Poll: Should retired Gen Mike Flynn face a court martial for the act of sedition?

[HomerJS]

To start a number of points...

A court martial would be a trial for the charge of sedition.
A retired member of the military is still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
Sedition - NOUN - conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.

If the retired General and former national security advisor is found guilty he should be subject to a dishonorable discharge and a loss of his pension. In addition to the UCMJ anyone who reaches his level must be held to a higher standard of behavior.

Here is Flynn calling for an armed overthrow of our government. He subsequently has tried to backpedal but IMO it is too late. The damage has already been done. Jan 6 taught us there are Trump nutters out there willing to carry out his request.
Michael Flynn says Myanmar-like coup 'should happen' in US | TheHill

 

[Jaskalas]

Here is Flynn calling for an armed overthrow of our government.

What that man said is his intent to (directly or indirectly) murder for the express purpose of overthrowing our Democracy.

His former position gave him an opportunity to lead such an act himself. And it would help inspire others to do so in his stead. Today.

This must not be tolerated, he needs the book thrown at him for his terrorist threat and or sedition.

 

[hal2kilo]

He really is a nut who should have been locked up you know.

Trump's generals who remain: Why there's reason to fear a military coup in the U.S. | Salon.com

 

[interchange]

Yes. He is not simply sharing his personal opinions. He was answering a question at a conference and publicly sharing it on social media knowing his audience is largely comprised of the general public. He is clearly representing his professional identity as an armed services member and explicitly encouraging seditious behavior to an audience which recently took a seditious act.

 

[sandorski]

He should be on a List for sure.

 

[kage69]

Misha Flynn deserves to spend the rest of his sad life in Leavenworth, along with his Dear Leader Lord Commander Marmalade.

 

[HumblePie]

How does a retired person face a court martial? You have to be active duty to face a court martial. Unless you want forced conscription? The legal ramifications of trying to make him face government penalties for speech on this issue is absurd. This thread is going no where. Now as far as stripping his retirement benefits, that is something else.

 

[HomerJS]

How does a retired person face a court martial? You have to be active duty to face a court martial. Unless you want forced conscription? The legal ramifications of trying to make him face government penalties for speech on this issue is absurd. This thread is going no where.

Did you read the OP? I answered that question

 

[fskimospy]

How does a retired person face a court martial? You have to be active duty to face a court martial. Unless you want forced conscription? The legal ramifications of trying to make him face government penalties for speech on this issue is absurd. This thread is going no where. Now as far as stripping his retirement benefits, that is something else.

This is false.

The Prosecution of Military Retirees Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice | The Federalist Society

fedsoc.org

 

[woolfe9998]

How does a retired person face a court martial? You have to be active duty to face a court martial. Unless you want forced conscription? The legal ramifications of trying to make him face government penalties for speech on this issue is absurd. This thread is going no where. Now as far as stripping his retirement benefits, that is something else.

Oh, our resident "legal expert" chimes in, with yet another incorrect statement of the law.

Let the right wing "Federalist Society" explain it to you:

The Prosecution of Military Retirees Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice | The Federalist Society

fedsoc.org

.

Or you can read the actual UCMJ Article (2)(a)(4) if you want the primary source.

Article 2 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is federal law, enacted by Congress. Here is the complete text.

www.thebalancecareers.com

.

 

[gothuevos]

The bigger question remains: how much of the active military would be willing to break off and follow such an action, be it by following Flynn or someone else?

And what % do you think would be enough to actually succeed? 25%? 50%?

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, our resident "legal expert" chimes in, with yet another incorrect statement of the law.

Let the right wing "Federalist Society" explain it to you:

The Prosecution of Military Retirees Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice | The Federalist Society

fedsoc.org

.

Or you can read the actual UCMJ Article (2)(a)(4) if you want the primary source.

Article 2 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is federal law, enacted by Congress. Here is the complete text.

www.thebalancecareers.com

.

Remember, this genius is not only an expert on the law he's also an expert on the military.

We're fortunate that in this case it's the intersection of his areas of expertise so we're sure to get some really excellent analysis.

 

[Pohemi]

Did you read the OP? I answered that question

Of course he didn't, or if he did, he cannot be honest about it's content. That would shit all over his fucktard commentary.

 

[fskimospy]

The bigger question remains: how much of the active military would be willing to break off and follow such an action, be it by following Flynn or someone else?

And what % do you think would be enough to actually succeed? 25%? 50%?

The culture of our military is very strong and polling shows they don't even like Trump anyway so I suspect the answer is not very many.

 

[ewdotson]

That said, there *are* legitimate constitutional questions around the fact that retirees are currently subject to the UCMJ. I *assume* a big part of why no one's in a rush to charge Flynn under it is that that would force those questions to be answered definitively and it's a useful level to have.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1399134692364935168

 

[fskimospy]

That said, there *are* legitimate constitutional questions around the fact that retirees are currently subject to the UCMJ. I *assume* a big part of why no one's in a rush to charge Flynn under it is that that would force those questions to be answered definitively and it's a useful level to have.

