Consequences for Veterans and/or retirees in the 2021 DC Riots

[taxi1]

Prosecution aside, where do you guys think our country (not just the government) goes from here?

The prosecution is going to be the key, because whereas there is zero penalty for lying in public, at rallies, or even in congress, there are penalties for lying in court. The courts were the one site of truthiness over the last two months. Everything else was lights and noise. It's where lawyers admitted there was no fraud case and that they had no actual evidence, upon penalty of perjury or disbarment.

Out of the courts will hopefully come an understanding by the majority that Biden won a free and fair election, there was no mass fraud, that the last two months was all a lie. With a common understanding of the truth we can step forward.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Out of the courts will hopefully come an understanding by the majority that Biden won a free and fair election, there was no mass fraud, that the last two months was all a lie. With a common understanding of the truth we can step forward.

Boy, that would be nice... but if history is any guide, a majority of Trump supporters probably aren't going to accept court decisions over the word of their demagogue. If I had to guess, I'd say there will be more demonstrations/riots, and in Congress, ongoing efforts to investigate/impeach/stall the Biden administration, as seems to be our political custom of late. I think we'll see delay tactics, interference, and more government shutdowns as a result. I'd like to be wrong about that.

Social media platforms have taken unprecedented actions in response to last week's fracas in the capitol building. I suspect this will only inflame tension and deepen political divides, but maybe I'm being too pessimistic. Part of me also wonders if this is the beginning of the end of large, monolithic social media. Maybe that will ultimately be a good thing- the first step in realizing how skewed the online culture has made many of us?

Just musing this morning.

 

[SlickAg]

OK no. Come on, she didn't attend a political rally, she attended a riot.
Her actual culpability can't be determined here (ie did she stay back and not go into the Capitol?) and would be up to the appropriate UCMJ authority to determine.
From what I see she resigned voluntarily and wasn't denied due process at all. I don't blame her, because I suspect she realized that association with something like this is NOT something you can easily recover from (probably bottom of the pack in every rack and stack while she's at that command for poor judgment).

Let's not use hyperbole, because that's exactly what got us here in the first place.
I agree the Congressman's opinion is not "helpful" but I would have a hard time disagreeing that a PSYOPs Captain in the SF who can't recognize misinformation probably isn't going to be very effective at her job in support of the SF mission.

A few points.

1. Are you saying that attendance at the rally is automatic attendance at the riot at the Capitol? Because they’re two separate events, and the headline of that article would tell you so. What constitutes attendance? A passerby on the street who stops and listens? Did you need to be holding a sign? Bottom line, no one knows, except her, whether or not she was present at the Capitol that day. An investigation will likely determine that in due course.

2. The congressman was urging the denial of due process. That should concern you. That was the first article I read where it said she has resigned, and I doubt very much whether or not he was aware of her resignation when he posted that unless she had let him know personally.

3. What, exactly, is the misinformation that she is unable to recognize? She attended the rally as a private citizen, not as an Army Captain going to listen to her Commander-in-Chief. She is entitled, just like you, to have political interests and beliefs, she just may not attend political events in uniform. She is clearly very educated about what is and is not allowed in that sense.

4. The point of all of this is not whether you personally agree with what she did, or what she believes. Those are both inconsequential and immaterial. She was allowed (by law) to attend the rally, and she is allowed (again, by law) to have her own political beliefs. Those rights should not be infringed upon by anyone. The fact that I keep hearing fellow officers advocating for censorship and denying guaranteed protections is unsettling.

 

[SlickAg]

I've cringed everytime I hear someone say "the democrats/communists/socialists are about to take over all three branches of government!" Uh... no they aren't dipshit.

Let’s revisit this post in 18-24 months. Specifically, I’d like to see if there are still just nine Supreme Court justices. Additionally, the Speaker took steps to limit the minority party’s ability to alter legislation before a vote. In short, no Republican will be allowed to even attempt to modify legislation once it’s made it onto the House floor. But you’re right, I guess I’m just a dipshit for being concerned about the future of our political discourse, or lack thereof. And the fact that Big Tech has made sweeping moves to deplatform conservatives isn’t indicative of anything either. Again, just a simple dipshit here.

