(02-07-2020, 11:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-07-2020, 10:24 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]Well, firstly, you don't have a a duty to report what you feel is illegal. It doesn't matter how you feel. He reported something that wasn't illegal and undermined his boss for what appears to be political purposes.
Secondly, I don't care what happens with him. Sounds like he'll be just fine at the Pentagon. What do you think should happen to him?
Feel is not quite the right word. Think was the right word.
The point is, it doesn't matter if it's actually illegal, if you think it's illegal, don't do it, and report it. Tell the proper channels. You'll either get reassigned with an explanation that you were wrong, or your superior will get disciplined if you were right. The Vindman case is somewhere in between. Even though he was right, because the impeachment failed, reassigning him is the appropriate remedy.
I know in my time in the military you were not to disobey orders if you felt or thought they we not legal. You followed your orders and then reported that you feel these orders were illegal to you supervisor and/or legal officer of your command which would give you immunity from prosecution if something wasnt right. You were always to follow orders first and foremost and then question them. If you did not you would be standing in front of your CO losing half a months pay for 2 months, 30 days restriction, 30 days extra duty, and losing at leat one pay grade.
(02-08-2020, 03:55 PM)wrong_box Wrote: [ -> ] (02-07-2020, 11:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Feel is not quite the right word. Think was the right word.
The point is, it doesn't matter if it's actually illegal, if you think it's illegal, don't do it, and report it. Tell the proper channels. You'll either get reassigned with an explanation that you were wrong, or your superior will get disciplined if you were right. The Vindman case is somewhere in between. Even though he was right, because the impeachment failed, reassigning him is the appropriate remedy.
I know in my time in the military you were not to disobey orders if you felt or thought they we not legal. You followed your orders and then reported that you feel these orders were illegal to you supervisor and/or legal officer of your command which would give you immunity from prosecution if something wasnt right. You were always to follow orders first and foremost and then question them. If you did not you would be standing in front of your CO losing half a months pay for 2 months, 30 days restriction, 30 days extra duty, and losing at leat one pay grade.
Vindman followed his orders. He attended each meeting and call that he was asked to attend and didn't interrupt. And then he reported afterwards.
(02-08-2020, 03:55 PM)wrong_box Wrote: [ -> ] (02-07-2020, 11:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Feel is not quite the right word. Think was the right word.
The point is, it doesn't matter if it's actually illegal, if you think it's illegal, don't do it, and report it. Tell the proper channels. You'll either get reassigned with an explanation that you were wrong, or your superior will get disciplined if you were right. The Vindman case is somewhere in between. Even though he was right, because the impeachment failed, reassigning him is the appropriate remedy.
I know in my time in the military you were not to disobey orders if you felt or thought they we not legal. You followed your orders and then reported that you feel these orders were illegal to you supervisor and/or legal officer of your command which would give you immunity from prosecution if something wasnt right. You were always to follow orders first and foremost and then question them. If you did not you would be standing in front of your CO losing half a months pay for 2 months, 30 days restriction, 30 days extra duty, and losing at leat one pay grade.
But what about the Vindman Exception where you immediately go to the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee?
(02-08-2020, 04:52 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2020, 03:55 PM)wrong_box Wrote: [ -> ]I know in my time in the military you were not to disobey orders if you felt or thought they we not legal. You followed your orders and then reported that you feel these orders were illegal to you supervisor and/or legal officer of your command which would give you immunity from prosecution if something wasnt right. You were always to follow orders first and foremost and then question them. If you did not you would be standing in front of your CO losing half a months pay for 2 months, 30 days restriction, 30 days extra duty, and losing at leat one pay grade.
But what about the Vindman Exception where you immediately go to the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee?
Not an exception. House Intelligence committee and Senate intelligence committee both have a right to know the broad strokes of this kind of stuff.
And everyone has a duty to respond to subpoenas. Responses can include "I invoke my 5th amendment rights" or "that's classified" or "the President's legal team has advised me that they are invoking executive privilege on this topic". But Congress is sovereign. You can't "not respond" to a sovereign.
(02-08-2020, 05:21 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2020, 04:52 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]But what about the Vindman Exception where you immediately go to the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee?
Not an exception. House Intelligence committee and Senate intelligence committee both have a right to know the broad strokes of this kind of stuff.
