- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 11/25/25 at 10:21 am to Flats
quote:
I think going after him with the UCMJ is pointless and stupid but there's no need to whitewash what he/she said.
They successfully trolled Trump. Its easy, and they know what buttons to push.
Posted on 11/25/25 at 10:31 am to BugAC
quote:
This is no different than a former service member committing a crime and being court martialed.
Except it’s completely different because there was no crime committed
Because following the constitution is… legal.
Which is why in all that rambling, you failed to answer the original question.
Posted on 11/25/25 at 10:34 am to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
Except it’s completely different because there was no crime committed
Code of conduct doesn't apply to just criminal matters. It's up to the interpretation of Hegseth. You don't like it? Win an election.
quote:
Which is why in all that rambling, you failed to answer the original question.
I did answer the question. I even provided reasoning and links for you to verify from the UCMJ. i even stated why i stated it was not specifically sedition.
You want a yes or no, but don't want the nuance. That's understandable, that is how simple people think.
No, he did not "incite rebellion", but "yes" he is held to the UCMJ which makes him subject to the chain of command which under this POTUS, is Trump. So while they can't be tried for treason based on the comment, they can be court martialed.
If you think they are so righteous, then why didn't they list the specific orders in that video?
This post was edited on 11/25/25 at 10:37 am
Posted on 11/25/25 at 10:38 am to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
NawlinsTiger9
quote:
Retired military personnel must remember that they’re never fully disconnected from the reach of the UCMJ. Your retirement doesn’t exempt you from military laws and the potential consequences of violating them. Staying informed and vigilant about your actions can save you from unexpected legal issues and ensure your transition to civilian life remains secure. Whether you’re at home or abroad, your behavior could fall under military scrutiny. It’s crucial to navigate post-service life with an awareness that your military connection persists and with it, the responsibility to uphold the standards of the UCMJ.
Military law is not the same as civil/criminal law. Even our learned lawyer, Slow, knows that.
This post was edited on 11/25/25 at 10:40 am
Posted on 11/25/25 at 11:36 am to BugAC
quote:
You want a yes or no, but don't want the nuance. That's understandable, that is how simple people think.
Big talk for a guy who spent his morning getting pecker-slapped by some pretty basic reading comprehension
But no, despite your lust for lawfare, you can’t nuance this into being a crime or a “conduct violation” or anything of the sort. It’s perfectly in bounds to tell people to follow the constitution.
Posted on 11/25/25 at 11:38 am to NawlinsTiger9
quote:
But no, despite your lust for lawfare, you can’t nuance this into being a crime or a “conduct violation” or anything of the sort. It’s perfectly in bounds to tell people to follow the constitution.
Again, you can think that all you want. Ultimately, all retired service members are subject to the UCMJ, and the Commander in Chief and Secretary of War will decide how they are handled. Again, you don't like it, win an election.
Popular
Back to top


0





