Catherine Herridge Finds Articles 2 and 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Have Some Interesting Points: no protests in uniform, commissioned officers cannot disparage or criticize superiors, including the commander in chief...
(twitter.com)
DRAIN THE SWAMP
posted ago by Mrs_Fonebone
+753 / -0
A real journalist.
Niiice
Love her! Goota say tho, she sure loves those highlighters 😂
Yeah, they're becoming her trademark!
Looks like Mattis is subject to court martial.....unless he gives up his retirement pay.
No. That is not how it works. It does not apply to retired veterans unless they say it while wearing a uniform.
This misinformation is spreading here. It just is not true.
In 2019, the Supreme Court upheld that military retirees can be court-martialed, and it happens quite a bit when it comes to criminal activity. Prosecuting an Article 88 violation would open a big can of worms, because that would set precedence that Military Officers permanently lose their First Amendment rights in exchange for a retirement check. Don't see that getting through a court challenge.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/02/25/military-retirees-can-still-be-court-martialed-supreme-court-affirms/
People keep citing that case, but it has nothing to do with the situation here. It was a retiree, living on Okinawa, working for the Marines, in the reserves, who raped someone. The question was only where the trial should be held.
Here the question of speaking about the Commander In Chief is not up for debate. Unless he is wearing a military uniform while he says it, a retired military officer is free to insult the president. Whereas active duty officers are not free even while in civilian clothing.
Is he still actually commissioned? That seems to be the crux of the whole thing, if he's still commissioned, reserve or not, all officers derive that commission from the Potus and he literally can't say shit about him. Retired and not commissioned he can say whatever stupid things he wants.
Besides the fact that a general does not retire without resigning his commission, does not go into the reserve, he was the Secretary of Defense, a position that must never be held by a member of the military. In fact the Senate had to specially approve him since it was not enough years since he had resigned his commission. He most certainly is not a current officer.
Forget the UCMJ, wall to wall counseling is what is needed.
If this is about Mattis, he can say what he wants because he's retired.
There's a question of what he said earlier on, not just recently.
Tribunals pls
They don’t give a care about 2, 88, or any other precept.
They are answering to their higher god.
And what god is that?
Herridge and Attkisson are total JILFs