And everyone has a duty to respond to subpoenas. Responses can include "I invoke my 5th amendment rights" or "that's classified" or "the President's legal team has advised me that they are invoking executive privilege on this topic". But Congress is sovereign. You can't "not respond" to a sovereign.
And again you show your fundamental misunderstanding of chain of command.
(02-08-2020, 06:04 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2020, 05:21 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Not an exception. House Intelligence committee and Senate intelligence committee both have a right to know the broad strokes of this kind of stuff.
And everyone has a duty to respond to subpoenas. Responses can include "I invoke my 5th amendment rights" or "that's classified" or "the President's legal team has advised me that they are invoking executive privilege on this topic". But Congress is sovereign. You can't "not respond" to a sovereign.
And again you show your fundamental misunderstanding of chain of command.
You're assuming he went to Schiff first. He testified that he went through the proper channels. I don't think anyone contradicted him under oath.
(02-08-2020, 06:14 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2020, 06:04 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]And again you show your fundamental misunderstanding of chain of command.
You're assuming he went to Schiff first. He testified that he went through the proper channels. I don't think anyone contradicted him under oath.
You're right, I confused him with Ciaramella.
(02-08-2020, 06:14 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2020, 06:04 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]And again you show your fundamental misunderstanding of chain of command.
You're assuming he went to Schiff first. He testified that he went through the proper channels. I don't think anyone contradicted him under oath.
Report to who? There is only one group in this country that determines who utilizes the authority of the unitary executive and they only meet every four years. An NSC staffer isn't qualified to have an opinion about the CNC overseeing his role as head of both defense and justice.
It was intimated th as t he was the leak to the whistleblower. It was Jordan's question about who vindman talked to that sparked Schiff to, falsely, invoke the whistleblower protections.
Moreover, Vindmzn shows a basic lack of understanding that POTUS noth the "interagency group" sets US foreign policy.
(02-08-2020, 05:21 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2020, 04:52 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]But what about the Vindman Exception where you immediately go to the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee?
Not an exception. House Intelligence committee and Senate intelligence committee both have a right to know the broad strokes of this kind of stuff.
And everyone has a duty to respond to subpoenas. Responses can include "I invoke my 5th amendment rights" or "that's classified" or "the President's legal team has advised me that they are invoking executive privilege on this topic". But Congress is sovereign. You can't "not respond" to a sovereign.
Apparently you have never served in the military. Very different
So different they have their own set of laws called UCMJ
(02-08-2020, 06:53 PM)wrong_box Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2020, 05:21 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Not an exception. House Intelligence committee and Senate intelligence committee both have a right to know the broad strokes of this kind of stuff.
And everyone has a duty to respond to subpoenas. Responses can include "I invoke my 5th amendment rights" or "that's classified" or "the President's legal team has advised me that they are invoking executive privilege on this topic". But Congress is sovereign. You can't "not respond" to a sovereign.
Apparently you have never served in the military. Very different
So different they have their own set of laws called UCMJ
I haven't served. But I know there is a UCMJ. But Congress was the author of the UCMJ. They can amend it. They have the right and the power to question members of the military about many subjects, including possible amendments to the UCMJ.
(02-07-2020, 10:24 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (02-07-2020, 09:47 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]What do you think should happen to Vindman? do you think reassigning him to the Pentagon should be the end of it, or do you think he should get more punishment?
Well, firstly, you don't have a a duty to report what you feel is illegal. It doesn't matter how you feel. He reported something that wasn't illegal and undermined his boss for what appears to be political purposes.
Secondly, I don't care what happens with him. Sounds like he'll be just fine at the Pentagon. What do you think should happen to him?
Thank you. That's certainly not how the Army operates. They don't care about how you feel, they care about facts. Even that can be debatable.
He should have cleaned house the day he was sworn in. All the holdovers from the 0 admin sent packing.
Hindsight is 2020, and so is the year for him to get it right.
The left is divisive and will not work with the right out of spite. That they've promised, delivered, and have made every effort to show. It's in the open now, not just behind closed doors.
Past time to remove every single one who is undermining his Presidency.
(02-09-2020, 12:45 AM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]He should have cleaned house the day he was sworn in. All the holdovers from the 0 admin sent packing.
Hindsight is 2020, and so is the year for him to get it right.
