Retired Marine responds

[lincolnx2]

LOL, nice puns.

X2, I have been seaarching for hours, and havent found one person that has been charged for any infractions of the UCMJ for actions after retirement. Have you found any?

I think after you retire, they pretty much leave you alone and let you live your life/speak your mind. J.D. Pendry is a published writer, and most of his stuff is exactly like what I posted in the OP.

Chadly, just because no one has been punished doesn't mean it's not against the law! Was the insert you posted above from the Reg, if so you know it is law, so he can still be court martialed, it sucks, but you can never really retire from the military.

 

[lincolnx2]

Sergeant Major Pendry is retired and has every right to speak out against what he believes is wrong with the leadership of this country.

Pepp a retirement from the military isn't like a retirement from GM, You can't retire from the military, you are placed on inactive status.

 

[Calabrio]

Let me ask, based on your interpretation of the UMCJ-
do you think that retired military men should refrain from speaking out?
Or do you think that the UMCJ should be changed.

Because if your interpretation is correct, though currently unenforced, it can be used in the future to repress, censor, and intimidate retired military men and prevent them being involved in the public political process.

If you're interpretation is accurate, if this were well known, there would be wide demand for that to be changed.

 

[lincolnx2]

These are the laws that congress thought of in 1952, these are the laws that govern the military, there are/were reasons for these laws. I am a service member, I will follow these laws as best I can while in the public eye. Most people dont know that you dont "retire" from the military, I learned it in recruiting school.

I feel that any person should have the right to speak out, I feel that is a right that should never be taken away from anyone, including service members who are active and inactive.

I disagree with your last statement, there won't be a demand for change, service members aren't the ones who change laws, Congress is responsible for writing the UCMJ, there have been changes, but nothing has ever been teaken away, they only add to.

According to UCMJ it is illegal to recieve or give oral sex

 

[Calabrio]

I disagree with your last statement, there won't be a demand for change, service members aren't the ones who change laws, Congress is responsible for writing the UCMJ, there have been changes, but nothing has ever been teaken away, they only add to.

If the public were convinced or it were demonstrated that your interpretation of how the laws applied to retired and "ex-military" citizens in the private sector, they would absolutely support measures to have it changed.

The mere fact that it goes unprosecuted right now is a little disturbing. The selective enforcement of something like that, when considered in the same time period that veterans are on terrorist watch lists, is alarming.

According to UCMJ it is illegal to recieve or give oral sex

Well, we know that's not enforced.
Otherwise all of that time you spend under the desk would have been in vain. And your CO, he would have been prosecuted too. :shifty:

 

[Chadly]

The mere fact that it goes unprosecuted right now is a little disturbing. The selective enforcement of something like that, when considered in the same time period that veterans are on terrorist watch lists, is alarming.

As far as I can tell it has NEVER been enforced. And most likely never will be.

But I know TONS of people have been charged with article 89, and I know one who should be.

 

[lincolnx2]

As far as I can tell it has NEVER been enforced. And most likely never will be.

But I know TONS of people have been charged with article 89, and I know one who should be.

Say what you say, I know one who should be charged also, whats right is right, law is law, if the rule is apllied to me, it should be applied to Mr. Pendry.
Right?

 

[Chadly]

There are some laws that just dont get enforced. For example, in Colorado it is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor. Is that going to be enforced? No. Should retired military members still be punishable under artice 2 of the UCMJ? No. Should active duty members who blaitently disrespect their superior officers be held accountable? Yes.

I see what your saying, the law is the law. But some laws are rediculous.

 

[pepperman]

Pepp a retirement from the military isn't like a retirement from GM, You can't retire from the military, you are placed on inactive status.

I know this, i was in the Army.

 

[lincolnx2]

I know this, i was in the Army.

So Mr. Pendry is still goverened by the Uniform code of military justice, therefore he is violating article 89.

 

[lincolnx2]

There are some laws that just dont get enforced. For example, in Colorado it is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor. Is that going to be enforced? No. Should retired military members still be punishable under artice 2 of the UCMJ? No. Should active duty members who blaitently disrespect their superior officers be held accountable? Yes.

