• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How the Army officer who testified against Trump could end up in a court-martial

RaleBulgarian said:
Really had to dig deep for that one supposed incident. Doesn’t exactly support your claim. At all.


Don’t make assertions you can’t support with facts.
Click to expand...

Didn't have to dig at all. It is famous within the ranks of US military historians.

You are not an authority to demand anything of anyone.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Didn't have to dig at all. It is famous within the ranks of US military historians.
Click to expand...
Are you a U.S. military historian? If so, why weren’t you able to come up with more than one purported incident in all of our military’s history? After all, you said;
OldFatGuy said:
The US military have repeatedly ignored civilian subpoenas, including congressional subpoenas.
Click to expand...
And if you’re not a U.S. military historian, how could you know that the anecdote you posted is famous within that group?

OldFatGuy said:
You are not an authority to demand anything of anyone.
Click to expand...
Of course I have no authority to demand answers from you or anyone else in this forum however, when someone posts what I know are bogus claims just to prop up their position I will challenge them on it.

Speaking of which, you never did offer one single instance to support your assertion that any military officer ever ordered a subordinate to not comply with a subpoena (from any legal body).
 
OldFatGuy said:
Having served, I know for fact that soldiers in the field are busy staying alive and do not pay attention to possibilities of unlawful orders. Apparently you want a narrative that fits your politics. Keep assuming unlawful laws were issued. Proving they existed or unlawful will be a Sisyphusian task.

The US military have repeatedly ignored civilian subpoenas, including congressional subpoenas. There has never been a prosecution or conviction of a US military officer for ordering the men and women under his command to ignore those subpoenas. There's an old military phrase, "Congress can go collectively suck my ....., and then bend over." I tamed that up for you.
Click to expand...

No clue what military you served in but every officer and drill sergeant I served under pointed out that following unlawful orders was wrong. Also never heard the phrase you mentioned. While they are not in the chain of command they still represent civilian law and soldiers are still required to follow that law. An order from a commanding officer can supersede those laws but only if it is a lawful order.

Also there were just as many Dems in the army as Repubs, since the military is just as diverse as civilian life.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Note in the current oath the third phrase:

"I, _____, 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."
Click to expand...

Wrong oath... Barracks lawyer mistake... Vindman is a commissioned officer, the oath is different for commissioned officers...

I ___, 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
 
Last edited:
RaleBulgarian said:
Are you a U.S. military historian? If so, why weren’t you able to come up with more than one purported incident in all of our military’s history? After all, you said;

And if you’re not a U.S. military historian, how could you know that the anecdote you posted is famous within that group?


Of course I have no authority to demand answers from you or anyone else in this forum however, when someone posts what I know are bogus claims just to prop up their position I will challenge them on it.

Speaking of which, you never did offer one single instance to support your assertion that any military officer ever ordered a subordinate to not comply with a subpoena (from any legal body).
Click to expand...

I am not a military historian, but I do read them. Do you?

Request whatever you want. You might get better responses.

You don't know what is bogus or not. You merely pronounce your opinions. Every anus has an opinion.
 
daeler said:
No clue what military you served in but every officer and drill sergeant I served under pointed out that following unlawful orders was wrong. Also never heard the phrase you mentioned. While they are not in the chain of command they still represent civilian law and soldiers are still required to follow that law. An order from a commanding officer can supersede those laws but only if it is a lawful order.

Also there were just as many Dems in the army as Repubs, since the military is just as diverse as civilian life.
Click to expand...

Of course they point out that following unlawful orders are wrong. A legacy from the Nuremberg trials. However, I had middle school gym teachers who advised us to not have sex until we were married. Once we learned what having sex meant, we did as have sex as often as we could find willing partners.

In SE Asia, often I heard officers and NCO's command "Burn 'em all." No soldier argued about the fine points of law, and each would have done so without the orders.

The chain of command means squat when the Lt. is wide eyed right out of OTS or the point poser, and the NCO is a seasoned leader. When a desk chair officer issues an order contrary to common sense and survival, tell us all about the chain of command.
 
OldFatGuy said:
I am not a military historian, but I do read them. Do you?

Request whatever you want. You might get better responses.

You don't know what is bogus or not. You merely pronounce your opinions. Every anus has an opinion.
Click to expand...
If you did spend much time reading about military history, and then assert that there have been numerous occasions when the military (an unclear generalization) has defied subpoenas (which you did), it is fair to ask you to “put up”. You didn’t because you couldn’t because there aren’t numerous cases where the military defied lawful subpoenas.

I don’t claim everything that is bogus, but I do know that your assertions on this matter are. The military has not defied lawful subpoenas numerous times in the past, and you would have absolutely no way of knowing if any military officer ever ordered a subordinate to defy a lawful subpoena. You’re talking straight outta your anus.
 
