Posted on Jan 18, 2016
19
19
0
I think it stinks that after this long the Sec of Def. can reduce someone in rank. Even if he or she is a General officer. Yes I know he was convicted of mishandling of classified material. They should have reduced him back then. Maybe we as military community should let our voices be heard.
UCMJ
SECDEF
David Petraeus
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 139
0
0
0
People still refer to Nixon and Clinton as President. The Gen.earned his rank,he should keep it.The Sec.of Def. was appointed. Enough said !
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
If this happens, there are politicians who should be indicted upon the same grounds. However, this seems like "kicking a man while he's already down". He's been forced into retirement and has been publicly shamed and humiliated; I'm pretty sure that's more than enough.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I would have to say no. If that is the case, then everyone that is retired would be subject to UCMJ. They had a chance and did not take that route.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
SSG Brian MacBain - If you are unable to comprehend the written statements of the UCMJ, we have nothing to debate. Again:
http://www.ucmj.us/sub-chapter-1-general-provisions/802-article-2-persons-subject-to-this-chapter
(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.
http://www.ucmj.us/sub-chapter-1-general-provisions/802-article-2-persons-subject-to-this-chapter
(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.
802. ARTICLE 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER « UCMJ – United States Code of Military Justice
(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of...
(1)
(0)
SSG Brian MacBain
From the above statement 801 Article 2 - First, I am no longer a regular component of the armed forces. I am not waiting for discharge, or waiting to be inducted into the armed forces. Just like you, we are retired and that article on how I read it do not pertain to personnel that are retired from the armed services. Now if you think you are still subject to UCMJ when you are retired, fine with me because I know I am not. The only time I would be as I stated before. If I was deployed to Afghanistan/Iraq in support of the OEF (if it is still being called that) then all civilians (if they served or did not served in the armed services) are subjected to UCMJ. If in the states, and caught on base, you are subject to the laws of that state. Again, that is talking to when you are active duty or called back to active duty. When you are retired (aka inactive duty) you are not subject to UCMJ. Maybe you need to reread 801 Article 2 again.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
SSG Brian MacBain - Good grief, man. It says a retired member of a regular component entitled to pay. Did you or did you not retire from a regular component of the military and are now receiving a check. If the answer is yes, then you fall under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ.
(1)
(0)
SSG Brian MacBain
I see the #4 in your statement, and to my understanding hardly enforced. I like this discussion and believe no disrespect was played on both our parts. I was referencing Art 2 that you had attached. I believe enough is said here. I know if I got a speeding ticket or even arrested (which will never happen) I will not be facing any UCMJ action, but from the State and/or Federal laws. MCPO Roger Collins I thank you for your service and insight to this.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I have a lot to say on this subject... In short I believe it is very political, they went after all the top Officers. Definately a double standard, burn Petraeus... And Clinton runs for President wth....
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Only if they send Sec. Clinton to jail for doing something just, if not more, damaging.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
IF he was an NCO would he get the same treatment? or if he were Muslim?
How many high ranking Officers speed out against the WH?
How many high ranking Officers speed out against the WH?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It is not right what he did, or to dog pile on after the fact - let's not punish twice for the same offence, if this should have been part of original judgement then we are well past the point of tacking it on now.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Only if they are going to prosecute HRC to the fullest extent of the law for doing the same thing or much more.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think double jeopardy is attached and will lose on appeal if he does bust him back.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Jim Gilmore
MCPO Roger Collins - I think you may be wrong so let's have a beer, sit back and watch the show?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google