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

[nittany03]

I don’t expect someone who’s only ever been on active duty to really understand. My question is whether or not any of these Guardsmen had their rights violated. And you might dismiss that argument, but we are living in a world in which a sitting US Congressman said the following:

“'The National Guard is 90 some-odd percent male, and only about 20 percent of white males voted for Biden,' he said. 'You've got to figure that in the Guard, which is predominantly more conservative … they're probably not more than 25 percent of the people there protecting us that voted for Biden. The other 75 percent are in the large class of folks that might want to do something,'”

As reprehensible as that statement was, there are plenty of other adverse admin actions that can befall someone in an inactive status if they're found to be a Three-Percenter, Oathkeeper, or whatever other extremist flavor of the left or right. You can still have your clearance pulled or be ADSEPed under MILPERSMAN 1910-160 for extremist or supremacist conduct.

Let's not confuse punitive action under the UCMJ with other admin actions the military can take. Criminal jurisdiction notwithstanding, if I were to get hit by a bus and lose my legs between DWEs, I may not have been on an active status, but I'd still be getting med boarded and told to take early retirement. Because that's an admin matter, not a criminal one.

 

[MIDNJAC]

“'The National Guard is 90 some-odd percent male, and only about 20 percent of white males voted for Biden,' he said. 'You've got to figure that in the Guard, which is predominantly more conservative … they're probably not more than 25 percent of the people there protecting us that voted for Biden. The other 75 percent are in the large class of folks that might want to do something,'”

That is a terrible statement to make (on his part).

 

[Brett327]

I don’t expect someone who’s only ever been on active duty to really understand. My question is whether or not any of these Guardsmen had their rights violated. And you might dismiss that argument, but we are living in a world in which a sitting US Congressman said the following:

“'The National Guard is 90 some-odd percent male, and only about 20 percent of white males voted for Biden,' he said. 'You've got to figure that in the Guard, which is predominantly more conservative … they're probably not more than 25 percent of the people there protecting us that voted for Biden. The other 75 percent are in the large class of folks that might want to do something,'”

Democrat congressman: Trump supporters may 'do something' to Biden

Rep. Steve Cohen (D) expressed concern National Guard troops responsible for protecting Washington could be a threat. He suggested too many 'white males' voted for Trump.

www.google.com

I understand the distinction. Curious what rights you think could have been violated. At any rate, the last update to the story indicated that at least one of the individuals was a member of a white supremacist group. Would you make that person a CMEO in your command?

 

[taxi1]

If you subject 25,000 guardsmen to a scrutiny that they haven’t been subjected to before, you are going to find out some things that you didn’t know before.

Just like when someone goes for a high clearance and something gets discovered that ends up having them not just denied a clearance, but leaving the service. They could have spent 30 years in otherwise, no problem.

Having 12 getting Wednesday off out of thousands isn’t bad.

 

[bubblehead]

If you subject 25,000 guardsmen to a scrutiny that they haven’t been subjected to before, you are going to find out some things that you didn’t know before

Especially when you start looking at any social media footprints of people during the background check process.

 

[Jim123]

Especially when you start looking at any social media footprints of people during the background check process.

They'd find mostly shitposting from me (and reams of it at that) but very little political stuff. I will also say this- they wouldn't find any damn cat videos.

 

[Swamp Yankee]

That is a terrible statement to make (on his part).

I agree. Also, I'd like to review the source for those stats. In the past year, military members support for Trump dropped significantly.

 

[Griz882]

Out of curiosity, is having a security clearance a common thing amongst our infantry peeps?

Among the enlisted types, no. Of course the company and battalion leadership and some staff enlisted have clearances but your average ground pounder does not.

 

[Griz882]

I understand the distinction. Curious what rights you think could have been violated. At any rate, the last update to the story indicated that at least one of the individuals was a member of a white supremacist group. Would you make that person a CMEO in your command?

