Lt. Col. Joni Ernst broke the law by signing the seditious letter to Iran.

[kpete]

Lt. Col. Joni Ernst, the junior senator from Iowa, is an active duty lieutenant colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard. As such, she is bound by the Iowa State Code of Military Justice. Her signing of the seditious letter to Iran is a clear and direct violation of Chapter 29B.85 of the Iowa State Code of Military Justice.

29B.85 CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS.
Any person subject to this code who uses contemptuous words against the president, the governor, or the governor of any other state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which that person may be serving, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

This is very serious infraction. We are a nation governed by civilians. Our Commander-in-Chief is a civilian. The government officials that hold ultimate authority over our military are civilians. This is true at the federal level and the state level. This has always been the case since George Washington was president. He resigned his military commission to accept the position of president. We have never in our history had a military ruler. Military obedience to civilian authority is critical and essential if we are to maintain the democracy we inherited. That is why "contempt towards officials" is such a serious matter. Lincoln enforced that discipline during the Civil War. Even with the imposition of martial law, Lincoln remained a civilian commander. Truman enforced the same discipline after WWII when he relieved Gen. MacArthur of his command. Obama enforced the same discipline recently when Gen. McChrystal was relieved of his command. There is nothing anachronistic about this fundamental principle.

In the federal armed services, this is handled under Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Reading the federal version, it is obvious where Iowa got the wording for its law. It's not an accident or a coincidence. The importance of enforcing the requirement for military obedience to civilian authority is universally applied at every level of governance, from the federal to the local level. This is why we are not a police state.



MORE HERE (plus links):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/12/1370336/-Lt-Col-Joni-Ernst-should-be-court-martialed-for-signing-the-seditious-letter-to-Iran

[Vinca]

1. Can a civilian request prosecution? If not, nothing will happen.

It should. That code is clear as a bell.

[marym625]

3. Great question

Can we all do it?

[joshdawg]

76. Probably nothing will happen because

she is republican and IOKIYAR.

I agree that something should happen, like a court martial.

[avebury]

145. Court Martial or Dishonorable discharge. nt

[demwing]

162. Start a White House petition to court martial Ernst

get 100,000 signatures
Make the White House comment.


DUers will help!

[marym625]

2. Great! I wondered about this as soon as I saw her name

I hope they go after her with everything they can

[Abouttime]

17. Mark my words

GI Joni won't finish her term. Joni will resign in shame just like Palin. This current scandal is just the latest of many. We need to keep hounding her until she has to answer every day for the crimes she and her family have committed. Joni is the weak link, she has no business being a United States Senator, she was not vetted, her election was a fluke, she has no real support back home. We need to put pressure on her and make her fold like a house of cards.
Imagine what a gift it would be for our side to have this junior senator embroiled in scandal leading up to the 2016 election? We need to keep pushing day after day the anti-joni message, write letters, make calls, fan the flames. Show the world just what a disgrace this woman really is.

[marym625]

27. done and doing

I have contacted Senator Durbin's office regarding this. Don't know what good it will do but I will follow up tomorrow.

Next is Ernst's office. Some tweets, more letters, etc.

Although I know that there is no way 47 senators will be prosecuted, both Ernst and Cotton should be. I will do my damnedest to make that happen.

[busterbrown]

113. Man , you remind me of stuff I should be doing.

Thanks for the post and action...I’m calling my reps..right now..

[marym625]

123. Cool!

Glad I could help.

[jwirr]

69. We can put pressure on her in two ways. First email this Law to the Iowa Governor. If you cannot

get through to him write or call his office. Secondly, do the same to GI Joni. And keep contacting them every so often.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

101. God I want you to be right, sadly I think she just became unbeatable in her home state.

As to her qualifications to be a Senator, like ALL TeaParTY she not only has none, but she has minus reasons, if you know what i mean

[BetsysGhost]

129. Her qualifications to be a Senator

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3


of course you were being facetious but knowing the actual Constitutional requirements to become a United States Senator informs citizens who may be out of the loop that common people, like myself, can and are sometimes entrusted with the privilege to Protect and Defend the Constitution as an elected US Senator.

[The Blue Flower]

111. What are the papers of record in her state?

I'd be quite happy to start sending letters. Can you post a list?

[calimary]

115. Welcome to DU, Abouttime!

Glad you're here! PRESSURE. Indeed!

