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

Page 6 - 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
Feb 4, 2009
34,506
15,737
136
If your really want to know I'll give you the details. I took my ASVAB and aced it back in the 90s with a 99 on everything. I was put into the DEP with my 5 picked jobs I wanted. Almost a year later at the deadline they came back and gave me the fifth job I really didn't want which was some military intelligence job. I went to BMT and during that decided to take the PASS test to switch to a PJ instead. I went through that and was about the be stationed initially at Eglin. However, during my training the recruitment came back to me and said one of my other jobs opened back up and said I could switch to it still if I wanted to. There was a big hullabaloo since the trainers for the PJ course really didn't want to let me go, but I think my parents pulled some strings and I got transferred. So I did and ended up as a 3C0X2. Which was my 3rd job pick to be a software developer. Been that ever since. As I said, basically my entire family has served at some point. Both my father and mother are retired. My grandparents from both sides are retired. All my aunts and uncles are either retired or served some and got out. Every great aunt or uncle I met or was introduced to were the same. Most of my blood related cousins served that I am aware of. My great grand parent's on my fathers side served, but I am not sure about my mother's side. The point being I am part of a big military family.

I personally don't answer Eski's retarded demands for info that has no bearing on a topic at hand. I only answered you because on the past you've at least come across at times as civil. Although this back handed sleight really wasn't all that civil.

I’ll take that, no military experience on my end and I certainly don’t want to act like I have knowledge on the subject.
I do find “Stolen Valor” videos funny.
My favorite parts are when the imposters get dressed down about location of badges or condition of uniform or shoes or whatever.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
Fuck off, clown.

How many quotes have been pulled out of the articles and outlines for you already? How many have you been willing to acknowledge?

Why is THIS one any different?

Why waste MORE time on a fucktard, when it makes no difference?
It's not as if presenting evidence or even proof of my argument will change your mind, right? Because that's how stupid c*nts argue.
Ignore facts and reality and just keep flinging false shit at the wall, hoping some of it will stick.

Cry of a loser.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
I’ll take that, no military experience on my end and I certainly don’t want to act like I have knowledge on the subject.
I do find “Stolen Valor” videos funny.
My favorite parts are when the imposters get dressed down about location of badges or condition of uniform or shoes or whatever.

Literally my initial posts on this forum are about my experience in building my first computer at my first duty station. Before the forums switched over I even had some pictures I posted of myself in my BDU's. I don't care to give all that much personal info out to idiots just because they demand it. I was not seeking anything by my statement to Eski saying he was not the only one around here that served.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
Must be hitting a nerve.

You have the cry of a false patriot, a fake soldier, and the most pathetic of liars. I might pity you if you weren't such a piece of shit "human".

Loser, loser, loser. All you can do is use lame name calling. You can't even point anything out to a given topic on this forum ever.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
YOU ARE MENTALLY HANDICAP if you can't read the bolded. As I stated MANY TIME, the Navy and Marines that are retired after 20 years are put on IRR status and as such status the court says they have jurisdiction over them. THAT IS WHAT THE BOLDED MEANS. Why are you not reading that properly?
No, the bolded means exactly what it says - retired servicemen are still considered members of the military. It includes none of the invented caveats that you are trying to place in it. If they had wanted to say he remained subject to the UCMJ due to his reserve status they would have just said so. They didn’t.

Also, IRR members aren’t subject to the UCMJ! Lol.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54 and Pohemi
Feb 4, 2009
34,506
15,737
136
The Military is an old organization, certainly there is some kind of process somewhere that allows it to apply consequences to a retired service member that is acting far out of acceptable bounds.
 

Pohemi

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
8,613
10,862
146
Loser, loser, loser. All you can do is use lame name calling. You can't even point anything out to a given topic on this forum ever.
Perhaps. I would rather be a harsh, insulting prick than a piece of shit liar and fake soldier/patriot. When is the last time you were *honest* in a discussion here? Ever? :rolleyes:

Your insults are only distraction, and like everything else you say on these boards...are entirely worthless, dishonest, and laughable. At least when I call you a lying c*nt...it's because you are factually a lying c*nt.
 
Last edited:

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,630
2,014
126
He served 7 years, according to him, in the Navy. He was neither retired, not JAG (or the Navy equivalent), nor a commanding officer of any form. His experience to the topic at hand literally means nothing. For him to call it out first is an appeal to authority. Which he is trying to cite himself as an authority here.

