Navy SEAL who oversaw the Osama bin Laden raid rebukes Trump in stunning opinion column

[esquared]

https://www.businessinsider.com/navy-seal-william-mcraven-trump-security-clearance-2018-8

Add another military man who thinks the cheeto is a giant sack of crap.

"The man who oversaw the raid that took out al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden delivered a stunning rebuke of President Donald Trump amid the White House's decision to revoke former CIA director John Brennan's security clearance."

""It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out," Brennan said on Twitter. "My principles are worth far more than clearances. I will not relent."
McRaven appeared to concur with Brennan in his brief, but critical, column.

"Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency," McRaven wrote."


""Your leadership, however, has shown little of these qualities," McRaven said. "Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation.""

 

[kage69]

A wee bit late McRaven, but good to hear nonetheless. He pretty much nailed it with that last sentence.

Being in step with the military is an image this mentally ill traitor has cultivated for awhile, with many of his supporters buying it like so much of his bullshit fiction. Hard to keep that up when stuff like this happens. I look forward to Dump continuing to look like he's been repeatedly kicked in the balls.

 

[brycejones]

Damn deep state strikes again.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And in the meantime Flynn still has his clearance.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

And in the meantime Flynn still has his clearance.

I read Flynn’s was pulled few months after his firing.

 

[emperus]

I read Flynn’s was pulled few months after his firing.

Nope

http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/402197-graham-flynn-should-lose-security-clearance

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I read Flynn’s was pulled few months after his firing.

I was going by articles like this

http://theweek.com/speedreads/790815/some-reason-michael-flynn-apparently-still-security-clearance

 

[darkswordsman17]

When the Osama Bin Laden raid and assassination happened, I had people on Facebook claiming it wasn't true and was some made up thing to make Obama look good. I posited at the time how insane they were and that they were effectively calling Navy SEALs liars. They of course tried to deny it and act like how calling the whole thing made up in no way insulted the SEALs, nevermind they were the ones that carried it out, confirmed it was Osama Bin Laden. The most baffling part is how they were trying to "rah-rah" Navy SEALs are badasses while simultaneously calling the whole thing fake. I'm guessing many of them are now convinced it was fake and this guy is part of the deep state, but damnit the SEALs are still uber badasses, just you know, not this one somehow.

It is massively fucked up that Flynn has security clearance still, let alone with the shenanigans about pulling other people's security clearance because they criticized Turmp.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

When the Osama Bin Laden raid and assassination happened, I had people on Facebook claiming it wasn't true and was some made up thing to make Obama look good. I posited at the time how insane they were and that they were effectively calling Navy SEALs liars. They of course tried to deny it and act like how calling the whole thing made up in no way insulted the SEALs, nevermind they were the ones that carried it out, confirmed it was Osama Bin Laden. The most baffling part is how they were trying to "rah-rah" Navy SEALs are badasses while simultaneously calling the whole thing fake. I'm guessing many of them are now convinced it was fake and this guy is part of the deep state, but damnit the SEALs are still uber badasses, just you know, not this one somehow.

It is massively fucked up that Flynn has security clearance still, let alone with the shenanigans about pulling other people's security clearance because they criticized Turmp.

As recently as last year there were still people on AT that believed Bush got OBL.
Democrats are really sucky at talking about success.

 

[glenn1]

https://www.businessinsider.com/navy-seal-william-mcraven-trump-security-clearance-2018-8

Add another military man who thinks the cheeto is a giant sack of crap.

"The man who oversaw the raid that took out al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden delivered a stunning rebuke of President Donald Trump amid the White House's decision to revoke former CIA director John Brennan's security clearance."

""It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out," Brennan said on Twitter. "My principles are worth far more than clearances. I will not relent."
McRaven appeared to concur with Brennan in his brief, but critical, column.

"Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency," McRaven wrote."


""Your leadership, however, has shown little of these qualities," McRaven said. "Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation.""

