This is concerning from a civil liberties perspective. Let's not forget the government has the Constitutional power to potentially draft people into military service. Members of the military forces have fewer rights than ordinary citizens, not having the right to a jury trial, and being bound by many additional restrictive laws in the UCMJ. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the Defense Department’s authority to prosecute retired service members for crimes they commit, even after retirement. The court on Tuesday chose not to hear the case of a retired Marine who was court-martialed for a sexual assault he committed three months after leaving the service in August 2015. By not accepting the case, Larrabee v. the United States, the court upheld the status quo: that military retirees are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I can think of a few people we have exposed over the years that should face charges under the UCMJ. The ruling does have some odd implications that I found interesting. The law stipulates that "retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay" and "members of the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve" are subject to court-martial jurisdiction. The reasoning, the government argues, is that retirement is simply a change of military status and retired personnel are subject to recall should the need arise. He cited one provision in the UCMJ that makes "contemptuous words" used by a commissioned officer “against the president, the vice president, Congress” and others as punishable by court-martial. "From Adm. Bill McRaven to Gen. Michael Hayden and Gen. Martin Dempsey, some of President Donald Trump’s more visible critics of late have been retired military officers. And a provision of federal law … makes it a crime, triable by court-martial," he wrote in a blog post on Lawfare. "But does the Constitution really allow the government to subject to military trial those who have retired from active duty - in some cases, long ago - even for offenses committed while they are retired?" Yes, it does, according to the Supreme Court, in its denial of Larrabee’s and Dinger’s writs of certiorari. Retired Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap, former deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force, concurs. In a February 16 post on Duke University School of Law's Lawfire blog, Dunlap said Congress explicitly states that the UCMJ applies to retirees and that Vladeck’s arguments about the impropriety of senior officers speaking out against the president, as well as the "anachronistic" idea that retirees can be recalled to active duty, are not valid. He added that the very act of receiving retired pay means that retired personnel are choosing to keep a relationship with the military and accept all that goes with the choice not to terminate their commission or request a discharge. "As a retired service member subject to military jurisdiction, count me among those of my comrades-in-arms who believe it a small price to pay to maintain the connection with the armed forces," Dunlap wrote. https://www.military.com/daily-news...martialed-crimes-committed-after-service.html My personal view is there should be a statute of limitations, after which former members of the military service who get accused of committing past crimes should be entitled to a jury trial. Let's also keep in mind the list of offenses under the UCMJ is a lot more extensive than the standard law, and stretches into free speech areas, such as what those individuals are allowed to post on Facebook. The right to trial by jury is one of the most important individual Constitutional rights, yet those in the military forces are not entitled to a jury trial. Are we now to believe that anyone who enters the military forces will never be entitled to that right again, even if they have long since left the military? The Supreme Court, by refusing to take up this case, may have set a concerning precedent for the future. One point of fact is that when an individual retires from active duty in the US military, they go on standy reserve status until they reach 65.
I can see the catch, I think. If a guy does his three/four year enlistment and then goes on active reserve he no longer is active military but he is still military and will someday be entitled to retirement benefits. Therefore, perhaps he gets the bad with the good.
Before the all volunteer military (1973) ones military obligation was 6 years be they enlisted or were drafted. After active duty you were still in the reserves subject to being called back into active duty. With the all volunteer military that obligation is now 8 years.
Yes but few people who do a stint of active duty then get out, and are in the reserves to fulfill their military commitment, will actually stay in long enough to retire and draw retirement pay. It's retirement status that seems to trigger this court ruling.
