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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Should Mike Flynn face a court martial for the act of sedition?


  • Total voters
    56

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136

Pohemi

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
9,452
12,988
146
You don't know what you are talking about.
s0meIdI0t must be giving mirrors away to his pals.
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.
No, it hasn't been. Next time, try reading the article(s) before spewing more false bullshit.

Fucking clown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VW MAN and hal2kilo

VW MAN

Senior member
Jun 27, 2020
677
861
96
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.
More vomit spewed from your trump cum hole. How many more times are you gonna post wrong dumbshit here? Or are you one of those cowardly pukes who practice the whole shit and run posting style?

Fucking pathetic!
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
You mean the Dinger case, the one which describes the charges as follows?



That case?


Edit: eski beat me to it.

The court martial was for this offense

In that Gunnery Sergeant Derek L. Dinger, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired), on the active duty retired list or on the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve List, did, at or near Okinawa, Japan, between on or about 11 October 2012 and on or about 4 September 2014, knowingly and wrongfully receive, possess and view child pornography, to wit, images and videos of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

He was in-active reserve, while retired, and was in possession of child porn. That is what the sentence for the court martial was for and on the last page.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
You mean the Dinger case, the one which describes the charges as follows?



That case?


Edit: eski beat me to it.

Yah, charges were brought. The one outside wasn't used and the others consolidated. The question of jurisdiction didn't have to be met on the last charge because of that. As I said already, all other cases of a retiree being court martialed were from actions taken when active duty or in-active reserves. Being initially charged doesn't mean jack shit.

For reference, charge 1 was the creating of child porn of his own kids original broken into 2 charges but consolidated. Charge 2 was about making a porn video on his wife without her consent. Of which charge "2" was 3 and 4 based on time frames, and even if it stuck would have been considered a continuance of 4 from 3.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
The court martial was for this offense



He was in-active reserve, while retired, and was in possession of child porn. That is what the sentence for the court martial was for and on the last page.

lol, looks like woolfe wins. Everything you just wrote here is wrong and directly contradicted by the opinion.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
lol, looks like woolfe wins. Everything you just wrote here is wrong and directly contradicted by the opinion.

Not at all. I literally quoted the conclusion from the link. He was court martialed for only the actions taken while reserves. I'll give more context to that quote again.

The supplemental court-martial order shall reflect that in the consolidated specification of Charge II, the specification of Additional Charge I, and Specifications 1 and 2 of Additional Charge II, the appellant was “on the active duty retired list or on the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve List.”

The supplemental court-martial order shall also reflect that the military judge consolidated Specifications 1 and 2 of Charge II into a single specification for findings and sentence, to read as follows:

In that Gunnery Sergeant Derek L. Dinger, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired), on the active duty retired list or on the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve List, did, at or near Okinawa, Japan, between on or about 11 October 2012 and on or about 4 September 2014, knowingly and wrongfully receive, possess and view child pornography, to wit, images and videos of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. Chief Judge GLASER-ALLEN and Judge HUTCHISON concur.

I bolded the relevant section for you to make sure you don't miss it this time.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,730
28,908
136
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.
Relevant lines highlighted

(a)The following persons are subject to this chapter:
(1)
Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.
(2)
Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipmen.
(3)
(A)While on inactive-duty training and during any of the periods specified in subparagraph (B)—
(i)
members of a reserve component; and
(ii)
members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States, but only when in Federal service.
(B)The periods referred to in subparagraph (A) are the following:
(i)
Travel to and from the inactive-duty training site of the member, pursuant to orders or regulations.
(ii)
Intervals between consecutive periods of inactive-duty training on the same day, pursuant to orders or regulations.
(iii)
Intervals between inactive-duty training on consecutive days, pursuant to orders or regulations.
(4)
Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

(5)
Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.