He might lose more than his security clearance, as a retiree he's still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and could get court martialled, demoted, or lose his pension for insulting the Commander in Chief which is a violation of Article 88.

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/punitive-articles-of-the-ucmj-3356854

“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.”

 

[esquared]

He might lose more than his security clearance, as a retiree he's still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and could get court martialled, demoted, or lose his pension for insulting the Commander in Chief which is a violation of Article 88.

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/punitive-articles-of-the-ucmj-3356854

“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.”

I doubt that would happen.

Hasn't happened since 1942
https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-limits-of-free-speech-in-the-military.html

"No charges have been brought against a retired officer for such an offense since 1942, and most retired commentators are probably oblivious to the risk. But the theoretical possibility does exist. "

"One wonders whether retired Lt. Col. Oliver North thought about it when he declared that Clinton "is not my Commander-in-Chief.""
" Or if retired Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, a former military attache in the Clinton White House, worries that he might be court-martialed for his recently-published, best-selling tell-all screed, Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security.

 

[glenn1]

I doubt that would happen.

Hasn't happened since 1942
https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-limits-of-free-speech-in-the-military.html

"No charges have been brought against a retired officer for such an offense since 1942, and most retired commentators are probably oblivious to the risk. But the theoretical possibility does exist. "

"One wonders whether retired Lt. Col. Oliver North thought about it when he declared that Clinton "is not my Commander-in-Chief.""
" Or if retired Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, a former military attache in the Clinton White House, worries that he might be court-martialed for his recently-published, best-selling tell-all screed, Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security.

That's why I said "could" instead of would or should. Unless/until Congress changes things that will always be a risk, but IMHO you're poking the bear when you do something like write an Op-Ed where the express purpose is basically to insult the POTUS. Regardless that he deserves it, you're still taking a risk as a retired officer in doing so and Trump doesn't seem shy about using powers that haven't happened in a while. 1942 isn't that far back for someone as petty and thin-skinned as Trump appears to be.

 

[esquared]

That's why I said "could" instead of would or should. Unless/until Congress changes things that will always be a risk, but IMHO you're poking the bear when you do something like write an Op-Ed where the express purpose is basically to insult the POTUS. Regardless that he deserves it, you're still taking a risk as a retired officer in doing so and Trump doesn't seem shy about using powers that haven't happened in a while. 1942 isn't that far back for someone as petty and thin-skinned as Trump appears to be.

Now as commander in chief, I wonder could he actually instruct the Pentagon (or whatever Dept handles) to court-martial this retired Admiral for insulting him?
I know it sounds crazy but what would actually be the protocol?
I am guessing he would be laughed out of the building for suggesting it, but the skin is no thinner on anyone, than the cheeto.

 

[alien42]

IMHO you're poking the bear when you do something like write an Op-Ed where the express purpose is basically to insult the POTUS..

the op-ed's express purpose is in the interest of the United States and it's security and sovereignty. currently, the POTUS is the single biggest threat to that in modern history.

i do hope you can see the problem, otherwise you continue to be a part of it and helping to spread it like a disease.

 

[Sonikku]

I doubt that would happen.

Hasn't happened since 1942
https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-limits-of-free-speech-in-the-military.html

"No charges have been brought against a retired officer for such an offense since 1942, and most retired commentators are probably oblivious to the risk. But the theoretical possibility does exist. "

"One wonders whether retired Lt. Col. Oliver North thought about it when he declared that Clinton "is not my Commander-in-Chief.""
" Or if retired Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, a former military attache in the Clinton White House, worries that he might be court-martialed for his recently-published, best-selling tell-all screed, Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security.

Of course they don't. Because none of the previous presidents were as petty as Trump. But Trump IS petty enough to use his executive power to slight and punish those that speak out against him for any reason. Whatever precedent was set with previous presidents is effectively out the window.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I honestly believe that Trump is under the control of the same spirits that controlled Hitler hence the similarities.