BlueTex said:
Wrong oath... Barracks lawyer mistake... Vindman is a commissioned officer, the oath is different for commissioned officers...

I ___, 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You are citing the old oath. There is now one oath for all new military personnel. Been in effect since Gulf I. It is about to be amended, to redact the reference to god. Google is not your friend.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Trump was a life long democrat until the democrats rejected his candidacy 5 years before he was elected. They didn't believe he was serious and it was Hilary's turn at bat.

Maybe this link will educate you:

The Few: Republicans join military 2-to-1 over Democrats
Click to expand...

That does not make this president a military guy. You would think that since Trump keeps attacking the military that might matter to Republicans.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
If you did spend much time reading about military history, and then assert that there have been numerous occasions when the military (an unclear generalization) has defied subpoenas (which you did), it is fair to ask you to “put up”. You didn’t because you couldn’t because there aren’t numerous cases where the military defied lawful subpoenas.

I don’t claim everything that is bogus, but I do know that your assertions on this matter are. The military has not defied lawful subpoenas numerous times in the past, and you would have absolutely no way of knowing if any military officer ever ordered a subordinate to defy a lawful subpoena. You’re talking straight outta your anus.
Click to expand...

You know squat. Just one more yahoo with opinions.

If you think I'm going to bother looking up links to books I read years ago to please you, your arrogance is beyond the pale of ignorance.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
That does not make this president a military guy. You would think that since Trump keeps attacking the military that might matter to Republicans.
Click to expand...

Who said he was a military guy? I addressed his political history in your query.

Every soldier attacks the military, usually out of hearing of officers, but sometimes not. So what?

When slogging on a forced 10 mile double time march, with a 60lb pack on my back at 4am in a blizzard, I attacked the military. Didn't help me in the jungles and mountains of SE Asia. Not for a bloody minute.
 
Interesting little fact about Vindman...

I need to make a slight correction on my statement, it was actually Atlas Vision 13 when the incident occurred. I was thrown off, as the next year Russia invaded Crimea. Also, I was promoted to Chief, Regional, Joint & Combined Exercises Branch, USAREUR, over many exercises. pic.twitter.com/krGrWDXCfX

— LTC (R) Jim Hickman (@Jim_Hickman13) November 1, 2019

LTC Jim Hickman: I know LTC Alex Vindman from a Combined US-Russian exercise called Atlas Vision 12 in Grafenwoher, GE. He worked w/the Russian Embassy & I was assigned to the JMTC (Joint Multinational Training Command), w/in USAREUR (US Army Europe). He worked coordination w/the Russian 15th Peacekeeping Brigade, & I was in charge of all Simulations planning, as well as assisting the USAREUR Lead Planner as the Senior Military Planner. The following account of LTC Vindman’s words & actions are completely accurate to the best of my recollection & have been corroborated by others.

We interacted on several different occasions throughout the planning cycle, but it was during the actual execution of the exercise, that we had an issue relevant to his recent testimony. As stated earlier, Atlas Vision 12 was conducted at JMTC in the VBS2 (Virtual Battle Simulations 2) Classrooms for Simulation. Vindman, who was a Major at the time, was sitting in one of the classrooms talking to the US and Russian Soldiers, as well as the young Officers & GS Employees about America, Russia, & Obama. He was apologetic of American culture, laughed about Americans not being educated or worldly, & really talked up Obama & globalism to the point of uncomfortable. He would speak w/the Russian Soldiers & laugh as if at the expense of the US personnel. It was so uncomfortable & unprofessional, one of the GS employees came & told me everything above.

I walked over & sat w/in earshot of Vindman, & sure enough, all was confirmed. One comment truly struck me as odd, & it was w/respect to American’s falsely thinking they’re exceptional, when he said, “He [Obama] is working on that now.” And he said it w/a snide ‘I know a secret’ look on his face. I honestly don’t know what it meant, it just sounded like an odd thing to say.

Regardless, after hearing him bash America a few times in front of subordinates, Russians, & GS Employees, as well as, hearing an earful about globalization, Obama’s plan, etc…I’d had enough. I tapped him on the shoulder & asked him to step outside. At that point I verbally reprimanded him for his actions, & I’ll leave it at that, so as not to be unprofessional myself.

The bottom-line is LTC Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far back as 2012. So much so, junior officers & soldiers felt uncomfortable around him. This is not your professional, field-grade officer, who has the character & integrity to do the right thing. Do not let the uniform fool you…he is a political activist in uniform. I pray our nation will drop this hate, vitriol & division, & unite as our founding fathers intended!

https://twitter.com/Jim_Hickman13/status/1190323890347790336/photo/1
Click to expand...
 
Obscurity said:
Here it is folks, right here it is.

Trump supporters are not interested in learning the truth. They want revenge against anyone who speaks out against the Leader.