10 U.S. Code § 802 - Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
(a)The following persons are subject to this chapter:
(1)
Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.
(2)
Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipmen.
(3)
(A)While on inactive-duty training and during any of the periods specified in subparagraph (B)—
(i)
members of a reserve component; and
(ii)
members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States, but only when in Federal service.
(B)The periods referred to in subparagraph (A) are the following:
(i)
Travel to and from the inactive-duty training site of the member, pursuant to orders or regulations.
(ii)
Intervals between consecutive periods of inactive-duty training on the same day, pursuant to orders or regulations.
(iii)
Intervals between inactive-duty training on consecutive days, pursuant to orders or regulations.
(4)
Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.



10 U.S. Code § 802 - Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

I suggest reading this..


Retirement pay does not constitute continued servitude to the military. It had been adjudicated as such and nor is it considered deferred income from the military. Again, I ask you to point to a precedent in history where a former military person was court martialed for actions as a civilian and no longer associated as either active duty or inactive reserves anymore.

The big issue also is that the Navy and Marines have a LONG inactive reserve timeline after becoming a retiree where Air Force and Army do not. Flynn is from the Army and they have no such contingent as Fleet and Land Reserves for 30 years after. There is literally NO LEGAL WAY to court martial Flynn currently.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Not at all. I literally quoted the conclusion from the link. He was court martialed for only the actions taken while reserves.
lol, no. You quoted part of the conclusion and are so incompetent you didn't understand what it meant. The conclusion has two parts:

Part 1:

The findings and sentence, as approved by the CA, are affirmed.

This means that all charges he pleaded guilty to are affirmed, as are their sentences. This includes the charge he committed entirely while in a retired status.

Part 2 is what you quoted, and are SUPPLEMENTAL orders slightly modifying two of the five charged he pleaded guilty to. From the intro to the opinion:

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted the appellant pursuant to his pleas of two specifications of committing indecent acts, one specification of attempting to produce child pornography, two specifications of wrongfully making an indecent visual recording, and one specification of receiving, viewing, and possessing child pornography

And again, the opinion explicitly states one of the charges he pleaded guilty to was committed entirely while he was in a retired status, although the opinion is also clear that such a distinction is irrelevant because retired military members are subject to the UCMJ.

In case you need another example of court martial for an offense committed in its entirety while in a retired status here you go:


The court on Tuesday chose not to hear the case of a retired Marine who was court-martialed for a sexual assault he committed three months after leaving the service in August 2015. By not accepting the case, Larrabee v. the United States, the court upheld the status quo: that military retirees are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

You are entirely, 100% wrong and there's no escaping it. Because you're mentally ill you probably can't admit it, but that's your problem.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and Meghan54

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
lol, no. You quoted part of the conclusion and are so incompetent you didn't understand what it meant. The conclusion has two parts:

Part 1:



This means that all charges he pleaded guilty to are affirmed, as are their sentences. This includes the charge he committed entirely while in a retired status.

Part 2 is what you quoted, and are SUPPLEMENTAL orders slightly modifying two of the five charged he pleaded guilty to. From the intro to the opinion:



And again, the opinion explicitly states one of the charges he pleaded guilty to was committed entirely while he was in a retired status, although the opinion is also clear that such a distinction is irrelevant because retired military members are subject to the UCMJ.

In case you need another example of court martial for an offense committed in its entirety while in a retired status here you go:




You are entirely, 100% wrong and there's no escaping it. Because you're mentally ill you probably can't admit it, but that's your problem.

Did you even READ your link?

technically, placed on the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve status list

AGAIN ON RESERVE LIST!!!!

It's not a matter of a retiree being charged, it is when the offenses took place. Let me reiterate how the system works for you.

1) Person joins the military. While joined they are considered ACTIVE DUTY
2) Person serves a number of years to be eligible for retirement from active duty. When they are about to retire they are on the ACTIVE DUTY RETIREE LIST.
3) Once "retired" they, like every other active duty member that leaves the active part of the service are put into in-active reserves. For the Air Force and Army this is 4 years AFTER active service. For Navy and Marines it is a lot longer.

If any USMCJ offenses happen during the times of 1, 2, or 3 then they are subject to the USMCJ. Outside of those times, NO.