We need to start a drumbeat. That's been scoffed at, elsewhere here, but it should not be underestimated. Start the pressure. Contact the local media. Contact the local Veterans of Foreign Wars and other veterans groups. If they make like they want to give her cover, they need to be reminded of the points of that code outlined here in this very thread. Maybe they've "conveniently" forgotten. And then make noise about THAT. Put them on the spot. Force them onto the defensive position. MAKE 'EM DENY IT.

Has anybody noticed that the only time shit like this really gets addressed is when it's dragged into the spotlight so EVERYBODY can look at it and read about it and hear about it and gossip about it. It's the new "town square." It's the new "over the backyard fence." You START THE DRUMBEAT. They forget, this President they hate so much and want to screw so badly is also THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF ALL UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. BOTH HERE AND ABROAD.

If indeed she's of the military, and indeed she is, then she IS and must be held to this. So should TRAITOR tom cotton. For heaven's sake, he's seen combat over there. He should know better than to pull a stunt like that poisonously-rebounding letter of his. And she should know better than to affix her signature to it.

The only way they can survive this is if everybody else cooperates in turning a blind eye, thus letting it be slipped out the back door in the dark.

PRESSURE. Like Cowbell. Need MORE.

[Angleae]

4. Not possible under UCMJ, maybe under state code.

Title 10 prohibits court-martial under the UCMJ for national guard personnel unless activated in a federal capacity.

http://www.ucmj.us/about-the-ucmj

[marym625]

46. Can you please elaborate?

Would her position and signature on the letter not make that be the case?

I can't find the screen shot of the signature part of the document. I don't know if she signed with her military rank or not. If she did, would that make a difference?

[hack89]

48. She is not a full time active duty military officer

if she has not been called up for active duty or if she is not participating in a regularly scheduled training event then she is considered a civilian and not subject to the military code of justice.

If she signed with her rank then it might make a difference but I doubt she did.

[marym625]

50. Thank you

I am still trying to load the signature page. Having a problem. Maybe lots of people are doing the same

[Sheepshank]

60. I guess I wasn't thinking court martial, as much as relieved of duty

and having all of her benefits stripped.

[hack89]

61. A civilian court can't do either of those things

it would have to be a court martial.

[MADem]

80. Her commanding officer could give her a letter....

...of instruction, or reprimand, whatever. Non-judicial punishment is also an option.

Thing is, though, Senators enjoy a lot of shields from the law that us regular mortals don't enjoy.

Still, though, I like the way she's being portrayed, here!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

125. No reprimand or Article 15 can be issued

unless she was on active duty at the time.

[MADem]

135. This is true, usually, but "conduct unbecoming" can be an issue even when someone is off duty.

She is still subject to her state command's code of Military Justice:

Soldiers and airmen in the National Guard of the United States are subject to the UCMJ only if activated in a Federal capacity under Title 10 by an executive order issued by the President. Otherwise, members of the National Guard of the United States are exempt from the UCMJ. However, under Title 32 orders, National Guard soldiers are still subject to their respective state codes of Military justice.

I'm not familiar with her state's guidelines, specifically, but I imagine they are similar to the DOD guidance. Most states do a lot of copying--it's just easier.

After all, a NG servicemember isn't "off the hook" if they test positive for drugs they did while inactive. Consequences still accrue. She's embarrassed herself and her command with her behavior, IMO.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

142. From post #31

The Iowa National Guard has responded to inquires about her status, particularly after the State of the Union response she gave.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/abetteriowa/2015/01/27/joni-ernst-military-protocol-campaign-disclosures/22420809/

From the Iowa National Guard:
"Federal regulations allow military personnel in the National Guard who are not performing full time military duty to campaign for and hold partisan political office ... unless properly ordered to military duty, they are not subject to either the Uniform Code of Justice or the Iowa Code of Military Justice"

She is "serving" at most one weekend a month on IDT type drills and maybe two weeks of ADT type active duty a year unless she gets a waiver. She is only subject to these codes when she is in those types of duty statuses.

The Iowa National Guard says she can't be punished for actions when she's not on duty, and I'm pretty sure they know more about it than folks on an internet discussion board..

[hopemountain]

156. so, have you been successful in shutting down

this type of action to hold joni ernst accountable for her sedition?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

176. I'm not trying to shut anything down

if people want to spend their time on something that legally can't happen, no skin off my nose. But I think they should at least be aware that it's a waste of time.

