Am I Stirring the Pot? Why Yes....I'm Bored.

[GWU PNS (emeritus)]

So.....I had something cross my "Hybrid Desk" since I am partially working from home today.

The attchachment struck me as odd for a number of reasons. I guess my main question is if there is any precedent of a Service Secretary beginning an investigation on a retired officer. And by that I mean would it not be required to bring the member back to active service before this? I truly do not know.

Next legal nuance question. If the letterhead reads Secretary of War, and Congress has not yet codified this......well.....is it valid? Just saying yes because you want to is easy. But is there a reference for using a name not currently authorized by Congress? I don't know.

Lastly, given the legal complexities, and with this Monday being the 1st of December, is 10 days sufficient time?

And now I am turning on my heating pad in my lazy boy recliner whilst I observe the kindest and friendliest of discussions here.

(Unless Flieger has already banned my account)

 

[justdoit19]

Ya this is just icky, all around. The video in the first place, and the response.

Icky.

 

[flieger83]

So.....I had something cross my "Hybrid Desk" since I am partially working from home today.

The attchachment struck me as odd for a number of reasons. I guess my main question is if there is any precedent of a Service Secretary beginning an investigation on a retired officer. And by that I mean would it not be required to bring the member back to active service before this? I truly do not know.

Next legal nuance question. If the letterhead reads Secretary of War, and Congress has not yet codified this......well.....is it valid? Just saying yes because you want to is easy. But is there a reference for using a name not currently authorized by Congress? I don't know.

Lastly, given the legal complexities, and with this Monday being the 1st of December, is 10 days sufficient time?

And now I am turning on my heating pad in my lazy boy recliner whilst I observe the kindest and friendliest of discussions here.

(Unless Flieger has already banned my account) View attachment 20281

OUCH!!

Now, why would I do that?

Proper forum, real-time event and questions, guaranteed to spur discussions that could be educational and enlightening...
(people that want to just hate and rant...not the place)

Nope, still here.

 

[GWU PNS (emeritus)]

View attachment 20283


OUCH!!

Now, why would I do that?

Proper forum, real-time event and questions, guaranteed to spur discussions that could be educational and enlightening...
(people that want to just hate and rant...not the place)

Nope, still here.

Now you have me crying..... you like me.......you really like me.....

 

[Devil Doc]

It’s obvious what Sen. Kelly was implying. I know the number of combat missions he flew and he’s a retired astronaut, but still a dweeb . The video: unbecoming of an officer. Unbecoming of a member of congress? That’s a low bar.

Investigating him for being a retired naval officer who is now a dweeb is a waste of time and will draw even further attention to his dweebiness.

 

[A1Janitor]

Investigating him for being a retired naval officer who is now a dweeb is a waste of time and will draw even further attention to his dweebiness.

Let’s see who any of them were communicating with, if anyone.

Right after the speech, billboards starting appearing.

Let’s see if someone is paying for this.

 

[Georgia Hokie]

Unbecoming does not equal unlawful. (Full disclosure: have not watched the full video as can already guess content and the rebuttal in our highly polar politics.) Starting a drag out knock down fight over comments the administration does not like (again, if all they said was unlawful orders...that's not illegal to say and in fact in the oath) is a distraction, petty and drags this out more. All seems icky as @justdoit19 said.

 

[Dr. Strange Love]

…
Investigating him for being a retired naval officer who is now a dweeb is a waste of time and will draw even further attention to his dweebiness.

Dweeb? Maybe, maybe not …. He looks pretty sure of himself … not too cocky … those are the ones you got to worry about …

Let’s just put it this way … if he can beat me in an arm wrestling match … then he isn’t a dweeb …
.

 

[Devil Doc]

Dweeb? Maybe, maybe not …. He looks pretty sure of himself … not too cocky … those are the ones you got to worry about …

Let’s just put it this way … if he can beat me in an arm wrestling match … then he isn’t a dweeb …
.

I never met a fighter pilot who wasn’t cocky as they had better be. I was once the Leading Chief of aviation medicine and the aerospace physiology training unit at a master jet base so I’ve known some pilots. I don’t like him or how he operates. I will never forget his AR rifle purchase in AZ a few years ago.

 

[GWU PNS (emeritus)]

At the risk of answering some of my own academic questions, I did reach out to a Navy JAG I know, who offered the following. (He was careful to note that he did not conduct specific legal research, so this was technically not a legal opinion. Imagine a JAG not being definitive...... sigh)

The ability to recall retired commissioned officers back to active duty is within the statutory authority of each service secretary. So, SECNAV can in fact do this, and the typical amount of time is not to exceed 760 days. I don't know why that number.

As to the issue of the letterhead being used, it is not in current compliance with the "Manual For Written Material: Correspondence Management", which you can google if you wish..... DOD Manual 5110.04, Volume 1.

While the letterhead does not match the manual, there is some broad discretion that falls to a cabinet secretary. If there does come a time when actual charges were to be made, then there will need to be stricter scrutiny applied for any correspondence that will be subject to a judge's review.

I will leave the rest to you all.

 

[Dr. Strange Love]

… So, SECNAV can in fact do this, and the typical amount of time is not to exceed 760 days. I don't know why that number.
…

.
Hmmm … 760 approximates 2 years in mean days plus 1 lunar cycle in mean days

760 days ~ 365.2422 + 365.2422 + 29.53059

760 days ~ 760.0150

1 year = 365.2422 mean days
2 year = 730.4844 mean days
1 lunar cycle = 29.53059 mean days
.