It's something currently being challenged and who knows, in the future the law might change but it doesn't change the fact that as the law currently stands you can absolutely be court martialed as a former active duty retiree.

 

[ewdotson]

Sure, sure. I absolutely agree with that. (How could I not? It's an unequivocal fact.) I'm just trying to speculate on a reason why it might not have already happened beyond the obvious naïve/foolish/corrupt reasons that might immediately spring to mind.

 

[woolfe9998]

Sure, sure. I absolutely agree with that. (How could I not? It's an unequivocal fact.) I'm just trying to speculate on a reason why it might not have already happened beyond the obvious naïve/foolish/corrupt reasons that might immediately spring to mind.

Or maybe it's just because Flynn made the comment the day before yesterday?

 

[ewdotson]

Or maybe it's just because Flynn made the comment the day before yesterday?

I mean, they've said they don't plan on investigating it at this time. Sure, "at this time" is doing some work there, but do you really expect a sudden change there?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1400099489621422081

 

[VW MAN]

How does a retired person face a court martial? You have to be active duty to face a court martial. Unless you want forced conscription? The legal ramifications of trying to make him face government penalties for speech on this issue is absurd. This thread is going no where. Now as far as stripping his retirement benefits, that is something else.

Further evidence that a law related degree from a cracker jack box is more meaningful then the fucked up stupid shit vomited out of your pie hole.

 

[HumblePie]

Did you read the OP? I answered that question

He's not a reservist. The lettering of the USMCJ is for active duty and in-active reservists which is a period of time after leaving active duty. It is not to extend indefinitely and would run around of so many legal principles our system is founded on. The previous citations were allowing court martials on retiree's has always been for actions taken while on on active duty, or in-active reserve state. There hasn't been a case where a court martial has been pushed for on a retired civilian on their actions outside those parameters. Even in the Dinger case, the actions were taken while he was in the reserves as per your link.

Going after someone for actions outside those time periods would set a massively bad precedent.

 

[woolfe9998]

I mean, they've said they don't plan on investigating it at this time. Sure, "at this time" is doing some work there, but do you really expect a sudden change there?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1400099489621422081

Wasn't aware of that.

Pathetic.

 

[HumblePie]

Further evidence that a law related degree from a cracker jack box is more meaningful then the fucked up stupid shit vomited out of your pie hole.

You don't know what you are talking about. Every case to date of a court martial happening on a retiree was for actions taken while they were on active duty or part of the in-active reserves. NOT for actions outside those time periods.

 

[fskimospy]

He's not a reservist. The lettering of the USMCJ is for active duty and in-active reservists which is a period of time after leaving active duty. It is not to extend indefinitely and would run around of so many legal principles our system is founded on. The previous citations were allowing court martials on retiree's has always been for actions taken while on on active duty, or in-active reserve state. There hasn't been a case where a court martial has been pushed for on a retired civilian on their actions outside those parameters. Even in the Dinger case, the actions were taken while he was in the reserves as per your link.

Going after someone for actions outside those time periods would set a massively bad precedent.

False again:

https://www.jag.navy.mil/courts/documents/archive/2017/DINGER-201600108-PUB.pdf

Of the offenses to which the appellant pleaded guilty, two were committed solely while he was a member of the Fleet Marine Reserve and one was committed solely after his transfer to the retired list.

For this reason, we decline to override long-standing, military justicespecific provisions in the MCM subjecting those in a retired status to courtsmartial and broadly authorizing those courts-martial to adjudge a punitive discharge. We make this decision particularly in light of the fact that Congress expressly exempted other classes of personnel from dismissal or dishonorable discharge within the UCMJ, but not retirees.

As usual you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[woolfe9998]

He's not a reservist. The lettering of the USMCJ is for active duty and in-active reservists which is a period of time after leaving active duty. It is not to extend indefinitely and would run around of so many legal principles our system is founded on. The previous citations were allowing court martials on retiree's has always been for actions taken while on on active duty, or in-active reserve state. There hasn't been a case where a court martial has been pushed for on a retired civilian on their actions outside those parameters. Even in the Dinger case, the actions were taken while he was in the reserves as per your link.

Going after someone for actions outside those time periods would set a massively bad precedent.

You mean the Dinger case, the one which describes the charges as follows?

Of the offenses to which the appellant pleaded guilty, two were committed solely while he was a member of the Fleet Marine Reserve and one was committed solely after his transfer to the retired list.

That case?

https://www.jag.navy.mil/courts/documents/archive/2017/DINGER-201600108-PUB.pdf

Edit: eski beat me to it.