If all he said was "I was in the military, I'm right and you're wrong" then yes that would be a fallacy, but that is not what he did. There's literally pages and pages of him and others showing you the documentation and the reasons you're wrong, direct personal experience is just icing on the cake. Stop trying to hide behind calling out a fallacy that you don't even understand.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
No, the bolded means exactly what it says - retired servicemen are still considered members of the military. It includes none of the invented caveats that you are trying to place in it. If they had wanted to say he remained subject to the UCMJ due to his reserve status they would have just said so. They didn’t.

Also, IRR members aren’t subject to the UCMJ! Lol.


NO, THEY ARE CONSIDERED PART OF THE FLEET AND LAND RESERVES. It makes them military still. It is a special IRR status for Navy and Marine retirees ONLY. That is LITERALLY what it means. All the articles and documents point out this very thing several times. You are still too stupid to understand this salient point.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
He served 7 years, according to him, in the Navy. He was neither retired, not JAG (or the Navy equivalent), nor a commanding officer of any form. His experience to the topic at hand literally means nothing. For him to call it out first is an appeal to authority. Which he is trying to cite himself as an authority here.
My statement was about my experience regarding someone’s obligations upon enlisting, specifically related to the IRR. You made a claim that all enlistments are 8 years and subject to an IRR commitment, and this is false.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
If all he said was "I was in the military, I'm right and you're wrong" then yes that would be a fallacy, but that is not what he did. There's literally pages and pages of him and others showing you the documentation and the reasons you're wrong, direct personal experience is just icing on the cake. Stop trying to hide behind calling out a fallacy that you don't even understand.

No, his statement "I don’t know why you are yet again trying to tell me how things are in the military when I spent seven years in it and literally have experienced this topic. I know about it because I did it! " is literally an appeal to authority fallacy with himself as the authority. It is saying, I couldn't possibly ever tell him out the military works because he was military and his assumption at that point was that I wasn't. That is literally what that statement means.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
NO, THEY ARE CONSIDERED PART OF THE FLEET AND LAND RESERVES. It makes them military still. It is a special IRR status for Navy and Marine retirees ONLY. That is LITERALLY what it means. All the articles and documents point out this very thing several times. You are still too stupid to understand this salient point.
No, it means is what the court plainly said - retirees are subject to the UCMJ. They did not say any of the additional things you made up.

Again, THE IRR IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE UCMJ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
No, it means is what the court plainly said - retirees are subject to the UCMJ. They did not say any of the additional things you made up.

Again, THE IRR IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE UCMJ.

It says in those two cases for both Larrabee and Dinger, who were retired Marines, that the UCMJ has jurisdiction because their actions were done while they were “members” of the land and Naval forces which is an official IRR status for Navy and Marines only upon retirement. That means they are effectively still considered part of the military while they are on that status. Get it through your thick head.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

Pohemi

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
8,613
10,862
146
Jesus fucking christ on a shit cracker...even @s0meFuckTard isn't this stupid...page, after page, after page...statements shown to be false...time and again...and still, this fucking idiot isn't going to stop.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: purbeast0

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
It says in those two cases for both Larrabee and Dinger, who were retired Marines, that the UCMJ has jurisdiction because their actions were done while they were “members” of the land and Naval forces which is an official IRR status for Navy and Marines only upon retirement. That means they are effectively still considered part of the military while they are on that status.
1) no. They said “we are firmly convinced that those in a retired status remain “members” of the land and Naval forces who may face court-martial.” There is no mention of any special IRR requirement either in that paragraph or anywhere else in the entire opinion. You just made that part up because you can’t emotionally handle being wrong.

2) THE INDIVIDUAL READY RESERVE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE UCMJ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,630
2,014
126
No, his statement "I don’t know why you are yet again trying to tell me how things are in the military when I spent seven years in it and literally have experienced this topic. I know about it because I did it! " is literally an appeal to authority fallacy with himself as the authority. It is saying, I couldn't possibly ever tell him out the military works because he was military and his assumption at that point was that I wasn't. That is literally what that statement means.

He's giving you his direct experience, AND giving you all the evidence that supports his experience through the entire damn thread, that's not a fallacy. If you have direct experience that refutes what someone is claiming, bringing that up as evidence is not a fallacy lol. This is why you are proven wrong time and time again on this forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
1) no. They said “we are firmly convinced that those in a retired status remain “members” of the land and Naval forces who may face court-martial.” There is no mention of any special IRR requirement either in that paragraph or anywhere else in the entire opinion. You just made that part up because you can’t emotionally handle being wrong.