Redirect Notice

 

[BigRed389]

A few points.

1. Are you saying that attendance at the rally is automatic attendance at the riot at the Capitol? Because they’re two separate events, and the headline of that article would tell you so. What constitutes attendance? A passerby on the street who stops and listens? Did you need to be holding a sign? Bottom line, no one knows, except her, whether or not she was present at the Capitol that day. An investigation will likely determine that in due course.

I don't disagree with any of that. The investigation was started. She decided not to wait and jumped the gun by choosing to resign.

2. The congressman was urging the denial of due process. That should concern you. That was the first article I read where it said she has resigned, and I doubt very much whether or not he was aware of her resignation when he posted that unless she had let him know personally.

It does...kind of.
I dont know how the Army does things, but there is a different bar for "loss of confidence" and actual formal UCMJ action in the Navy.
Calling for her removal from the Army entirely without due process is going too far.

3. What, exactly, is the misinformation that she is unable to recognize? She attended the rally as a private citizen, not as an Army Captain going to listen to her Commander-in-Chief. She is entitled, just like you, to have political interests and beliefs, she just may not attend political events in uniform. She is clearly very educated about what is and is not allowed in that sense.

FID is a core SF mission. Stirring up and/or defending against trouble like this is something she should be trained in and recognize. She at the very least should have recognized the potential for things to get out of hand.

4. The point of all of this is not whether you personally agree with what she did, or what she believes. Those are both inconsequential and immaterial. She was allowed (by law) to attend the rally, and she is allowed (again, by law) to have her own political beliefs. Those rights should not be infringed upon by anyone. The fact that I keep hearing fellow officers advocating for censorship and denying guaranteed protections is unsettling.

Nobody has talked about censorship or denying protections.

 

[taxi1]

If I had to guess, I'd say there will be more demonstrations/riots, and in Congress, ongoing efforts to investigate/impeach/stall the Biden administration, as seems to be our political custom of late.

You’re probably right.

In the spirit of fixing things, here’s my easy fix for elections going forward. Switch from winner take all state electoral vote allocation to proportional. Trump gets 49.9% of PA means he gets 8 votes, not zero. At the boundary it is a two vote swing, not 32. Every repub in CA and dem in AL gets a voice, so campaigns are nationwide instead of in just 4 states.

Some do it now. All of them should.

 

[SlickAg]

@BigRed389 : the reply format was weird so I’m doing it this way instead.

You said you agreed with the Congressman’s tweet. He wants to remove someone, for cause, without seeing the results of an investigation. Maybe, just maybe, she sees disinformation coming from the “other” side, and that’s why she feels so strongly about her political views. And maybe she did use her training and left when she saw things getting out of hand. We may never know.

And if you want want examples of officers encouraging censorship, go a few pages back in this thread and read some of Spekkio’s posts about social media. Preview: “I don't think that Facebook / Twitter / et al should be a platform for flat earthers, scientologists, or whatever other demented ideologies people may have in the name of 'free speech.'”

 

[sevenhelmet]

You’re probably right.

In the spirit of fixing things, here’s my easy fix for elections going forward. Switch from winner take all state electoral vote allocation to proportional. Trump gets 49.9% of PA means he gets 8 votes, not zero. At the boundary it is a two vote swing, not 32. Every repub in CA and dem in AL gets a voice, so campaigns are nationwide instead of in just 4 states.

Some do it now. All of them should.

I think I understand. Your suggestion, long term, might help more people feel like they had a voice, which I think is a huge part of the problem in American politics. But I think we'd need to couple that with improvements in campaigning and primaries to yield better candidates. Even a lot of staunch republicans can't stand Trump, they just hate the other side even more. That's not a healthy way to move the country forward.