 

[HeXen]

I honestly believe that Trump is under the control of the same spirits that controlled Hitler hence the similarities.

The LHC proves ghosts don't exist anyway but frankly I see similarities to Hitler from many common people walking the streets too so....

 

[fskimospy]

That's why I said "could" instead of would or should. Unless/until Congress changes things that will always be a risk, but IMHO you're poking the bear when you do something like write an Op-Ed where the express purpose is basically to insult the POTUS. Regardless that he deserves it, you're still taking a risk as a retired officer in doing so and Trump doesn't seem shy about using powers that haven't happened in a while. 1942 isn't that far back for someone as petty and thin-skinned as Trump appears to be.

True, but I suspect in the age of gofundme and others if Trump actually court martialed him for speaking out he would make way more money from donations than he would get from his pension.

 

[pauldun170]

The fact that Article 88 has come up in regards to veteran behavior proves how fucking stupid people on the internet can get.
"Derpa da derpa....well technically we should punishing retired military personal for speaking up against government officials. Like taking away their pay...and stuff derpa da derp"

What makes even worse is that we have a White House that would probably read this nonsense on the internet and then tweet "Veterans critizing the president with the highest ratings ever...SAD!!. MAYBE WE SHOULD BE LOOKING INTO TAKING AWAY THEIR BENEFITS?"

Has Fox and friends started their character assassination of this guy yet?

 

[glenn1]

The fact that Article 88 has come up in regards to veteran behavior proves how fucking stupid people on the internet can get.
"Derpa da derpa....well technically we should punishing retired military personal for speaking up against government officials. Like taking away their pay...and stuff derpa da derp"

What makes even worse is that we have a White House that would probably read this nonsense on the internet and then tweet "Veterans critizing the president with the highest ratings ever...SAD!!. MAYBE WE SHOULD BE LOOKING INTO TAKING AWAY THEIR BENEFITS?"

Has Fox and friends started their character assassination of this guy yet?

You should get reading comprehension lessons, no one here said he should and indeed I and everyone else said the should not. I said he *could* because the UCMJ allows it so it was probably unwise to test it given the current occupant of the White House. I am quite sure the Trump admin has lawyers who know the UCMJ already, so reading it on ATPN would not be the first time they realized such a thing exists.

 

[HomerJS]

That's why I said "could" instead of would or should. Unless/until Congress changes things that will always be a risk, but IMHO you're poking the bear when you do something like write an Op-Ed where the express purpose is basically to insult the POTUS. Regardless that he deserves it, you're still taking a risk as a retired officer in doing so and Trump doesn't seem shy about using powers that haven't happened in a while. 1942 isn't that far back for someone as petty and thin-skinned as Trump appears to be.

Would you poke a bear if you thought the security of the country is in jeopardy?

 

[Mai72]

Sadly, big daddy Trump doesn't care.

 

[glenn1]

Would you poke a bear if you thought the security of the country is in jeopardy?

I disagree that poking the bear requires borderline insults. The security of the country can be safeguarded with civil language and that’s probably the better way if a court martial could be the result of using “contemptuous” language. Military officers are held to conduct standards the rest of us did not and probably would not agree to be held to.

 

[Darwin333]

I had no idea that a retired military member still couldn't speak out about politicians. What about a vet that is running for president against an incumbent, could the president theoretically have them charged and court matialed?

 

[glenn1]

I had no idea that a retired military member still couldn't speak out about politicians. What about a vet that is running for president against an incumbent, could the president theoretically have them charged and court matialed?

There's degrees of speaking out. Saying "I disagree with you about Policy ABC and think you should support Policy XYZ instead" is one thing and "you're a traitor to our country and an immoral asshole for supporting Policy ABC" is another entirely. If you feel the need to be able to say Option 2 then being a commissioned military officer (or retired one) is probably not the best career field to have gone into.