The left is divisive and will not work with the right out of spite. That they've promised, delivered, and have made every effort to show. It's in the open now, not just behind closed doors.
Past time to remove every single one who is undermining his Presidency.
That's the irony. Trumps biggest mistake was actually treating progressives in good faith.
(02-09-2020, 12:58 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2020, 12:45 AM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]He should have cleaned house the day he was sworn in. All the holdovers from the 0 admin sent packing.
Hindsight is 2020, and so is the year for him to get it right.
The left is divisive and will not work with the right out of spite. That they've promised, delivered, and have made every effort to show. It's in the open now, not just behind closed doors.
Past time to remove every single one who is undermining his Presidency.
That's the irony. Trumps biggest mistake was actually treating progressives in good faith.
+1
Since some crybaby got the voting buttons removed...
(02-08-2020, 07:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2020, 06:53 PM)wrong_box Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently you have never served in the military. Very different
So different they have their own set of laws called UCMJ
I haven't served. But I know there is a UCMJ. But Congress was the author of the UCMJ. They can amend it. They have the right and the power to question members of the military about many subjects, including possible amendments to the UCMJ.
Congress may be able to question orders given but military persons do not have that right. Or at least they didnt when I was in. It was follow the order given THEN question it by bringing up your concerns up your chain of command
(02-08-2020, 07:29 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-07-2020, 10:24 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]Well, firstly, you don't have a a duty to report what you feel is illegal. It doesn't matter how you feel. He reported something that wasn't illegal and undermined his boss for what appears to be political purposes.
Secondly, I don't care what happens with him. Sounds like he'll be just fine at the Pentagon. What do you think should happen to him?
Thank you. That's certainly not how the Army operates. They don't care about how you feel, they care about facts. Even that can be debatable.
Agreed. I suppose its all branches of the military that cares only about facts and results. Facts are strange creatures though. Not everyones facts are the same for the same event
(02-07-2020, 07:15 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]He's going to go do similar work for maybe exactly the same amount of money only three miles away.
This is a nothingburger. Not the first time people made lateral moves due to personal conflicts and won't be the last.
It's pretty obvious that you have no clue as to how the military works. Getting "fired" from a job and moved back to a desk for an Officer is basically the "end of your career" not a "lateral move". He will be "retired" by the end of the year. That's why there was so much concern when he chose to
testify lie.
With your lack of military knowledge and protocol, you should probably not be commenting on what they "can" or "could" do.
His career is over.
(02-09-2020, 06:31 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (02-07-2020, 07:15 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]He's going to go do similar work for maybe exactly the same amount of money only three miles away.
This is a nothingburger. Not the first time people made lateral moves due to personal conflicts and won't be the last.
It's pretty obvious that you have no clue as to how the military works. Getting "fired" from a job and moved back to a desk for an Officer is basically the "end of your career" not a "lateral move". He will be "retired" by the end of the year. That's why there was so much concern when he chose to testify lie.
With your lack of military knowledge and protocol, you should probably not be commenting on what they "can" or "could" do.
His career is over.
An honorable discharge would also be a nothingburger, from my perspective. If they don't need him anymore that's fine. Folks get laid off every day in the private sector.
Just as long as he gets what everyone else who served honorably for the amount of time he served gets in terms of severance or pension.
(02-08-2020, 07:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2020, 06:53 PM)wrong_box Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently you have never served in the military. Very different
So different they have their own set of laws called UCMJ
I haven't served. But I know there is a UCMJ. But Congress was the author of the UCMJ. They can amend it. They have the right and the power to question members of the military about many subjects, including possible amendments to the UCMJ.
How do you come to this ridiculous conclusion? You do know (oh wait... you didn't serve so you don't know) that the military operates under a total different set of laws on top of current Federal, State and Local Laws according to where they happen to be stationed.
Let me give you a little civics lesson since you didn't seem to get it in your government school.
Did you know that the Captain of a Navy ship could order a sailor confined and only given bread and water? This without a trial by Judge and Jury? Think it doesn't happen? I've seen it.
Second of all, a member of the military is under the command of the Executive branch of government who's ultimate Commander and Chief is The President of The United States. Congress has 0% power over any military member.
My point is, with your ignorance regarding the military you probably shouldn't be commenting on what they "can and can't" do or whether a career move is "lateral".