[Lee-Lee]

64. They can't do that without UCMJ action.

Stripped of benefits requires a conviction, it can't just be done arbitrarily.

[Sheepshank]

66. I assumed UCMJ involvement...but the level of scruitiny for discharge must be done via Court Martial

[DallasNE]

133. You May Be Misreading This

This establishes where responsibility lies and says federal UCMJ only applies when under federal control. That makes perfect sense. It goes on to state "However, under Title 32 orders, National Guard soldiers are still subject to their respective state codes of Military justice.".

[Angleae]

140. I believe that's what I said.

UCMJ prosecution is not possible because she was not under federal control. State prosecution might be possible depending on the laws of the state of Iowa. It looked like state prosecution was possible, but I got burned out reading it and didn't finish reading it. But on the outside it looked like the only people who could press charges were the governor (a republican), and the officers in her chain of command (likely no more than 3).

[BigBearJohn]

5. Who is responsible for enforcing this? Maybe a petition should be started at White House website.

[cynzke]

22. Speaking of Petitions........

If we REALLY want to scare those 47 GOP Senators and the GOP in general, we should float a petition asking for Obama to run for a THIRD TERM. Now that would scare the crap out of them. LOL!

[jwirr]

70. LOL To be honest I suspect it would not make the Obama family all that happy either.

[onenote]

79. I know you were attempting to be lighthearted, but the truth is that nothing could make the repubs

happier, than a ridiculous petition asking the president to run for a third term, something that he is clearly barred by the constitution from doing and thus would play directly into the t-bags meme that the President has no respect for the Constitution.

[cui bono]

107. Yes, and it would just make Dems look like Tea Partiers who don't understand the rules. n/t

[madville]

47. No one is responsible for enforcing it in this case

Because she is not subject to either the UCMJ or the Iowa State Code unless she is in a drilling or active duty status. If she is playing Senator in Washington these codes do not legally apply to her.

[aspirant]

110. She drills

1 weekend every month and a 2-week summer duty. At these times she is full uniform and obeying UCMJ.

[Angleae]

154. Actually she isn't.

She is only under the UCMJ if called up to federal active service by executive order. State military law (yes it exists) applies and she could be charged under it but good luck getting one of the few people able to charge her to do so (governor or commanding officer(s)).

[City Lights]

6. I wish she'd be held accountable, but I'm not gonna hold my breath. nt

[tblue37]

40. Because IOKIYAR. NT

[SamKnause]

7. I don't think it will matter.

The rule of law has been ignored and bypassed far too long in this country.

Examples:

Illegal invasion, war crimes, torture; No one held accountable.

Illegal economic activity by Wall Street, global banks, global corporations, and CEOs; Received tax payers bailouts, paid fines, no admission of guilt, no prosecutions, no jail time.

Illegal assassinations of U.S. citizens using drones; no formal charges, no evidence given, no attempt at arrests, no access to the judicial system whatsoever.

Clapper commits perjury; absolutely nothing happens.

Crimes are being committed by our government and its agencies; DEA, CIA, NSA, FBI, ATF, military brass, etc.; whistle blowers are jailed the guilty face zero consequences.

[CanSocDem]

14. yep! n/t

[zeemike]

21. That is the unfortunate truth.

The constitution and the law does not apply to them.

[A Simple Game]

84. At least we nail them if they leak classified material especially about illegal activities.

Well... we do if they are enlisted personnel, officers... not so much.

[calimary]

122. So let's certainly not raise a stink about it then?

Start people talking. Start people QUESTIONING? Put Miss Hog-castrator and TRAITOR tom on the defensive. Make them have to address this every time they find themselves in a gaggle of reporters. Make them have to swat the gnats away for the rest of their terms - which hopefully will last six years or less. Make them have to reach for the Maalox bottle every morning before they even get up outta bed.

This is corrosive. It can start with merely picking at a thread at the hem of a sweater. Hell, I think I heard Chris Matthews mention that exact metaphor in describing how relentless the CONs' campaigns against our side of the aisle has been - how ruthless and never-ending and never-resting it is. How they'll grab at ANYTHING. They'll work it ANYWHERE, ANYHOW, ANY WAY, ANY WHEN. They'll take ANY in they get. And they wind up doing our side damage. Corroding our supports. Eating away at our shields like moths to fine wool. Like water finding a tiny crack in the concrete, and little-by-little that seemingly solid and invincible concrete wall - crumbles like a dry cracker.

That's how they do it. So WHY THE HELL CAN'T WE????? WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT TO THEM????

Shit, being nice sure hasn't worked. Being conciliatory hasn't worked. Compromising with them hasn't worked. Giving in to them hasn't worked. They don't even recognize those responses as legitimate. They scorn and scoff at the things we value - from education, science, and logic, to negotiation, and empathy. They only know kicking in the teeth.

All I'm saying is - let's not be silent. Let's not just stand by and assume the game's already lost before we even consider suiting up. Let's not just shrug it off and say there's no use, nothing to be done. Let's not just passively hand them another win. Another free pass.

They keep getting those things again and again mainly because we allow it. Because we hand it to them again and again.

I don't want to do that anymore.

[Maynar]

157. Very Well Put

Thank you, Calimary.

[cyberswede]

8. "contemptuous words" seems pretty subjective

Who gets to decide what qualifies as "contemptuous?" I wish it were me.

[Roy Rolling]

42. That is the key point

The letter was, in content, contemptuous. But there were no words insulting the president directly. There are many things wrong with the 47 letter, but it is a stretch to call it a UCMJ violation.

But it wouldn't make me no never mind to Court Martial anyway, just to press the issue.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

126. I was just about to post this

No contemptuous words towards the President.

And even if there had been, she wasn't drilling or on active duty at the time, so there isn't anything the military can (or should) do.

[B Calm]

9. She should be Court Martial!

[fadedrose]

10. Hey, it was a joke!

Didn't you see Rachel last night.....they didn't mean what they said in that letter, it was funny!!

[yeoman6987]

11. Why isn't Senator Graham getting called out?

He is an active Reservist. He should be scrutinized just like Earnst in my humble opinion. Are we being harder on her?

[Kingofalldems]

20. Not again!

[yeoman6987]

34. Your support for Graham is strange

You stick up for him???? Why????

[Kingofalldems]

83. I stick up for NO republicans.

You however have made it into an art form.

[yeoman6987]

86. Art form... Sounds good.

Maybe I can get paid. Lol.

[Atman]

93. Nope...you'd have to do it "for exposure."

[yeoman6987]

149. That is good. Good belly laugh.

[tblue37]

44. He actually said that if he is elected president his first act would be to establish

a military dictatorship, using the military to imprison Congress until they handed over as much money as he demanded for the military and the intelligence services!

[yeoman6987]

65. Now that is scary!

[Atman]

94. Well, he didn't actually say that.

But yeah, he did say he'd have the military come in and imprison Congress. I'm assuming he only mean the Democratic members.

[cui bono]

108. What???

Now that's crazy. And sadly, I don't doubt a Republican president would actually attempt to do that. Does he really think the military would do that? Otoh, if the same baggers keep rising in ranks in the military as they have in congress...

[Oktober]

12. Wasn't this already tried during her campaign?

... and short time in office prior to the letter?

[madville]

39. People don't understand how these codes apply to

Guardsmen and Reservists. The Iowa National Guard has previously addressed this.

The Iowa National Guard has responded to inquires about her status, particularly after the State of the Union response she gave.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/abetteriowa/2015/01/27/joni-ernst-military-protocol-campaign-disclosures/22420809/

From the Iowa National Guard:
"Federal regulations allow military personnel in the National Guard who are not performing full time military duty to campaign for and hold partisan political office ... unless properly ordered to military duty, they are not subject to either the Uniform Code of Justice or the Iowa Code of Military Justice"

She is "serving" at most one weekend a month on IDT type drills and maybe two weeks of ADT type active duty a year unless she gets a waiver. She is only subject to these codes when she is in those types of duty statuses.

[aspirant]

112. Good,

have reporters go on base during her drills and directly ask her about this letter.

[madville]

13. Completely wrong, that law doesn't apply to her

She is not active duty, she is a reservist or part time. She has to be on active duty orders or in a drilling status to be subject to the UCMJ or their similar state code, I seriously doubt she signed it while she was on duty.

[B Calm]

15. Code of conduct does not state if you are on active duty only.

[madville]

24. It states that one is subject to the code

While "serving". That means they are only subject to the code while in an active duty or drilling status.

