular, its duration or longevity. It remains an unsettled matter that isn't likely to be settled anytime soon. There isn't for instance any rule about these aspects of either oath, officer or EP.

    I share the view that once one takes the armed forces oath it is for life unless you specifically renounce it. But that's my view that I share with that school of thought. There just isn't any rule, reg, statute nor is there anything about it in the Constitution.

    The opposite view and school is that the oath is for the term of service then that's it. Most people concerned about it hold this view.

    NCO reupping are strong on taking the oath again, which is not required, while most officers signing on again give the oath taking a pass. Many officers share my view the oath is effective and applicable indefinitely or unless you renounce it actively. Many nco and almost all ep are happy once they're out to consider the oath a thing of the past.

    As I'd posted and you quoted, retired career personnel receiving a pension remain under the UCMJ although the oath is not specifically addressed either in this instance.
    All Enemies Foreign and Domestic

  7. #137
    Sage
    Tangmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Seaview Tower 5 Condo 2602
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    8,523

    Re: Now Trump is at war with the generals

    Quote Originally Posted by Tangmo View Post
    Unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, immoral. Shooting an unarmed civilian anywhere anytime as Trump wanted unsuccessfully as the rules of engagement at the southern border violates all four.

    The spirit or the letter of the Constitution and the law. This means you are advised to consider seriously a need to broaden the scope and range of your thinking and understanding.

    Withdrawing say from Syria, Afghanistan, the Black Sea, South Korea, Japan, the South China Sea would cumulatively endanger the US national security. This in the professional judgement of military and naval chiefs and commanders would constitute a violation of the Potus Oath to preserve, protect, defend.

    And so on.
    Quote Originally Posted by beerftw View Post
    Withdrawing from syria endagers us security how? And where in the constitution does it say the president is commander in chief uneless we feel it may endager security somewhere somehow at some point in time.

    On the first sentence you listed an actual unlawful order, an unlawful order covers violations of the constitution, law, or conventions and treaties ratified by congress .

    You addressed a single fragment of my quoted post, Syria. This is a fail.

    Unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, immoral; inconsistent with the spirit or the letter of the Constitution or both. Reread plse thx because you reject what you do not know, which is the curriculum in the matter of the federal armed services academies, all Rotc programs at colleges and universities, to include all state sponsored military academies which have Rotc programs, which is virtually all of 'em. You and your posts in this matter are Groundhog Day.
    All Enemies Foreign and Domestic

  8. #138
    Double tough..
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    63,069

    Re: Now Trump is at war with the generals

    Quote Originally Posted by RaleBulgarian View Post
    General McChrystal entered service in 1976, four years prior to “high 3” being enacted. He was entitled under the “final pay” system (50% base pay + 2.5% for every year over 20).

    Regardless of your opinion of his service, he retired as an O-10 and is entitled to the benefits of his rank.
    Ah! So Obama LITERALLY had nothing to do with 'ensuring he keeps his retirement pay'.

    That makes more sense.

  9. #139
    Sage
    Fledermaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Peoples Republic of California AKA Taxifornia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    47,567

    Re: Now Trump is at war with the generals

    Quote Originally Posted by Tangmo View Post
    You gentlemen represent the two opposite schools of though in respect of the oath, its applicability and, in particular, its duration or longevity. It remains an unsettled matter that isn't likely to be settled anytime soon. There isn't for instance any rule about these aspects of either oath, officer or EP.

    I share the view that once one takes the armed forces oath it is for life unless you specifically renounce it. But that's my view that I share with that school of thought. There just isn't any rule, reg, statute nor is there anything about it in the Constitution.

    The opposite view and school is that the oath is for the term of service then that's it. Most people concerned about it hold this view.

    NCO reupping are strong on taking the oath again, which is not required, while most officers signing on again give the oath taking a pass. Many officers share my view the oath is effective and applicable indefinitely or unless you renounce it actively. Many nco and almost all ep are happy once they're out to consider the oath a thing of the past.

    As I'd posted and you quoted, retired career personnel receiving a pension remain under the UCMJ although the oath is not specifically addressed either in this instance.
    Blah blah blah NCO blah blah blah EP....

    You know nothing about NCOs nor Enlisted Personnel beyond your imaginary friends in Da Olde Gard...

    It is apparent in about every post you makes that mentions them.
    'All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.'

    Douglas Adams

  10. #140
    Sage
    Tangmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Seaview Tower 5 Condo 2602
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    8,523

    Re: Now Trump is at war with the generals

    Quote Originally Posted by RaleBulgarian View Post
    General McChrystal entered service in 1976, four years prior to “high 3” being enacted. He was entitled under the “final pay” system (50% base pay + 2.5% for every year over 20).

    Regardless of your opinion of his service, he retired as an O-10 and is entitled to the benefits of his rank.
    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Ah! So Obama LITERALLY had nothing to do with 'ensuring he keeps his retirement pay'.

    That makes more sense.
    Au contraire, Obama himself done did it...

    Gen. Stanley McChrystal will retain his four-star rank when he retires from the military, the White House said Tuesday. The decision means the general will earn about $149,700 per year before taxes in military retirement pay.

    Army rules state a four-star general must serve three years before they can retain the rank in retirement. But the president can bypass the rule if he chooses to do so. McChrystal would have earned about $140,832 annually as a three-star retiree, meaning Obama's decision nets him another $8,868 annually, according to military retirement figures compiled by the Pentagon.


    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fed...taff_news.html
    All Enemies Foreign and Domestic

Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 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
  •