Even within the National Guard there is no “right” to serve when and where you want. Orders are given and orders are followed. The metric to carry a rifle at an event like the inauguration is likely quite high and there is a vast difference between being told to go home and being punished by the State Code of Military Justice. If the one guy with affiliation to a certain group has shown to be a “good citizen” he will be left alone (although likely barred from one day getting a clearance which will stall any advancement beyond E-5). I will say that there is a fine line between the right to affiliate and the government determining if that affiliation is troublesome. I know plenty of people who would identify the Catholic Church as a radical organization but that doesn’t mean it is.

 

[nittany03]

I will say that there is a fine line between the right to affiliate and the government determining if that affiliation is troublesome. I know plenty of people who would identify the Catholic Church as a radical organization but that doesn’t mean it is.

But the government already does determine whether affiliations are troublesome. Processing for ADSEP is mandatory for extremist conduct.

The Catholic Church example is a red herring. We’re talking about organizations which are at best credibly alleged to have knowingly supported a violent attempt to interfere with the lawful functioning of the Federal government. That is 110 percent incompatible with service in any capacity, let alone a cleared one.

 

[taxi1]

I remember when the first Bush Prez came and gave a speech on the USS America while pierside, and there were all kinds of heightened security measures above and beyond just getting aboard the ship. They were targeted at not just someone looking to get aboard who didn't belong there, but also us squadron folks who did, and had to be there. I'll admit it felt kind of like a lack of respect at the time, but I've gotten older and wiser.

 

[Griz882]

But the government already does determine whether affiliations are troublesome. Processing for ADSEP is mandatory for extremist conduct.

The Catholic Church example is a red herring. We’re talking about organizations which are at best credibly alleged to have knowingly supported a violent attempt to interfere with the lawful functioning of the Federal government. That is 110 percent incompatible with service in any capacity, let alone a cleared one.

You and I agree. I only offered the example as a way to separate “extremist conduct” from simple “affiliation.”

There is a difference and it is worth noting.

 

[wink]

Jesus Christ. If a judge dismisses a case pre-trial, it's because he/she looked at the evidence presented, interpreted it in the most favorable way possible to the plaintiff, and still couldn't make a legal case out of it. If there is any reasonable chance of the plaintiff having a shot at winning, it goes to trial.

Since the above was offered in an effort to educate or clear up misconceptions, I feel obligated to point out that this isn't completely true (and I bet @nittany03 knows this). The judge doesn't get to looking at evidence if there are standing, jurisdictional or some other more rare issues. Cases are booted without ever considering the evidence and merits of the case ALL THE TIME. Unless you know the opinion you can not be sure a judge dismissed a case based on any evidence. I am not familiar with all the dozens of election suits filed by Trump people, but I do know at least a fair number were dismissed for standing and jurisdictional issues without ever getting to the factual arguments by parties. And for that Trump legal team has taken some real criticism by the legal profession.

Extra credit for mentioning that at the pre-trial stage of litigation evidence is interpreted in a way to favor the plaintiff. Most citizens have no idea.

 

[nittany03]

You and I agree. I only offered the example as a way to separate “extremist conduct” from simple “affiliation.”

There is a difference and it is worth noting.

Depending on the group, “affiliation” may be bad enough.

 

[nittany03]

Since the above was offered in an effort to educate or clear up misconceptions, I feel obligated to point out that this isn't completely true (and I bet @nittany03 knows this). The judge doesn't get to looking at evidence if there are standing, jurisdictional or some other more rare issues. Cases are booted without ever considering the evidence and merits of the case ALL THE TIME. Unless you know the opinion you can not be sure a judge dismissed a case based on any evidence. I am not familiar with all the dozens of election suits filed by Trump people, but I do know at least a fair number were dismissed for standing and jurisdictional issues without ever getting to the factual arguments by parties. And for that Trump legal team has taken some real criticism by the legal profession.

Extra credit for mentioning that at the pre-trial stage of litigation evidence is interpreted in a way to favor the plaintiff. Most citizens have no idea.

All of that was what I was trying to wrap up into “couldn’t make a case,” but I’ll take the refresher in civil procedure.