Huh? Had they resigned they would simply have stopped increasing the years of service which weighs into the overall retirement....so they could have resigned/retired (and they all get to keep retired ID cards to get access to the Base BX/PX or whatever).Had they resigned, they would have forfeited their pension and future access to military facilities. Cowards, every one. Should have resigned in protest. Obama knows that, and gave them a fat retirement instead.
Resignation ... not Retirement.Huh? Had they resigned they would simply have stopped increasing the years of service which weighs into the overall retirement....so they could have resigned/retired (and they all get to keep retired ID cards to get access to the Base BX/PX or whatever).
anyway, yes....the military services have way too many careerists wearing stars: Self over Service. Selfishness and tribalism are rewarded, integrity is punished.
There have been several cases of a military member convicted by court martial of Art 88 violations, the First Amendment notwithstanding; and everyone in the military is aware of the consequences of such actions. During the Clinton administration there was a big crackdown by DoD leadership on contemptuous language toward the President. Basically we were told o keep our pie holes shut, with charges of violating UCMJ articles 88, 92, 133, 134, etc. being threatened toward us.In 1974 the U.S. Supreme Court found “While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections. The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it” Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 758 (1974). This quote from the Court sums up what is known as the Doctrine of Military Necessity or the military-deference doctrine.
Lot of words to say something so wrong, constitutionally and morally. Did you or did you not take an oath? You probably agreed that SS officers were "just following orders." Sure, it would be wrong to criticize the Fuhrer.These retired officers still hold their commissions, much like I do, and while it is rare that a retired military member be brought back to active duty to be prosecuted under this article, it is possible. Commissioned officers have a duty to be politically impartial and should not violate the trust between the military and civilian leadership, as such comments by these two retired GOs do. It's bad form and sets a lousy example for junior officers.
Do you even know what the commissioned officer's oath of office entails? Have you ever served as a commissioned officer in the United States military? If not, then maybe you ought to stick to topics that you know something about, as you are clearly out of your element here...Lot of words to say something so wrong, constitutionally and morally. Did you or did you not take an oath? You probably agreed that SS officers were "just following orders." Sure, it would be wrong to criticize the Fuhrer.