What's new
By:

Protestors storm capital

Gameface said:
You really didn't respond to anything I said other than Flynn is a POS.

I think he is subject to the UCMJ as per my previous post. I think it is fair, I think it is consistent, I think it is perfectly normal. Even if Flynn was a super nice guy.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you were expecting. Okay, so it may be possible to strip Flynn’s Constitutional rights due to his service for the country just like it may be possible to strip the Constitutional rights for anyone who has served our nation’s military and retired in good standing. I can’t argue that it is not legally possible, but I think that is morally awful. Even convicted criminals have Constitutional protections. I do not think someone’s military service should be used against them in a way that makes them lesser than convicted criminals in the eyes of the law.

I would say that you are shifting the goalposts with your bit about warranting discipline that was denied due to his pardon. Those pursuing this retired-military-has-no-first-amendment-protections are pointing to the Myanmar comments which have nothing to do with the pardon. It is a separate issue.
 
Last edited:
Al-O-Meter said:
I’m not sure what you were expecting. Okay, so it may be possible to strip Flynn’s Constitutional rights due to his service for the country just like it may be possible to strip the Constitutional rights for anyone who has served our nation’s military and retired in good standing.
Click to expand...
1) Do you agree with stripping these protections for active military members?

2) If retired military members wish to retain their quasi-military status, why should they not be subject to the same restrictions?
 
One Brow said:
1) Do you agree with stripping these protections for active military members?

2) If retired military members wish to retain their quasi-military status, why should they not be subject to the same restrictions?
Click to expand...
That is an outstanding pair of questions that I'm going to think on, but if I had to give an answer on the spot I'd put jurisdictional limitations on it. If it happens outside the borders of the US, or on military property such as a base, or if the soldier is on duty, then that soldier should be subject to the military justice. If the infraction is from an off-duty soldier while in the states and on private property I'm going to want to give that solider every Constitution right that American citizens are entitled to.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
That is an outstanding pair of questions that I'm going to think on, but if I had to give an answer on the spot I'd put jurisdictional limitations on it. If it happens outside the borders of the US, or on military property such as a base, or if the soldier is on duty, then that soldier should be subject to the military justice. If the infraction is from an off-duty soldier while in the states and on private property I'm going to want to give that solider every Constitution right that American citizens are entitled to.
Click to expand...
What if they use their military ties and military experience to commit said crime?

And in general if you're in the military and get in legal trouble "out in town" then you DO face civilian charges... and then you also face military punishment.
 
Gameface said:
What if they use their military ties and military experience to commit said crime?

And in general if you're in the military and get in legal trouble "out in town" then you DO face civilian charges... and then you also face military punishment.
Click to expand...
No on the military experience. I see experience as something you own. You earned it. It is yours. It doesn't factor in.

As for military ties, if the off-duty, stateside, on-private-property member of the military were involved in some sort of conspiracy with military members who were on-base then some portion of the aggregate crime did take place on base and the off-base location of the soldier wouldn’t exempt the person from facing justice for the on-base crime. However, if the military ties are among his buddies whom he met in the military but were all civilians now while this off-base, off-duty infraction were committed then that soldier gets all Constitutional protections that American citizens are due.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
No on the military experience. I see experience as something you own. You earned it. It is yours. It doesn't factor in.

As for military ties, if the off-duty, stateside, on-private-property member of the military were involved in some sort of conspiracy with military members who were on-base then some portion of the aggregate crime did take place on base and the off-base location of the soldier wouldn’t exempt the person from facing justice for the on-base crime. However, if the military ties are among his buddies whom he met in the military but were all civilians now while this off-base, off-duty infraction were committed then that soldier gets all Constitutional protections that American citizens are due.
Click to expand...
By military experience, in this sense I mean knowledge of how the military works, knowledge about military equipment, etc. Using that against the U.S. to the benefit of our adversaries.
 
Gameface said:
By military experience, in this sense I mean knowledge of how the military works, knowledge about military equipment, etc. Using that against the U.S. to the benefit of our adversaries.
Click to expand...
If there are military secrets being divulged then I’d be onboard with your point and asking if I can help drive or if you need gas money, but I believe there are already laws on the books to address that. However if you are referring to knowledge of how the military works or military equipment knowledge that already exists in the public domain then I’d stick with my original answer regardless of receiving that knowledge first-hand.

Also, the “against the U.S.” and “to the benefit of our adversaries” are terms that make me nervous. There are times the theme song to Team America: World Police streams unironically non-stop in my head, and I am not trying to give those who would do America harm any extra wiggle room, but I have seen both of those phrases used in some awful justifications.
 
One Brow said:
I have put them forward, several times. Would you like for me to restate them (in their current form) in this thread?
Click to expand...
That would be a useless exercise. I have seen them, but I read more into them than you understand.

You would hate yourself if you understood.

As a sort of radical unhinged Christian who actually understands and believes the teachings of Jesus, to an extent surpassed by some no doubt, you need to do your own quest for that understanding.

For starters, there is no virtue encompassed by the drive to repent for others their sins, nor to impose some kind of ideal on anyone in particular let alone "Society" or the world. These kinds of things are the delusions and designs of a lesser origin. This is the proverbial "road to Hell" paved with good intentions.

God is as real to me as the ground beneath my feet or the air I breathe. I understand his Supreme will as an exercise in discussion with mankind. In so many ways we want to be our own gods, or the Lords over one another and the world. The wealthy are particularly vulnerable to various delusions about saving us or the world, and the political powers in the West at least have similar designs, but for most of the world, the realities seen have little to do with world supremacy but everything to do with simple prudence albeit directed at holding power.

While I have whiled away a great deal of time exploring logical, as I thought, discussion about stuff, the only meaningful discussion I could have with anyone is the effort to persuade belief in God and understanding of eternal values.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top