Revoke my security clearance, too

[Yooper]

Every word of that rings perfectly true. Great analysis. I would love to hear Admiral McRavens opinion of it.

A number of years ago I had the opportunity to ask former Army Chief of Staff Gen Gordon Sullivan about this sort of stuff (as we started to see this trend in the last years of the Clinton administration and into the Bush 43 administration). He offered what I thought was an excellent set of comment that fairly echoed what the writer of the USNI Blog piece said: comments/statements along the lines of what McRaven recently said are very dangerous and a rejection of the oath officers are obligated to uphold even into retirement. He wouldn't go so far as to say these officers should be court-martialed (my opinion), but came close.

Bottom line, folks making comments like McRaven's (regardless of where they stand politically) are acting in a seditious manner whether they intended to or not. As such, they need to either step up and start the civil war their words are stoking or be far more cautious about their choice of words, venues, etc. Can't have it both ways....

Yes, McRaven and his op-ed still leaves me seething.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Chris0nllyn]

A number of years ago I had the opportunity to ask former Army Chief of Staff Gen Gordon Sullivan about this sort of stuff (as we started to see this trend in the last years of the Clinton administration and into the Bush 43 administration). He offered what I thought was an excellent set of comment that fairly echoed what the writer of the USNI Blog piece said: comments/statements along the lines of what McRaven recently said are very dangerous and a rejection of the oath officers are obligated to uphold even into retirement. He wouldn't go so far as to say these officers should be court-martialed (my opinion), but came close.

Bottom line, folks making comments like McRaven's (regardless of where they stand politically) are acting in a seditious manner whether they intended to or not. As such, they need to either step up and start the civil war their words are stoking or be far more cautious about their choice of words, venues, etc. Can't have it both ways....

Yes, McRaven and his op-ed still leaves me seething.

--- End of line (MCP)

Looking at it from a macro level, it seems silly to essentially say that you can fight to protect the first amendment, but you better be careful exercising it.

 

[Gilligan]

Point. Missed.

 

[glhs837]

Looking at it from a macro level, it seems silly to essentially say that you can fight to protect the first amendment, but you better be careful exercising it.

What Gil said. My knowledge requires me to self restrict my own first amdendment right, just like I'm supposed to be careful about even unclass things that can be put together. I could comment about unclassified aspects the platform I work on publicly, that would be well within my FA rights. But I have to be mindful that my free speech might have consequences. Part of defending the country against all enemies is to be careful always that you don't help them. Former leaders on that level have a responsibility that goes beyond retirement, just as I, who retired as a lowly E-6 has. Part of service, you accept it when you raise your hand. You want to enter the political world and seek election, fine. But saying the duly elected President is harmful and should be removed as soon as possible is irresponsible.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

What Gil said. My knowledge requires me to self restrict my own first amdendment right, just like I'm supposed to be careful about even unclass things that can be put together. I could comment about unclassified aspects the platform I work on publicly, that would be well within my FA rights. But I have to be mindful that my free speech might have consequences. Part of defending the country against all enemies is to be careful always that you don't help them. Former leaders on that level have a responsibility that goes beyond retirement, just as I, who retired as a lowly E-6 has. Part of service, you accept it when you raise your hand. You want to enter the political world and seek election, fine. But saying the duly elected President is harmful and should be removed as soon as possible is irresponsible.

We're not talking about McRaven blabbing about national secrets or even classified info though, are we? Yooper's post to which I replied said he was troubled by retired military members going "political".

McRaven basically stood up for John Brennan and criticized the President (not his CiC anymore) based on the President's actions. It's a very short letter.

Dear Mr. President:
Former CIA director John Brennan, whose security clearance you revoked on Wednesday, is one of the finest public servants I have ever known. Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him.

Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.

Like most Americans, I had hoped that when you became president, you would rise to the occasion and become the leader this great nation needs.

A good leader tries to embody the best qualities of his or her organization. A good leader sets the example for others to follow. A good leader always puts the welfare of others before himself or herself.

Your leadership, however, has shown little of these qualities. Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation.

If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be.

I couldn't find where he said Trump should be removed.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Point. Missed.

Riveting stuff. Really adds to the discussion. Keep it up.

 

[Gilligan]

Riveting stuff. Really adds to the discussion. Keep it up.

As long as it tweaks your candy arse.... ;-p

 

[MiddleGround]

I think I hear rumbling from under the bridge...

 

[Chris0nllyn]

As long as it tweaks your candy arse.... ;-p

You like tweaking arse?

 

[Gilligan]

You like tweaking arse?

Nice try. Something with "momma" and "combat boots" might work better for ya next time.

 

[Gilligan]

McRaven basically stood up for John Brennan .

Hopefully Brennan is the immediate focus ..or one of them...of the new criminal investigation just announced. He and his fellow traveler Jimbo Clapper.

 

[glhs837]

Again, point missed. The point is that when you serve you accept, or should, that consequences arising from your speech are your responsibility even after you leave the service. And the oath you swore has bearing on that. When you use your position to make national statements like "Our Nation is Under Attack from the President" and "“And if this president doesn’t understand their importance, if this president doesn’t demonstrate the leadership that America needs, both domestically and abroad, then it is time for a new person in the Oval Office — Republican, Democrat or independent — the sooner, the better. The fate of our Republic depends upon it.”