I see what your saying, the law is the law. But some laws are rediculous.

Damn, are you serious? I just moved to Colorado.

 

[pepperman]

So Mr. Pendry is still goverened by the Uniform code of military justice, therefore he is violating article 89.

It would be bad public relations to prosecute Sergeant Major Pendry under article 89, the Freedom of speech is one of the rights guaranteed under the constitution.

 

[Chadly]

Damn, are you serious? I just moved to Colorado.

Thats why I found a dumb law for colorado.

 

[lincolnx2]

It would be bad public relations to prosecute Sergeant Major Pendry under article 89, the Freedom of speech is one of the rights guaranteed under the constitution.

I see your point, but law is law.

 

[pepperman]

889. ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER
Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The only name listed in Pendry's story that article 89 would apply to is Barack Obama and only because he is the commander in Chief. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are two ex presidents, and the rest are memebers of congress except for John Murtha who is retired, prosecution under article 89 would not apply to except for Obama and i seriously doubt he would do that.

 

[lincolnx2]

889. ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER
Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The only name listed in Pendry's story that article 89 would apply to is Barack Obama and only because he is the commander in Chief. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are two ex presidents, and the rest are memebers of congress except for John Murtha who is retired, prosecution under article 89 would not apply to except for Obama and i seriously doubt he would do that.

Chadly and I agreed that he violated article 89, the argument was could he he still be punished under UCMJ, and according to UCMJ he can be charged with violating article 89. My initial question was why is it that he can talk about his superior officer and get praises, but when I did the same thing, I was disloyal. Alot of people don't know that the only way to really get out of the military, is to ETS (end time served), so when you "retire" you CAN still be charged for your actions if the violate the UCMJ. Its crazy, but once you sign a contract with the military, you are property of the DOD, and if you "retire" you are a property for the rest of your life.

 

[Chadly]

Chadly and I agreed that he violated article 89, the argument was could he he still be punished under UCMJ, and according to UCMJ he can be charged with violating article 89. My initial question was why is it that he can talk about his superior officer and get praises, but when I did the same thing, I was disloyal. Alot of people don't know that the only way to really get out of the military, is to ETS (end time served), so when you "retire" you CAN still be charged for your actions if the violate the UCMJ. Its crazy, but once you sign a contract with the military, you are property of the DOD, and if you "retire" you are a property for the rest of your life.

Actually your wrong.

Article 89:
“Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused did or omitted certain acts or used certain language to or concerning a certain commissioned officer;

The president is not a comissioned officer, he is a civillian.

Or even article 88-Contempt toward officials:
“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.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;
He was never a comissioned officer, he is a retired SgtMaj.

They cant get him with anything, but they can get you.

 

[Chadly]

Go ahead, try to argue with that.

 

[lincolnx2]

Go ahead, try to argue with that.

I am a Non-Commissioned Officer, so how are we different? Niether of us can be punished then, right? You are right, but he can still be court martialed for writing about Col. Murtha.

 

[lincolnx2]

Go ahead, try to argue with that.

He can also be tried under article 134,

Text.
See Paragraph 60 (Article 134 - General Article).

Elements.

(1) That the accused made a certain statement;

(2) That the statement was communicated to another person;

(3) That the statement was disloyal to the United States;

(4) That the statement was made with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection toward the United States by any member of the armed forces or to interfere with or impair the loyalty to the United States or good order and discipline of any member of the armed forces; and

(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Explanation. Certain disloyal statements by military personnel may not constitute an offense under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2385, 2387, and 2388, but may, under the circumstances, be punishable under this article. Examples include praising the enemy, attacking the war aims of the United States, or denouncing our form of government with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection among members of the armed services. A declaration of personal belief can amount to a disloyal statement if it disavows allegiance owed to the United States by the declarant. The disloyalty involved for this offense must be to the United States as a political entity and not merely to a department or other agency that is a part of its administration.

This is the article you pull out when you get the soldier that is ate up, and you just want him out of the military, the catch all article, the article for those gray areas.