 

[justdoit19]

.
Hmmm … 760 approximates 2 years in mean days plus 1 lunar cycle in mean days

760 days ~ 365.2422 + 365.2422 + 29.53059

760 days ~ 760.0150

1 year = 365.2422 mean days
2 year = 730.4844 mean days
1 lunar cycle = 29.53059 mean days
.

 

[nuensis]

"Department of War" is an alias, only usable for intra-department correspondence (e.g. SECDEF to SECNAV is fine). Anything that is not internal correspondence must use Department of Defense. Additionally, there is a very small and limited list of titles "War" applies to, and no others.

For example, the Defense Health Agency will not simply be renamed the "War Health Agency" (also, they'll probably want to rethink that entire name). It will cost a pretty substantial amount of resources and time to do name changes across decades of doctrine, regulations, documentation, signage, etc.

If he does get recalled, I'm pretty sure he gets his active duty pay and benefits back until pay and benefits is impacted by a flag mast or court martial. I guess it's been too long, he probably doesn't rate flight or astronaut pay anymore.

Fun thought experiment, but I think this is all more trouble than it's worth.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Threatening retired officers serving in Congress for saying "Don't obey illegal orders" made me absolutely, positively furious. I wanted to destroy the administration and it's henchmen for saying such things.

Then I peeled the onion.

1. These are retired senior officers who have a complete understanding of US military values and what military members are taught and at what level decisions are made. And of the oaths officers and enlisted take as well as their own as Congress-people.

2. As politicians, they have an expert understanding of messaging and how their words influence people and not only that, they have a national pulpit to promote their messages. AND THEY KNOW THEIR MESSAGE WILL REACH EVERYONE.

3. They got together (conspiracy) to send their message.

4. No precedent for such messaging exists. This is clearly aimed at the current administration. This was deliberate to undermine the authority of the duly-elected, legal US government. Absent specifics this is only what it could be.

5. US military members are trained on the law of warfare. Privates on-up know you don't mistreat prisoners or loot. Leaders understand proportionality. More senior leaders understand Just War Theory.

6. The issues these politicians apparently wanted to address were the limits of Presidential Authority. Unless everyone in the US military is a legal scholar, there are few who have the experience to determine presidential authority. BUT THE MESSAGE THESE POLITICIANS SENT WAS TO ANY SERVIC MEMBER WHO HAD ANY ISSUE WITH NATIONAL POLICY OR EVEN BEING TOLD TO MAKE THEIR BUNK WAS THEY COULD ARGUE "ILLEGAL ORDER! ILLEGAL ORDER!" AND DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO.

7. As political leaders, they have limitless opportunities to engage military authorities on concerns over legalities over presidential authority.

8. For engaging the barracks lawyers in policy making they have deliberately stuck a knife in the heart of military law and order and discipline down to the lowest NCO level.

9. The public method used by these politicians to give voice to what otherwise might have been legitimate concerns, who all know better, absolutely, positively disqualify them from public service or their military pensions, regardless of their intent.

 

[raimius]

The format and public release of what is otherwise perfectly valid advice does immediately call their intentions into question...

 

[nuensis]

THEY COULD ARGUE "ILLEGAL ORDER! ILLEGAL ORDER!" AND DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO.

This is also any given Tuesday. It's theoretically a big deal, but in practice the military is not falling apart over an internet video most of them didn't see because it wasn't posted to TikTok. Sea lawyers will lawyer regardless.

Remember when a few thousand servicemembers refused to follow a lawful order from SECDEF a couple years ago? We just separated them all and went about our business. Took longer to outprocess all of them than it did to think about that decision.

 

[A1Janitor]

but in practice the military is not falling apart over an internet video most of them didn't see because it wasn't posted to TikTok.

It was all over TikTok. There were billboards put up.

It was a campaign.

The backgrounds of some of these people and who they are married to is key. Who was funding it and how is another key. Other “campaigns” some of these people have been involved with is telling.

Let’s wait and see what happens.

What’s next? A former FBI Director “finding” seashells on the beach that implies something totally different than kids finding colorful shells on a beach?

This won’t end like people think, what with all that is going on now. It has a feel of deflection, like members laughing at the UFO discussion thought.

 

[A1Janitor]

Remember when a few thousand servicemembers refused to follow a lawful order from SECDEF a couple years ago? We just separated them all and went about our business. Took longer to outprocess all of them than it did to think about that decision.

Exactly. Let the courts decide if they refused to follow lawful orders after the fact.

 

[AF6872]

Thoughts and afterthoughts:

 

[Devil Doc]

The assteemed congress lady from Michigan whom I quoted in a different thread saying she had no knowledge of Trump actually giving illegal orders also said that service members had access to JAG officers to interpret orders they are given. I know we can't go to war without lawyers but in 26 years, I never had a JAG or Judge Advocate close enough to ask advice of.

Edit to add: With one exception. I retired from Military Sealift Command when the HQ was still at the Washington Navy Yard. Outside the command suite and occupying the long passageway was the admiral's collection of lawyers. A bunch of them. I suppose I could have walked in and asked a question.