Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced plans to update screening procedures for military recruits as part of an effort to weed out extremism among the nation’s troops, according to a memo released Friday.
How about they start with this guy? https://www.huffpost.com/entry/extremists-military-shawn-mccaffrey-white-nationalist_n_60706a94c5b634fd437d8e09
Pentagon Announces New Screening Effort To Weed Out Extremist Recruits
To weed out or to weed in?
Start by getting rid of those 39% of marines who refuse to be vaccinated.
39% of marines are exhibiting cowardice in the face of the enemy.
What about the extremists already serving?
It’s notable that Pentagon policy does not specifically prohibit membership in many of those groups and that Friday’s actions do not ban current service members from being members of such organizations.
And, at least as far as extremist opinions go, I’m not sure how they could. Unlike, say, Germany (which I happen to know fairly well), the First Amendment here would be a pretty strong impediment to any attempt to “weed out” based on political beliefs or statements.
Now, action is another thing – groups that are actively involved in … just to pick an example completely at random … storming the Capitol and threatening lawmakers, I’d think could be treated no differently than membership in a criminal gang (which is what these so-called militia groups actually are).
But, of course, I Am Not A Lawyer. I look forward to hearing from some of the actual practitioners here.
Austin also announced on Friday steps that include setting up a working group that will immediately be tasked with developing a checklist that includes training for retiring service members who are often targeted by extremist groups and reviewing the department’s definition of extremism.
If a certain organization is actively identified as an extremist group or a terrorist organization, any veteran who joins should be stripped of their benefits and their discharge changed to dishonorable. I don’t see any reason to pussyfoot around a situation where these organizations pose a direct threat to the government and our democratic order.
Well I am a lawyer, and I can tell you that while the First Amendment is not entirely inapplicable to the military, the courts take a pretty hands-off approach to anything that affects maintaining order and readiness when it comes to the military. Viewpoint discrimination is not going to be an impediment to discriminating against viewpoints that negatively affect the armed services.
Here’s an idea - a cursory run through their Facebook profile?
My Overlord Veteran father was a fan of both of the 1956 Presidential candidates…and THAT’s my take on these extremists.
We have a Democratic Republic
Thanks for the context. I wonder, given the current environment, how much of this question has actually been litigated. I note that, when plugging something like “ucmj article 94” into a search engine, several of the first-page hits are for law firms that appear to specialize in military matters. What are the chances of someone actually pushing this up through various Trumpy judges to the New Improved Supreme Court?
I realize that there’s always been the understanding that, when you enlist in the military, you are surrendering certain rights, and voluntarily subjecting yourself to military discipline. At the same time, some of these goofball seditionists are so unaccustomed to negative consequences for their actions that I would not be at all surprised to see someone try to make a case of it if the Biden DoD really starts to get serious about enforcement.
I’d be perfectly happy to learn that I’m worrying about nothing.
All voters better screen everyone they intend to cast a ballot for in the future a lot closer, as well as their cabinet members. Pompeo’s actions on 1/6/21 suggest that he either was in on the bloody assault on the Capitol or just didn’t care if Pence died or not.
And let’s be clear, Trump was definitely “engaged” in what was going on that day…from him inviting domestic terrorists to Washington to fight, to ordering them to march on the Capitol at the rally to sitting down in front of the TV for hours to watch the progress of his insurgency and calling members of the GOP Congress as it happened demanding that they stay put and vote to nullify the electoral votes of two states.
Trump was in the catbird’s seat that day after planning, organizing and executing a plan to keep the lawful winner of the election from being officially declared to directing people to take violence against elected officials…and so were his officials. They willfully did not restore order after setting their domestic terrorists on a murderous rampage.
Trump knew that local, state and Pentagon officials could not act without his OK, so he ignored their requests and Pence’s pleas. He staged a terrorist attack and must be held accountable for it.
It might be only a conviction of tax evasion that lands him in jail, but the Russian Mafia hood deserves to rot there. And he will. You betcha. The rule of law is stronger than any one gangster.
If all else fails, wait until they’re fragged by their own.
This is one of those Trumpy judges (from TPM poster @skeptical posting this on another thread):
This is worth a read.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, far-right activist Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, have quite the scheme going. She takes in dark money contributions to her Tea Party-connected nonprofit, Liberty Central, and organizes Republicans on…
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, far-right activist Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, have quite the scheme going. She takes in dark money contributions to her Tea Party-connected nonprofit, Liberty Central, and organizes Republicans on exactly the kind of issues that often reach the Supreme Court. He sits on the Supreme Court and never recuses himself as justices are called on by federal law to do in certain situations, including ones where their spouses have financial interests.
And this is going on while Justice Stephen Breyer is solemnly warning that expanding the Supreme Court might be a problem because “Structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed” the perception that the court is guided by politics, “further eroding that trust.” As if that ship had not long since sailed.
Very little, since it’s basically non-justiciable. The most recent case I’m aware of was some guy who tried to get out of deployment to one or another of the Middle East debacles on the basis that Congress had not declared war. It went nowhere.
Another good analogy comes from the last 10-20 years or so, where the Supreme Court held that segregation in prisons was fine because they will defer to the prison people to decide how to handle everybody’s racism.
Thanks for the wise words, again.
So, with my first vaccination appointment now on the books for this coming Tuesday (here in Santa Cruz, they’ve converted an old former drive-in movie theater to a drive-through vaccination site), I can go into the weekend with a more serene outlook on several things. I’ll take the win.
Just want to reiterate the best possible SCOTUS reform package of all: Congress should bribe them into retirement. Is there any question whatsoever that Clarence Thomas would take a $10 million pension payment and finally fuck off for good?
Yes, but in my view it’s something of a double-edged sword.
“Readiness” is all very well but caring (ostensibly) about only that and nothing else is part of what got us where we are.
That may be one of the best uses of ten mil that I’ve ever seen proposed.
Pretty easily. You can hold any opinion you like, but the military can prevent you from expressing it and punish you if you disobey a lawful order to not express it.
And, since most of it is nonjudicial punishment, most never gets litigated.