They are literally a cult.
Click to expand...
I dont know about any of that but i do know im uninterested in juvenile progressive opinions at this point.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
apdst said:
Vindman is going to the stockade after this is all over.

How the Army officer who testified against Trump could end up in a court-martial
Click to expand...


From the article:

It comes down to whether Trump’s order was lawful, he said. If Trump was trying to prevent Vindman from sharing sensitive information, it could be. If he was trying to prevent testimony, period, it’s not.

The Army, for its part, is publicly backing Vindman.

“Lt. Col. Vindman, who has served this country honorably for 20-plus years, is fully supported by the Army like every soldier, having earned a Purple Heart after being wounded in Iraq in 2004,” Army spokesman Matt Leonard told Military Times on Thursday. “As his career assignments reflect, Lt. Col. Vindman has a long history of selfless service to his country, including combat. Lt. Col. Vindman is afforded all protections anyone would be provided in his circumstances.”
Click to expand...

OH and there is this:

And on the other hand, he added, if he received a subpoena from Congress and failed to comply, he could face charges of conduct unbecoming an officer under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Click to expand...

I have to admit my first thought was, "bad career move".

Beyond any possible legal fallout, Timmons added, it’s more likely that Vindman has torpedoed his career by testifying before Congress.
Click to expand...

IF you take the time to look up what his ribbons stand for you realize what a exemplary career Lt. Col. Vindman has had and how he has punctuated it with repeated bravery and dedication to our Nation. It will be a tragic loss to our Country if his career is cut short because he did the right thing.
 
There is an old military standard to apply to his actions and it will make all the difference in the world.

"just dont be wrong"

We shall see.
 
OldFatGuy said:
You know squat. Just one more yahoo with opinions.

If you think I'm going to bother looking up links to books I read years ago to please you, your arrogance is beyond the pale of ignorance.
Click to expand...
I don’t know squat? That’s pretty funny coming from the guy who can’t support his own assertions. :lamo
 
White House official who heard Trump’s call with Ukraine leader testified that he was told to keep quiet

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified that he received this instruction from John Eisenberg, the top legal adviser for the National Security Council, after White House lawyers learned July 29 that a CIA employee had anonymously raised concerns about the Trump phone call, the sources said.

The directive from Eisenberg adds to an expanding list of moves by senior White House officials to contain, if not conceal, possible evidence of Trump’s attempt to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to provide information that could be damaging to former vice president Joe Biden.
Click to expand...

Most people call exposing that level of corruption being a good American.
 
BlueTex said:
I will answer...

Q1: Yes . Q2: There are plenty of civilian attorneys very familiar with the UCMJ and plenty who are former JAG (Judge Advocate General for those not familiar) attorneys and are quite capable of representing someone in a court martial. Q3: Yes Q4: I'm not sure I would characterize an officers training, particularly a LTC serving on the National Security Council I as having "limited" education in military law. Regardless, his twin brother is a JAG officer so he has easy access to a military law expert.

Since we are here... Here are the awards and decorations Vindman holds... Can you identify them all?

View attachment 67267426
Click to expand...

Combat Infantry Badge
Army Parachute Badge
Purple Heart
Defense Meritorious Service (with cluster)
Meritorious Service Medal
Army Commendation Medal (with three clusters)
Army Achievement Medal (with cluster)
National Defense Service Medal
Global War on Terror Expeditionary Medal
Global War on Terror Service Medal
Korea Defense Service Medal
Army Service Ribbon
Overseas Service Ribbon
Ranger (he's a bad ass)
Presidential Service Badge
Joint Chiefs of Staff Badge
 
Like the old saying goes, military justice is to justice what military music is to music.

However this all turns out for Lt. Col. Vindman, one thing is certain - his military career is effectively over. He knew that going in - you only need to see the expression on his face as he walked into the hearing to realize that. But he obviously thought it was a price worth paying.

I hope all of us - no matter which side of the debate we happen to be on - are cognizant of that fact. Whether you agree with him or not, it took an enormous amount of guts for him to take the stand he did, and I, for one, salute his courage and the service he has performed for his country.

I keep thinking a lot of Watergate and President Nixon's resignation once his impeachment seemed imminent and he was facing trial in the Senate. He could have fought it and forced the Senate to vote on his guilt or innocence. And you know what? If the Republican Senators had stayed with him and put partisanship over patriotism, he would have prevailed. The Democrats had 56 votes... they would have needed 11 Republican votes to convict him. But you know what turned the tide? Senator Goldwater - probably one of the most conservative members of the Republican caucus, and one of the President's most staunch defenders - came to the Oval Office and informed the President that he no longer had his support. He had the courage of his convictions to go against the majority of his party and do what he felt needed to be done. Once he lost Goldwater, Nixon knew he had lost and so he resigned.

Sometimes all it takes is for one person to have the courage of his convictions to make all the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom