• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McChrystal relieved of his command.

ric27

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,541
Reaction score
3,195
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
McChrystal is known for being a master strategist, which only makes it more necessary to ask: Finding out that he even VOTED for his majesty, BHO who is going down in history as perhaps the most incompetent fool ever to be elected President, then pretty much deserves what is coming to him. You don't vote for someone that you don't have faith in...
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,858
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Good riddance to insubordinate rubbish. He'll be lucky if he doesn't face a court martial.

IMO, even as the General's comments and those of his inner circle were inappropriate to say the least, one should not paint with such a broad brush. The bad and naive judgment exhibited in his interview does not define most or all of General McChrystal's military career. The President made that clear in thanking the general for his long military career and service to the country.

Finally, the affair is closed. He submitted his resignation, the President accepted it. There will be no court martial.
 

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
:roll: Yeah, so I guess a four star general badmouthing the commander-in-chief to a Rolling Stone reporter is within the limits of "acceptable insubordinate" behavior? And if you're talking about a sanction over an Article 88 violation, where are your facts? Show me the black letter law and maybe you'll persuade me.

Easily done.

So do McChrystal's comments amount to insubordination? No, says Eugene Fidell, who teaches at Yale University School of Law and is president of the National Institute of Military Justice. “I don’t really think this is contemptuous," says Fidell. "I don’t think it makes the needle bounce under Article 88. There’s 'contemptuous words' and being disrespectful," Fidell added. "Those are two different things.”

You can concede at any time now.

TAPPED Archive | The American Prospect


Picking this up aps? :rofl
 
Last edited:

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Can you link to his exact quotes of his "badmouthing the CiC" and specifically quote what you are talking about? Thanks.

I already gave a quote where be badmouthed the vice-president in violation of Article 88. He's known to have said something along the lines of "Obama looked scared" meeting with military brass for the first time, and I call that badmouthing the CIC. He tolerated contemptuously language from his advisors and staff. All this happened in front of the press. There are numerous other news outlets that can provide you with all the rest of quotes if you take the time to look them up. Honestly, why bother to defend this guy? He's a disgrace to the uniform.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
75,059
Reaction score
31,628
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Let me explain something to you, since you appear to be woefully underinformated as to the kind of behavior that is expected from military officers. "Joking" criticism of superior officers is generally frowned upon, particularly by four star generals talking to reporters. We're not talking about about a guy who was accidentally overheard making a joke in the privacy of his own home or something, we're talking about a four star general representing the military to the press who permitted an unforgivable lapse of decorum. What's so hard about accepting the fact that this guy failed to live up to his duty? Oh yeah, I guess that'd require you to not be critical of Obama. :roll: I repeat, you and tex are indulging in the worst kind of partisan hackery.

I actually agree with you that McChrystal had to go. We never bitch down the chain of command, nor outside of it. So Im FINE with that decision.

Now...Why do you suppose a man with the credentials and apparently the universal respect of so many people would be so repulsed by representatives of this administration that he would go so far as to say such things?
 

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I already gave a quote where be badmouthed the vice-president in violation of Article 88. He's known to have said something along the lines of "Obama looked scared" meeting with military brass for the first time, and I call that badmouthing the CIC. He tolerated contemptuously language from his advisors and staff. All this happened in front of the press. There are numerous other news outlets that can provide you with all the rest of quotes if you take the time to look them up. Honestly, why bother to defend this guy? He's a disgrace to the uniform.

And I have already provided you an expert in military justice from Yale university who says this does not rise to a violation of Article 88.

Your move.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You can concede at any time now.

You'll get my concession when you can show me the law, not just some law professor saying it's debatable. Until that time, I'd prefer to let a tribunal decide what counts as an article 88 violation, not an academic, thanks. Nice try though, you're at least getting warmer!:2wave:
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I already gave a quote where be badmouthed the vice-president in violation of Article 88. He's known to have said something along the lines of "Obama looked scared" meeting with military brass for the first time, and I call that badmouthing the CIC. He tolerated contemptuously language from his advisors and staff. All this happened in front of the press. There are numerous other news outlets that can provide you with all the rest of quotes if you take the time to look them up. Honestly, why bother to defend this guy? He's a disgrace to the uniform.



When and where did you serve again? The General had a long and distinguished military career, if you think his statement that you still haven't linked to that simply opined that Obama looked "scared" makes him a disgrace to the uniform, the only words that come to mind is that you are a partisan hack. :shrug:
 

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You'll get my concession when you can show me the law not just some law professor saying it's debatable. Until that time, I'd prefer to let a tribunal decide what counts as an article 88 violation, not an academic, thanks.:2wave:

Yeah thats right. He's just an ivy league expert on military law. What does he know compared to you?
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You'll get my concession when you can show me the law not just some law professor saying it's debatable. Until that time, I'd prefer to let a tribunal decide what counts as an article 88 violation, not an academic, thanks.:2wave:




There won't be a court martial. As a partisan hack you can pretend and pray there will be one, but in reality, no one is going to jail for daring to say as you failed to prove that obama looked "scared".....
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Now...Why do you suppose a man with the credentials and apparently the universal respect of so many people would be so repulsed by representatives of this administration that he would go so far as to say such things?

Hey, you'll get no argument with me there. It doesn't say good things about Obama's leadership at all. But I don't give a flying ferret if McChrystal was right or wrong, the point is he should have kept his mouth shut.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
There won't be a court martial. As a partisan hack you can pretend and pray there will be one, but in reality, no one is going to jail for daring to say as you failed to prove that obama looked "scared".....

Nice try, but the only partisan hack thing is to deny that there is a legitimate case to be made that his comments, taken as a whole (as provided for in article 88 the comments are to be taken as a whole, not isolated) are contemptuous. Frankly, I don't really know if they rise to the level of an 88 violation or not, and I never said I did. But it is definitely border line, as Tex proved when he quoted that iffy Yale prof. I say let a tribunal decide. If he gets off, good for him. He's still a prick.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
75,059
Reaction score
31,628
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hey, you'll get no argument with me there. It doesn't say good things about Obama's leadership at all. But I don't give a flying ferret if McChrystal was right or wrong, the point is he should have kept his mouth shut.

We dont disagree...I suppose he COULD have been on career suicide mode because he was tired of presiding over a policy that saw more and more of his soldiers dying and being exposed as targets.

So dude is out...but meanwhile the same incompetent people are running the show and those same incompetent people are responsible for people dying. I puke just a little every time I see Obama make that ****ing idiotic claim "I'm in charge". Dude is in so far over his head its pathetic.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Nice try, but the only partisan hack thing is to deny that there is a legitimate case to be made that his comments, taken as a whole (as provided for in article 88 the comments are to be taken as a whole, not isolated) are contemptuous. Frankly, I don't really know if they rise to the level of an 88 violation or not, and I never said I did. But it is definitely border line, as Tex proved when he quoted that iffy Yale prof. I say let a tribunal decide. If he gets off, good for him. He's still a prick.




you haven't quoted me his exact words you are whining about, so there is nothing of value to your posts other than mouth bitching cause someone supposedly called your boy "scared".


Dood had a long and distiguished carreer and you want to besmirch him for being human once? Seriously?


I accept your concession.
 
Last edited:

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yeah thats right. He's just an ivy league expert on military law. What does he know compared to you?

This would only be apt if I was comparing him to me. I'm not, I'm comparing him to the military tribunal that ought to hear this case. Again, nice try, but your hack ways will get you no traction with me.
 

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This would only be apt if I was comparing him to me. I'm not, I'm comparing him to the military tribunal that ought to hear this case. Again, nice try, but your hack ways will get you no traction with me.

You are comparing your knowledge of the law to his and whether it amounts to a court martial.

Don't try and spin your nonsense. You think you know more than an ivy league military law expert. It doesn't get funnier than that.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I accept your concession.

