Military investigating whether service members participated in US Capitol assault

[enhanced_deficit]

Source MSM/ABC news:

Military investigating whether service members participated in US Capitol assault

Joint Chiefs issue memo reminding troops they swore to defend the Constitution.

ByLuis Martinez
January 12, 2021, 5:39 PM
• 8 min read

US Capitol riots: Tracking the insurrection

On Jan. 6, rioters coming from a pro-Trump rally broke into the U.S. Capitol, resulting in deaths...

The military services are looking into whether any active-duty military personnel may have participated in the assault on the U.S. Capitol last week. The stunning events at the Capitol prompted the Joint Chiefs of Staff to issue an internal memo to all service members condemning the riot, confirming that Joe Biden will be the next commander in chief and noting that any act to disrupt the Constitutional process is "against the law."

Fort Bragg officials are reviewing an Army officer's claims that she only participated in the rally prior to the violence at the Capitol building and are also trying to determine if other base personnel joined her as part of a group that came to Washington, said a defense official. The psychological operations officer has acknowledged leading a group of 100 North Carolina residents to the rally.
U.S. military personnel are allowed to participate in political events as long as they do so on their own time and are not in military uniform.
A service member's participation in the rally or march that preceded the assault on the U.S. Capitol would fall into that category. However, the military services will look at whether any military personnel played a role in the security breach at the Capitol building and any of the violent events, which could result in disciplinary action.

Several individuals arrested at the Capitol were veterans who had once served in the military, but an ABC News review of records shows none of them is currently serving in the military.

The violence prompted America's top military leaders to issue an internal memo reminding troops that they are sworn to protect the Constitution and that on on Jan. 20, Biden will become the next commander in chief.
"The violent riot in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021 was a direct assault on the U.S. Capitol building, and our Constitutional process," said the memo, signed by all the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"We witnessed actions inside the Capitol building that were inconsistent with the rule of law," the memo added. "The rights of freedom of speech and assembly do not give anyone the right to resort to violence, sedition and insurrection."
"We support and defend the Constitution," it said. "Any act to disrupt the Constitutional process is not only against our traditions, values, and oath; it is against the law," it continued.

abcnews.go.com/Politics/military-investigating-service-members-participated-us-capitol-assault/story?id=75188339

Veterans Groups Plan to Expel Any Members Who Took Part in Capitol Riot

Supporters of President Donald Trump march on Pennsylvania Avenue towards the U.S. Capitol, Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

12 Jan 2021
Richard Sisk

Disabled American Veterans is warning that any member who is found to have participated in the U.S. Capitol riots last week will face expulsion from the one-million member veterans service organization. And it’s not the only veterans service organization looking to come down hard on these insurrectionists.
The rioters' actions were "a disgrace to our national values and must not be tolerated," DAV National Commander Stephen "Butch" Whitehead said via Twitter on Saturday.
On Jan. 6, Trump supporters swarmed into the building, resulting in fatal injuries to U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick. At least a handful of veterans have been identified as taking part; one was shot and killed by police. Altogether, six deaths are linked to the incident, including a Capitol Police officer who is believed to have died by suicide.

military.com/daily-news/2021/01/12/veterans-groups-plan-expel-any-members-who-took-part-capitol-riot.html

 

[XNavyNuke]

Being expelled from a fraternal organization is the least of these veterans worries in the coming days. Once you join a uniformed service, you can be called back decades later and charged with crimes under the UCMJ. The left likes to poo-poo the Oathkeepers, and the like, saying their oath to the Constitution no longer applies. Today we find the elected politicians on the left calling for veterans who are involved in protests to be called back into service and punished under the UCMJ.

Military in the Capitol Insurrection Should Face Courts-Martial
Involvement of current and former troops in a failed putsch strikes at the heart of democracy. The response can’t be left to law enforcement alone.

"Failed Putsch" huh?

Aside from active-duty troops like Rainey, a sizable cohort of retired military participated in the attack on the Capitol, including Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran who was shot by law enforcement during the storming of the building.

Rainey, if she committed any crimes, would definitely fall under the purview of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A case can be made that the same courts should also be used against veterans like Brock.

Wilkerson noted that the military had the power to punish Flynn even after Trump’s pardon. “Were I the secretary of defense I’d call him back to duty which is in the prerogative of the secretary of defense, and I’d court-martial him,” Wilkerson said. “At a minimum, I’d cite him for incitement to insurrection.”

There are, to be sure, legitimate civil libertarian concerns about using military courts. Lawyers have argued that the principle that retired military can be brought under the military code is an “anachronistic” holdover from a period when the military needed a ready supply of reserve soldiers. Further, military justice is much stricter and has fewer protections for defendants than civilian courts.

Emphasis mine. Which is of course the whole point of moving the narrative in this direction. Enemies of the state are not deserving of constitutional protections.

XNN

 

[vita3]

Congressman from TX just said Pelosi is in charge of Capitol Police & declined recommendation for additional law enforcement

That’s dereliction of duty.

 

[oyarde]

Congressman from TX just said Pelosi is in charge of Capitol Police & declined recommendation for additional law enforcement

That’s dereliction of duty.

The Sgt of Arms for both houses and the Pentagon felt that it was bad form to put National Guard out front .

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Further, military justice is much stricter and has fewer protections for defendants than civilian courts.

Not necessarily. For example, in a jury trial in a civilian court it takes a unanimous vote to convict, and if unanimity isn't obtained a mistrial is declared and the accused can be retried. In a court martial it takes only a three-fourths vote to convict, but if the vote is less than that the accused is acquitted.

 

[Philhelm]

But burning down private businesses and terrorizing civilians is A-OK.