As I stated already, Flynn is ARMY. He is well past the in-active reserve time. In the Army and Air Force USMCJ as well it is specifically stated that retirement status is final and separative.

The cited cases of Dinger and Larebee are Marines.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,730
28,908
136
I suggest reading this..


Retirement pay does not constitute continued servitude to the military. It had been adjudicated as such and nor is it considered deferred income from the military. Again, I ask you to point to a precedent in history where a former military person was court martialed for actions as a civilian and no longer associated as either active duty or inactive reserves anymore.

The big issue also is that the Navy and Marines have a LONG inactive reserve timeline after becoming a retiree where Air Force and Army do not. Flynn is from the Army and they have no such contingent as Fleet and Land Reserves for 30 years after. There is literally NO LEGAL WAY to court martial Flynn currently.
Flynn is retired from the military who gets a pension. Why doesn't it apply?

(4)
Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.


It says the ARMED FORCES
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
Flynn is retired from the military who gets a pension. Why doesn't it apply?

(4)
Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.


It says the ARMED FORCES

That is 1 of 3 components required.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,222
136
That is 1 of 3 components required.

No, in a retiree’s case, it’s the ONLY “component” needed…wherever u got that BS of 3 “components” needed crap. Did u know simply receiving a draft notice puts one under military control and the military can court martial you for acts prior to taking the oath when one joins…
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
No, in a retiree’s case, it’s the ONLY “component” needed…wherever u got that BS of 3 “components” needed crap. Did u know simply receiving a draft notice puts one under military control and the military can court martial you for acts prior to taking the oath when one joins…

I got it from the legal documents I already cited. Your reference to draft notices has nothing to do with the actual fact pattern at hand.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,245
16,716
136
From the brief snippet I heard on the news last night. Charging someone with sedation has a super high bar to cross to be found guilty. Like that person needs to take action to make the sedition happen. Talking about it doesn’t meet the standard.
Now regarding military ethics, I certainly think there is enough to at minimum have a hearing about it or whatever the Military does to handle this matter. I do not agree with the news folks last night who claimed it will only encourage the Q morons. They are morons and there is not fixing dumb like they show they are. Remove his pension, remove his retired rank assuming this meets the bar that the military enforces. Make others know there are consequences for acting irresponsibly.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Did you even READ your link?

AGAIN ON RESERVE LIST!!!!

It's not a matter of a retiree being charged, it is when the offenses took place. Let me reiterate how the system works for you.

1) Person joins the military. While joined they are considered ACTIVE DUTY
2) Person serves a number of years to be eligible for retirement from active duty. When they are about to retire they are on the ACTIVE DUTY RETIREE LIST.
3) Once "retired" they, like every other active duty member that leaves the active part of the service are put into in-active reserves. For the Air Force and Army this is 4 years AFTER active service. For Navy and Marines it is a lot longer.

If any USMCJ offenses happen during the times of 1, 2, or 3 then they are subject to the USMCJ. Outside of those times, NO.

As I stated already, Flynn is ARMY. He is well past the in-active reserve time. In the Army and Air Force USMCJ as well it is specifically stated that retirement status is final and separative.

The cited cases of Dinger and Larebee are Marines.
Lol I sure did - including the part that explicitly states retired people can be prosecuted under the UCMJ for actions that took place entirely while they were retired.

Again, the court of appeals EXPLICITLY affirmed the plea and sentencing of an offense for a retiree that took place entirely after that individual was retired.

Also you are wrong yet again about the military. You do not serve four years inactive reserves after retirement - retirees are subject to recall for life.


(2) The Secretary of a Military Department or the Commandant of the USCG may order any retired regular member, retired Reserve member who has completed at least 20 years of active service, or a member of the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve to AD in accordance with Section 688 and 12301(a) of Title 10, U.S.C. at any time to perform duties deemed necessary in the interests of national defense
So first, you’re wrong about the inactive reserve part and second, since you said the ability to be recalled to active duty is what makes someone subject to the UCMJ and all retirees are subject to recall, you demolished your own point.