 

[Griz882]

Months from now when all of this calms down and we can sip our coffee, shake our heads and say "oh man," I think I will still be amazed that people who hung out "RESIST" flags on their $1million dollar homes in 2016 were stunned when the other side decided to resist in 2021.

I'm just a lowly historian, but isn't there some kind of physics lesson in there?

 

[Hair Warrior]

Let’s revisit this post in 18-24 months. Specifically, I’d like to see if there are still just nine Supreme Court justices.

? (whoa)

 

[Mos]

My two cents, I think the MAGA crowd are a bunch of fucking morons but I'd put prosecuting these people under UCMJ squarely in the category of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should." This is about to become the massive political case of the decade. Judging from how the military justice system handled the last couple years' high profile cases (Gallagher, Fitzgerald/McCain COs, etc), I think they should steer clear of this one. I can't think of a bigger waste of the military's time and money.

As for the general rule that retirees fall under the UCMJ, I think that's the dumbest rule in the book. A veteran becomes a civilian when they retire, and the pension they receive was earned during their service and shouldn't make them beholden to the military after that. Maybe take away their base access and associated privileges if they do something damaging to the military, otherwise leave it to the civilian courts.

 

[SlickAg]

Months from now when all of this calms down and we can sip our coffee, shake our heads and say "oh man," I think I will still be amazed that people who hung out "RESIST" flags on their $1million dollar homes in 2016 were stunned when the other side decided to resist in 2021.

I'm just a lowly historian, but isn't there some kind of physics lesson in there?

Just curious, and I know I’m painting with a broad brush here, do you think that those who study history are more, equally, or less liberal than those in academia typically tend to be?

I’m wondering if one’s deep understanding of how we got to the present day skews them one way or the other, relative to other liberal arts academics.

 

[Spekkio]

But I’m surprised that you are arguing against free speech, and not just the Constitutionally protected kind that allows someone to criticize the government. The fact that you want everything anyone puts on social media to pass YOUR specific standard for what is printable, and what is not.

I'm not against free speech. I never said that the US government should punish people for posting dumb shit on social media.

However, if [pick your favorite social media personality] posted some stupid meme such as that the COVID-19 vaccine causes mad cow disease, you bet the US would share it and believe it within 24 hours.

I just don't think it's unreasonable for a private company to hold its users to some standard of posting things that are verifiably true, particularly when they can sway the opinions of millions of people. And in the case of pending criminal trials, they can permanently influence someone's quality of life in a severely negative way.

 

[Dontcallmegump]

So. Badness in the capital/capitol, social media and big tech suppressing entire platforms in response, and media stoking the fires to make money. And oh yeah, Covid-19.

Prosecution aside, where do you guys think our country (not just the government) goes from here?

For a brief moment it looked like some serious self reflection could occur from crossing a line like that and a turning point could have been made from such a horrid event. Now it looks like business as usual from individuals and organizations alike: focus, interpret and selectively recount what happened in vain attempts to "once and for all, prove the others so wrong they surely will see their ignorance" by ALL sides, groups, parties, etc.

Only change now is since we've all been shocked, the stakes have to rise yet again for such a dramatic display in the future. Yay.

 

[Pags]

I'm not against free speech. I never said that the US government should punish people for posting dumb shit on social media.

However, if [pick your favorite social media personality] posted some stupid meme such as that the COVID-19 vaccine causes mad cow disease, you bet the US would share it and believe it within 24 hours.

I just don't think it's unreasonable for a private company to hold its users to some standard of posting things that are verifiably true, particularly when they can sway the opinions of millions of people. And in the case of pending criminal trials, they can permanently influence someone's quality of life in a severely negative way.

I imagine we'll see social media platforms transition from a "digital street corner" model to a "digital print service provider" that will put supported content more in the model of newspaper editorial/ad pages as they realize the power they have. But I'd also imagine the continued emergence of alternative social media platforms such as Parler, etc.