 

[oyarde]

But burning down private businesses and terrorizing civilians is A-OK.

Encouraged is the way to look at it I think .

 

[Sammy]

But burning down private businesses and terrorizing civilians is A-OK.

If you are a leftist or a Minority you can do whatever you want.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

If you are a leftist or a Minority you can do whatever you want.

"I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president". King (in his own mind) Donald Trump, July 23, 2019.

 

[Okie RP fan]

But burning down private businesses and terrorizing civilians is A-OK.

When it's all part of the plan to gut main street America, yep.

And another angle to look at: this was a crusade against their Cathedral and is a punishable sin by the Church and practitioners of the Holy State

 

[Occam's Banana]

If they actually follow through with this, it might be interesting to see how other (ex-)military personnel who are not involved react to this. This kind of thing is something that could end up biting the witch-hunters in the ass.

Military in the Capitol Insurrection Should Face Courts-Martial
Involvement of current and former troops in a failed putsch strikes at the heart of democracy. The response can’t be left to law enforcement alone.

"Failed Putsch" huh?

That other "failed putsch" in that other "democracy" was eventually successful - after a number of its military and ex-military participants were released from being imprisoned for their participation.

Given the Cathedral's lack of self-awareness, I am uncertain whether those employing this "failed putsch" rhetoric think they are being clever or if they are really just that ironically oblivious to the historical context of the bugbears they are invoking.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

If you are a leftist or a Minority you can do whatever you want.

If that is the case really, how can arrest of Proud Boys leader (a minority person leading a pro-minorities, pro diversity group) be explained?

 

[XNavyNuke]

Not necessarily. For example, in a jury trial in a civilian court it takes a unanimous vote to convict, and if unanimity isn't obtained a mistrial is declared and the accused can be retried. In a court martial it takes only a three-fourths vote to convict, but if the vote is less than that the accused is acquitted.

Close, but you only get a half of a cookie. Three quarters of that half is lost due to a failure to point out the "separate-sovereigns" clause allowing double jeopardy for NG troops being tried under the laws of their state.

Once court members have sufficiently discussed the facts and the evidence, they will vote by secret written ballot on the guilt or innocence of the accused. It takes a two-thirds vote to find the accused guilty. A lesser vote will result in a finding of not guilty. The military, then, does not have a "hung jury" or findings. This frequently occurs in civilian criminal trials, when the jury is unable to reach a decision. Since the military does not have a requirement for a unanimous finding, the vote will either find the accused guilty or not guilty. Thus, he will not face the prospect of a retrial in the event of a hung jury. Once findings are reached on all of the charges and specifications, the court members return to the courtroom. The president of the court announces the findings in the presence of the military judge, counsel for both sides, and the accused. If the accused is found not guilty, the court-martial is over. If he is convicted of any offense, the trial proceeds to the sentencing phase.

THE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM-OVERVIEW



XNN

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Close, but you only get a half of a cookie. Three quarters of that half is lost due to a failure to point out the "separate-sovereigns" clause allowing double jeopardy for NG troops being tried under the laws of their state.



THE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM-OVERVIEW



XNN

The dual-sovereignty rule also applies to civilians. If someone commits an act that's a crime under both state and federal law, he can be tried by both sovereigns and there's no double jeopardy. See U.S. v Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922). Federal law has carved out a few exceptions involving carriers -- e.g., 18 USC §§ 659, 660, 1992, and 2117.

The two-thirds threshold was changed to three-fourths in 2019. See UCMJ Art. 52(a)(3) (10 USC § 852(a)(3))

 

[XNavyNuke]

The two-thirds threshold was changed to three-fourths in 2019. See UCMJ Art. 52(a)(3) (10 USC § 852(a)(3))

Learn something new everyday. Not surprised that the .mil training website I referenced is not up to date. That's the level of competence that I come to expect of the bureaucracy.

XNN

 

[mtr1979]

Only military retires are subject to the UCMJ they are collecting a pension. If a person does 4 years active duty gets out completes their 4 year inactive reserve time. They are not subject to the UCMJ. Prove me wrong paste a link to the reg.

 

[XNavyNuke]

Only military retires are subject to the UCMJ they are collecting a pension. If a person does 4 years active duty gets out completes their 4 year inactive reserve time. They are not subject to the UCMJ. Prove me wrong paste a link to the reg.

A great question. The only precedent I knew about was the Korea case (I now know to be Toth v. Quarles) because my grandfather mentioned it to me after I joined. He was a WW2 vet and evidently the case made quite a splash at the time even though it ultimately resolved in favor of Airman Toth. GPa always said, if you screw up they will find a way to get you even if they have to dig you up from the grave. Fortunately, Congressflubbed up the language in the 1950 defense act and the Supreme Court overturned the case. So you have a SC precedent as long as Congress doesn't make any laws specifically allowing it. Kinda like Roe v. Wade - safe until Congress acts or a new SC overturns. As long as Congress loves their veterans and the USSC isn't packed, we stay in their good graces.

Google'ing around a little more, I did find this link supposedly linking the exceptions allowing UCMJ prosecutions after discharge. They start in section 9. https://www.ucmjdefense.com/resources/military-extraterritorial-jurisdiction-act-meja/jurisdiction-over-the-person/termination-of-jurisdiction-over-the-person.html

But, I'm not a lawyer. I don't play one on Netflix. I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. My original response to The Nation article was meant to be limited to the tidbits that the journalist commentator was talking about which was retirees. My comment could easily be seen as overly broad. Again, not a journalism major or member of the commentariat class. I don't do words for a living, just calculations.

Thanks for the question though! Had great fun exercising the search engines.

XNN