Then you are going beyond the level that's reasonable for a military person, active or retired. Thats my opinion, and I'm not going to change it, and I'm not alone. Maybe it's only really clear to those who have served. It may be legal, but it isn't right.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opinion/trump-mcraven-syria-military.html

 

[Gilligan]

Then you are going beyond the level that's reasonable for a military person, active or retired. Thats my opinion, and I'm not going to change it, and I'm not alone. Maybe it's only really clear to those who have served. It may be legal, but it isn't right.

My Grandfather, who retired as a Rear Admiral, would have been aghast at the spectacle of someone of McRaven's rank spewing forth like McRaven is. And yet my Grandfather took a dim view of many politicians...he spent a lot of time on Capitol Hill during one of his positions, being grilled on and supportive of service budget requests. His least favorite assignment....

 

[somdwatch]

Admirals deserve no more respect than you or I. They are human beings with Opinions. McRaven's doesn't mean squat to me.

Military Officers are just as capable as mistakes as the rest of us. Can you say Tailhook? (and so many more)...

 

[Yooper]

Looking at it from a macro level, it seems silly to essentially say that you can fight to protect the first amendment, but you better be careful exercising it.

Maybe to you (i.e., it's silly), but it's the "cost of doing business" for serving and drilled into a potential, future military officer from the moment one's training starts. One is told right from the start that this is the expectation and that if this expectation doesn't suit then being an officer isn't for that person. This goes for commissioned officers, warrant officers, and senior enlisted non-commissioned officers.

While junior officers (as well as - to some extent - junior warrants, and most NCOs) are given a bit of a long leash (as they are still learning) that loose leash gets shorter as one goes up in the ranks. By the time one is an O-3 the expectations are quite clear: shut up and serve. There is a specific UCMJ Article that prohibits this sort of behavior (and others that could apply) and it's no secret to anyone who has served.

Criticize CONSTRUCTIVELY a policy, but a commissioned officer (even in retirement) is NOT permitted to criticize the President (as C-in-C, at a minimum) and other Federal officials (in some cases, it also applies to State officials). If a retired officer wants to resign his/her commission, then the rights of the 1A afforded to "regular" citizens applies. But until then, the officer is on the rolls and should comport his or herself accordingly.

“[It] is time for a new person in the Oval Office—Republican, Democrat or independent — the sooner, the better. The fate of our Republic depends upon it.”

This is not a case where McRaven's words are open for interpretation. A retired senior officer (especially at his level) fully knows what he's saying and knows how it will be received. His comments - that the current occupant of the White House needs to be replaced now - are so far over the line as to be beyond unprofessional; it's seditious, even treasonous as it undermines the oath of office he swore to support the Constitution. Unless, of course, he's claiming Trump is a domestic enemy...? If so, we're in "Seven Days In May" territory and I don't like that one bit.

So, yes, what McRaven said IS A BIG DEAL. And while not to the same extent of McRaven's, what Clapper and Hayden (and some others) have said are also big deals. Not silly at all at any level.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Yooper]

...what Clapper and Hayden (and some others) have said are also big deals.

Speaking of Clapper....


If this is substantiated (i.e., if what Powell alleges is true), wow!

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Gilligan]

So, yes, what McRaven said IS A BIG DEAL. And while not to the same extent of McRaven's, what Clapper and Hayden (and some others) have said are also big deals.

--- End of line (MCP)

Exactly.

“[It] is time for a new person in the Oval Office—Republican, Democrat or independent — the sooner, the better.

That ^ is crystal clear. There are only two ways to put a new person in place of Trump. "sooner"..by impeachment, conviction and removal, or "later"..by election (or, charitably, the end of Trump's second term). McRaven did NOT imply or state that only the second option was what he wanted. Quite the opposite, in fact. It was clear he's in favor of the "sooner"..

 

[Yooper]

Exactly.
That ^ is crystal clear. There are only two ways to put a new person in place of Trump. "sooner"..by impeachment, conviction and removal, or "later"..by election. McRaven did NOT imply or state that only the second option was what he wanted. Quite the opposite, in fact. It was clear he's in favor of the "sooner"..

I would argue that - coming from a military person (i.e., schooled in the kinetic arts) - McRaven's comments can also be construed as leaning toward assassination.

This was, in fact, my first reaction to McRaven's words. I admit to being very much on the side of "shut up and serve" and as such have a very, very low threshold for this sort of crap (regardless of who/what party is in the White House) so I'm still finding it very difficult to give McRaven any benefit of the doubt. His comments were egregiously bad (and potentially really harmful).

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Gilligan]

I would argue that - coming from a military person (i.e., schooled in the kinetic arts) - McRaven's comments can also be construed as leaning toward assassination.

And that take brings us full circle to the sadly routine (every where else in the world..Egypt, where I'm currently working, for example) where the military is actually the ultimate power in charge while the country still pretends to elect leaders.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

We're not talking about McRaven blabbing about national secrets or even classified info though, are we? Yooper's post to which I replied said he was troubled by retired military members going "political".

McRaven basically stood up for John Brennan and criticized the President (not his CiC anymore) based on the President's actions. It's a very short letter. I couldn't find where he said Trump should be removed.

It is my understanding that certain ranks of officers, especially general level officers, even through retired, are subject to recall. If so, I would recommend that the President, recall this seditious traitor, McRaven, and have him court-martialed for his behavior, reduced in rank to Seaman, E-1, be dishonorably discharged, and have forfeit all of his retirement pay and benefits. Then this asshat can be as chatty as he wants spewing his personal opinions.