What you are thinking of when you mention the four years is that all enlistment contracts are actually for eight years, generally four of them active and four in the inactive reserve. This has nothing to do with retirement though, and people on the inactive reserves who are not retirees are not subject to the UCMJ. You would know this had you ever served.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,222
136
Ur wrong. Retirees can and are called back to active service, something a person who joined, served his/her few years on active duty, followed up a few years of inactive reserve (for a total of 6 total years served) wouldn’t be subject to…at least not without an act of Congress.

A retiree, otoh, can be recalled at the drop of a hat. My grandfather, retired after serving in WW1, got recalled for WW2 and served that entire war. Retirees are on a completely different path than most anyone else serving in the military.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
From the brief snippet I heard on the news last night. Charging someone with sedation has a super high bar to cross to be found guilty. Like that person needs to take action to make the sedition happen. Talking about it doesn’t meet the standard.
Now regarding military ethics, I certainly think there is enough to at minimum have a hearing about it or whatever the Military does to handle this matter. I do not agree with the news folks last night who claimed it will only encourage the Q morons. They are morons and there is not fixing dumb like they show they are. Remove his pension, remove his retired rank assuming this meets the bar that the military enforces. Make others know there are consequences for acting irresponsibly.
I think things like this are exactly what article 134 was written for, which enables court martial for any act contrary to good order and discipline or acts that bring discredit on the armed forces. Publicly expressing your support for the violent overthrow of the government you took an oath to protect is sure as shit contrary to good order and discipline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,222
136
Lol I sure did - including the part that explicitly states retired people can be prosecuted under the UCMJ for actions that took place entirely while they were retired.

Again, the court of appeals EXPLICITLY affirmed the plea and sentencing of an offense for a retiree that took place entirely after that individual was retired.

Also you are wrong yet again about the military. You do not serve four years inactive reserves after retirement - retirees are subject to recall for life.



So first, you’re wrong about the inactive reserve part and second, since you said the ability to be recalled to active duty is what makes someone subject to the UCMJ and all retirees are subject to recall, you demolished your own point.

What you are thinking of when you mention the four years is that all enlistment contracts are actually for eight years, generally four of them active and four in the inactive reserve. This has nothing to do with retirement though, and people on the inactive reserves who are not retirees are not subject to the UCMJ. You would know this had you ever served.

Damn…when the heck was it lengthened to eight years? Was six when I was in.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
Lol I sure did - including the part that explicitly states retired people can be prosecuted under the UCMJ for actions that took place entirely while they were retired.

Again, the court of appeals EXPLICITLY affirmed the plea and sentencing of an offense for a retiree that took place entirely after that individual was retired.

Also you are wrong yet again about the military. You do not serve four years inactive reserves after retirement - retirees are subject to recall for life.



So first, you’re wrong about the inactive reserve part and second, since you said the ability to be recalled to active duty is what makes someone subject to the UCMJ and all retirees are subject to recall, you demolished your own point.

What you are thinking of when you mention the four years is that all enlistment contracts are actually for eight years, generally four of them active and four in the inactive reserve. This has nothing to do with retirement though, and people on the inactive reserves who are not retirees are not subject to the UCMJ. You would know this had you ever served.


You can be retired AND on in-active reserves. Being subject to the USMCJ in that status as been adjudicated and shown to be something that can happen. Being retired and NOT being on the inactive reserves has NOT been adjudicated.

Being subject to recall is something else ENTIRELY. If the person in question is retired, recalled, and commits a USMCJ offense they would be subject to the repercussions of such. That isn't being argued here. The argument is whether a person that is NOT on the inactive list while retired can be subject to the USMCJ. That has not ever been adjudicated. Most recent cases have pointed to this being a big NO. It is also EXPLICITLY stated in the Air Force and Army USMCJ versions as not having jurisdiction in those cases. I also said that there is 4 years of inactive reserves for the Army and Air Force. My statement was correct on durations. No idea what you were trying to state by adding more to my initial statement as if you were trying to score some point.

You are literally trying to strawman everything again.