488

so there are two options, chain of command, which is fruitless, or disobey and go to trial. he chose option “b” rather than waste his time on option “a”.

489

But he or others really can’t claim he is a victim if he didn’t choose “A” first.

490

who said he’s a victim?

491

Sneaky certainly seems to be implying that…

492

he’s posted facts as far as i can see. he seems to not agree with the actions, not be claiming anyone is a victim. although on the 2nd one i might refine it to disobeying an order, doesn’t really matter what the order was at this point. he now has to prove it was unlawful

eta, i do believe its fair for you to infer it, but i do not believe he implied it. i’ll let him speak for him though

493

They are attempting to silence him.

494

Read the last clause.

495

He can speak all he wants on the subject…Just not as a member of the military. You give up certain rights when you sign up. And he’s not acting as a whistle blower, so he can’t use that defense either.

496

Who told you that you “give up certain rights” and which ones are they?

497

The UCMJ…

“Possible UCMJ violations include Article 88 – Contemptuous words by commissioned officers against certain officials, Article 92 – Failure to obey an order or regulation, and Article 134 – Uttering a disloyal statement, criminal libel, communicating a threat, soliciting another to commit an offense.”

498

You feel that is applicable to this situation why?

Your article doesn’t support “giving up rights”, quite the contrary.

499

“Contemptuous words by commissioned officers against certain officials”

500

That will be for a trial.

501

Sure it does…Military members aren’t free to say same things as civilians without consequence.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1131/rights-of-military-personnel

Military restricts political expression

“Indicative of the military’s special status, the Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits military personnel from using “contemptuous speech” against the President and other leaders, from engaging in “conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline in the Armed Forces,” and from “conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.” These regulations have been used to restrict political expression as well as other activities. Also under the code, military personnel can be severely punished—including dismissal, forfeiture of pay, and imprisonment—for participating in rallies that criticize war efforts, even if they are off duty and dressed as civilians, an issue addressed in United States v. Howe (1967).”

502

Was he contemptuous?

503

On Aug. 29, he made a YouTube video from inside what he described as “an abandoned school bus in Eastern North Carolina,” in which he vowed to resign his commission and proclaimed, “Follow me and we will bring the whole f—king system down.”

“More recently, Scheller appeared in a Sept. 16 YouTube video, in which he pledged to file charges against Marine Gen. Kenneth McKenzie Jr., head of U.S. Central Command, for his mistakes leading up to the chaotic Afghanistan evacuation. He added in a Facebook post that he would charge McKenzie with 13 specifications of “Dereliction of Duty through Culpable Inefficiency” – one specification for each service member killed in the Aug. 26 attack.”

What do you think? And frankly it sounds like he is going a bit pyscho … (bolded in first paragraph)

504

I see no contemptuous remarks.

505

Then we just disagree…

How about " bringing the whole system down"

Is that statement not detrimental to the military?

506

We’ll see.

507

In my opinion, having him locked up will amplify his message. Between the time of his resignation and now being locked up, we didn’t hear much from him or about him. Now he is newsworthy again. (Though I don’t expect most media to cover it with the same fervor they would have had it been an officer in the same position questioning a GOP administration.)

3 Likes