2) THE INDIVIDUAL READY RESERVE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE UCMJ.

OMG you are too stupid to understand. Read this.


I'll quote the relevant part.

Members of the Fleet Reserve and the Marine Corps equivalent are enlisted and have more than 20, but less than 30, years of service; they are transferred to the retired list and receive retired pay when they hit the 30-year mark. The Air Force and the Army don't have comparable retired Reserve contingents

Because retired Marines and Navy are part of an IRR status they are subject to the UCMJ for acts done during that status. They are both considered retired status and IRR status at the same time.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
He's giving you his direct experience, AND giving you all the evidence that supports his experience through the entire damn thread, that's not a fallacy. If you have direct experience that refutes what someone is claiming, bringing that up as evidence is not a fallacy lol. This is why you are proven wrong time and time again on this forum.

No, that isn't what he did. You didn't read the quote then I posted if that is what you think. Or grossly misunderstood it. Had he been like. "Hey I was in for several years. In my experience I had this happen to me...." then THAT would have been a proper use of his experience. That is NOT what he did. He said, you can't tell me about this because I was in the military and you weren't basically.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: JD50 and Pohemi

VW MAN

Senior member
Jun 27, 2020
677
861
96
Loser, loser, loser. All you can do is use lame name calling. You can't even point anything out to a given topic on this forum ever.
The more you post your stupid convoluted crap spun around lies and misrepresentations mixed in with some good ol fluffy nonsense the more we know what a completely fucking idiot you choose to be and how sad and lonely your tired pathetic life is. You are nothing more then a purposeful know-nothing nobody who has to lie often on an obscure internet forum in order to find any sense of self worth. Fuck off with your lies and and bullshit.

Here is a bit of a reality check for your tiny fucking brain - you are not a lawyer, you never went to school for a legal education. You did not serve in the military. You argue out of your ass and refuse blatantly to ever learn anything. And unlike some of the other morons around here, you are not even a useful idiot, just a sad pathetic excuse of an idiot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
OMG you are too stupid to understand. Read this.


I'll quote the relevant part.
Because retired Marines and Navy are part of an IRR status they are subject to the UCMJ for acts done during that status.
THE
IRR
IS
NOT
SUBJECT
TO
THE
UCMJ
YOU
INSANE
MORON
 
  • Love
Reactions: feralkid

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
THE
IRR
IS
NOT
SUBJECT
TO
THE
UCMJ
YOU
INSANE
MORON

Yes you insane moron. While you are on Inactive ready reserves you are still PART OF THE MILITARY. As part of the military you are subject to the UCMJ. WTF are you so stupid on this for? That is literally how they can recall you back to active during that time frame even if you are not retired. That is why you are still required to maintain your uniform and be combat ready during that time frame as best as you can. Which is why you maintain your rank and are brought back as that rank. Again, I point to the quote above in the military article I linked as to why the appeals court explicitly stated why they had jurisdiction in those two cases.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Yes you insane moron. While you are on Inactive ready reserves you are still PART OF THE MILITARY. As part of the military you are subject to the UCMJ. WTF are you so stupid on this for?
Because it’s literally a fact. The UCMJ only applies to people in the IRR when they have returned to active status.


So repeat after me: THE IRR IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE UCMJ. After you do that, please explain why membership in an entity not subject to the UCMJ would make someone subject to the UCMJ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,630
2,014
126
Basically every single google result I can find says that the IRR is not subject to the UCMJ until they are recalled, what the fuck is wrong with this guy?
 
  • Love
Reactions: Pohemi

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Yes you insane moron. While you are on Inactive ready reserves you are still PART OF THE MILITARY. As part of the military you are subject to the UCMJ. WTF are you so stupid on this for? That is literally how they can recall you back to active during that time frame even if you are not retired. That is why you are still required to maintain your uniform and be combat ready during that time frame as best as you can. Which is why you maintain your rank and are brought back as that rank. Again, I point to the quote above in the military article I linked as to why the appeals court explicitly stated why they had jurisdiction in those two cases.
Yes, the appeals court explicitly stated why they had jurisdiction and that explicit statement was that the individual was a retiree. They did not base this claim on any reserve status.