I just see the protections in the Bill of Rights being gradually chipped away a little at a time. Here we see the right to a jury trial for serious crimes being taken away. I don't even just see this as only applying to a certain segment of the population, because remember the government could forcefully draft anyone into military service as far as the Constitution goes. What if the government simply drafted someone and then passed a law that everyone who was drafted is entitled to receive $1 every year for the rest of their lives? Would that person then lose the right to a jury trial? Not just for the amount of time they were drafted (might only be 6 months) but for years after that. Seems bad enough someone could be drafted against their will and lose the right to right to a jury trial while they were in required military service, but now there's the possibility open they could be deprived of that right for the rest of their lives after that. And with this requiring retired service members to be on active standby reserve status if they want to get their pensions, the government is basically paying people to forfeit their rights in the event they are ever criminally tried. How would we fail if government had higher tax rates for those who refused to sign away their Constitutional rights? There's that quote about the power of purse strings.
Retired generals who denounced Trump could be recalled to active duty and prosecuted, law experts say Retired four-star military officers who lambasted President Trump could be recalled to active duty and prosecuted for violating the U.S. Code, military law experts told Just the News. The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits using "contemptuous words" against the president. "Retired officers can't make contemptuous remarks of the commander-in-chief," said John Dowd, a former Marine Corps Judge Advocate and former Trump legal advisor. "They’re all subject to recall. They’re subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice until they die." The pertinent law is Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 888, the experts said. "As part of the UCMJ, governing military law, you cannot use contemptuous words against certain officials, including the president," one active duty Army Judge Advocate General Corps officer said. "That is a court-martial offense, and yes, you can be recalled to active duty to be court-martialed." The retired officers comprise some of the biggest marquee military names in recent times. They include former Defense Secretary Gen. James Mattis and former Special Operations Command chief Adm. William McRaven. With increasing frequency over the past couple years, and in quick succession over the past week, they have leveled serious accusations against Trump, and have called for him to be removed from office. In late 2019, McRaven published a New York Times op-ed titled "Our Republic Is Under Attack From the President," and later told CNN interviewer Jake Tapper that Trump is working to destroy the country. On June 7, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell said that Trump has "drifted away” from the U.S. Constitution. Elsewhere, Powell said Trump "lies all the time," and called him a "menace." Retired Lt. Gen. John Allen, who commanded U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said in an interview that the Constitution is under threat — not from violent anarchists, but from the president of the United States. Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who led U.S. Southern Command and served in Bill Clinton’s cabinet, denounced Trump as a threat to national security. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Mike Mullen (who in 2012 surrendered his computers to the FBI in the course of a cybersecurity investigation) accused Trump of giving succor to foreign detractors. Last week, Mattis launched his own salve: "We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership," Mattis wrote about Trump in The Atlantic. "We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society," he said, adding Trump made a mockery of the Constitution. Members of the military community at the lower levels have questioned the chorus of denunciation. "The sudden rush by retired flag officers to come out and declare the commander-in-chief to be the greatest threat to our Constitution, is nothing short of abhorrent," Army veteran Chad Longell said. One active duty enlisted soldier and combat veteran said he is deeply disappointed by the retired flag officers' comments. "I thought our leaders are supposed to be neutral," the soldier said. "They are acting like political partisans." Said Longell, who served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan: "What world are they living in?" Retired and active duty military questioned why the vocal four-star officers previously remained silent on issues and policies that sent American troops to their deaths. "Where were they during the Obama administration, when the rules of engagement were getting American soldiers killed?" demanded retired Infantry officer and combat veteran Jim Lechner, a history professor. "The administration imposed an unworkable strategy and [rules of engagement] that were criminal. Why didn't these flag officers speak up about that?" https://justthenews.com/government/...unced-trump-could-be-recalled-active-duty-and If, hypothetically, they were prosecuted, this could likely go to the Supreme Court, who would have to weigh the issue on First Amendment free speech rights. The question would be: Does an employee of the federal government, after they have retired, lose their free speech rights when their receiving of retirement benefits are contingent upon the government being able to call them back to service at any time? The argument here would be that any retired military officer who is receiving a retirement pension should still be considered employed by the government, and thus has forfeited their free speech rights which other ordinary citizens have. As many Libertarians have pointed out before, "the power of the purse is the power to destroy", or override rights.