Fail. I never conceded to anything, no will I. You might have read my comments thoroughly from the beginning before jumping to conclusions, though. He should face a court martial, and they ought to decide what to make of his insubordination. If it's not an article 88 violation, it's too close for anybody in this thread to know it from an actual article 88 violation. Tex brought up one quote from an academic who said, "it probably isn't" which only goes to prove my point. So I accept yours and tex's concession. QED Always a pleasure to best you in an argument, Hellhound, even if you don't realize it.
 

TOJ

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
4,513
Reaction score
641
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
One would have to be a complete imbecile to believe McChrystal will ever be brought up on charges of any kind related to this episode. :roll:

.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Fail. I never conceded to anything, no will I.

So you instead choose to wallow in partisan hackery and complete and utter wrongness...


Kudos to you. :thumbs: How is that working for you?


You might have read my comments thoroughly from the beginning before jumping to conclusions, though. He should face a court martial, and they ought to decide what to make of his insubordination. If it's not an article 88 violation, it's too close for anybody in this thread to know it from an actual article 88 violation. Tex brought up one quote from an academic who said, "it probably isn't" which only goes to prove my point. So I accept yours and tex's concession. QED Always a pleasure to best you in an argument, Hellhound, even if you don't realize it.


Speaking of quotes, will you be providing the quote in question that rises to this article 88 violation or will you simply be in partisan hack mode mouth foaming over the honorable General?
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
One would have to be a complete imbecile to believe McChrystal will ever be brought up on charges of any kind related to this episode. :roll:

Whether he will be and whether he should be are two different things.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You are comparing your knowledge of the law to his and whether it amounts to a court martial.

Don't try and spin your nonsense. You think you know more than an ivy league military law expert. It doesn't get funnier than that.

Not at all. I'm very impressed with his credentials and he knows quite a lot more than I do, obviously. But what isn't so impressive is what he says, which if you read it carefully you would realize amounted to hedging:
“I don’t really think this is contemptuous," says Fidell. "I don’t think it makes the needle bounce under Article 88. There’s 'contemptuous words' and being disrespectful," Fidell added. "Those are two different things.”
"He doesn't really think" means that there is a case to be made for the other side, one that is good enough that the answer to question isn't obvious even to an expert in the field. Thus, this quote goes to prove my point, not yours. QED. Nice try though, your argumentation skills are improving! I'd give you a B-.

Edit: And you don't have to take my word for it that this is a close question (I suspect you wouldn't no matter how persuasive I argue it), so here is something from Georgetown to match your Ivy League professor:

Could McChrystal face a court-martial?

06/23/10: The Washington Times reports that when Gen. Stanley McChrystal shows up at the White House for his highly anticipated meeting with President Obama, he is certain to hear about his commander in chief's displeasure — and may even be fired or resign. But a close reading of military law suggests that an even more drastic remedy is theoretically available to Gen. McChrystal's superiors to punish him for denigrating senior members of the administration in interviews with Rolling Stone magazine — court-martial. Section 88 of the Uniform Military Code of Justice says that any officer who uses "contemptuous words" against the president, vice president, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, or certain other officials "shall be punished as a court martial directs."

http://www.securitylawbrief.com/main/2010/06/could-mcchrystal-face-a-courtmartial.html
 
Last edited:

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Fail. I never conceded to anything, no will I. You might have read my comments thoroughly from the beginning before jumping to conclusions, though. He should face a court martial, and they ought to decide what to make of his insubordination. If it's not an article 88 violation, it's too close for anybody in this thread to know it from an actual article 88 violation. Tex brought up one quote from an academic who said, "it probably isn't" which only goes to prove my point. So I accept yours and tex's concession. QED Always a pleasure to best you in an argument, Hellhound, even if you don't realize it.

I brought up someone who is a EXPERT in this area who refutes your claim. You have no expert on your side.

You lost 3 pages ago.
 
Top Bottom