[B Calm]

25. She is still serving!

[madville]

31. This has already been hashed out multiple times

The Iowa National Guard has responded to inquires about her status, particularly after the State of the Union response she gave.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/abetteriowa/2015/01/27/joni-ernst-military-protocol-campaign-disclosures/22420809/

From the Iowa National Guard:
"Federal regulations allow military personnel in the National Guard who are not performing full time military duty to campaign for and hold partisan political office ... unless properly ordered to military duty, they are not subject to either the Uniform Code of Justice or the Iowa Code of Military Justice"

She is "serving" at most one weekend a month on IDT type drills and maybe two weeks of ADT type active duty a year unless she gets a waiver. She is only subject to these codes when she is in those types of duty statuses.

[B Calm]

32. Non Active does not relieve them of their obligation to abide

by the provisions of ... United States Military Code of Conduct.

[madville]

36. Yes it does

Reservists and Guardsmen are not subject to the UCMJ or their respective state codes unless they are in a drilling status or on active duty orders.

Legally they are not subject to the UCMJ or state codes when off duty, now one could make an ethical argument but it's not illegal.

[Lee-Lee]

54. First, you need to learn the Differnce Between the Code of Conduct and UCMJ

Second, you need to learn when the UCMJ applies.

A member of the Reserve Components only is subject to the UCMJ when called to an active duty status, or when drilling in a Federal status.

If she wasn't on orders, it doesn't apply.

Been over this several times with some of my Soldiers who committed crimes punishable under the UCMJ, but we couldn't do anything as they were not on orders.

[James48]

56. Depends

State IOWA UCMJ applies even when federal UCMJ does not. No required under state UCMJ to be on federal orders.

Officers are actually MORE prone to be subject than enlisted are-


The answer is always "It depends", and would require much study on exact circumstances before one can rule out prosecution.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

127. Actually yes, it does. n/t

[MADem]

136. They have to abide by their STATE codes--which are usually very similar to the federal ones. nt

[James48]

55. Not correct

A commissioned officer who is in the National Guard "serves" 24/7, even when not being paid. The state press release is incorrect- yes, it WOULD be possible to have her charged. However, it is extremely unlikely, in that she would have to be ordered to state active duty to be charged and tried, and only someone in her chain of command superior to her could bring the charges.

Not likely at all.

But- as a retired U.S. Army National Guard officer, I can tell you that once you accept your commission, you are technically potentially subject to both State and Federal UCMJ action at any time, and the complete circumstances would have to be evaluated to determine whether or not a charge or violation-able offense has occurred.

Even as a retiree, I COULD be brought up on UCMJ charges, in the right circumstances.

[madville]

68. Is that in writing anywhere?

Every manual and directive I have read or referenced on the subject of applying the UCMJ to reservists does not indicate different classifications for enlisted or officers. What it does plainly say is that members are NOT subject to the UCMJ unless they commit an act while in a drilling status or on active duty.

I read through the Iowa State Military Code as well, did not see what you mention addressed. Can you point me to a reference, I like reading this stuff.

[leftofcool]

102. Check the Iowa State Military Code.

[onenote]

82. So as a retiree, I would think you'd be opposed to the absurdly broad

interpretation of what is "contemptuous" that some here would give Article 88, since like most DUers I'm guessing you've made some pretty "intemperate" and/or "disrespectful" remarks about Bush, Cheney and/or various repub members of the House and Senate, repub governors, and so forth.

[leftofcool]

103. I am not in the military.

[onenote]

106. Was responding to James48, not you.

[cui bono]

109. I am not in the military.

j/k

(I don't know why I thought that was funny. Maybe because I just woke up from an 11 hr sleep. )

[James48]

118. Yes

I think it's absurdly broard to try and prosecute her under the Iowa UCMJ for "Contempuous words".

I favor federal felony charges under the Logan Act and Title 18 instead.

[Telcontar]

131. R-diculous

Logan Act can't apply to a federal elected official.

[leftofcool]

19. She is subject to the State of Iowa military code active duty or not.

[madville]

23. No

It says members are subject to the code while "serving". That means they are subject to it only when they are in an active duty, ADT or ADOS status or an IDT drilling status.

[Pacifist Patriot]

51. I just wanted to let you know that...

I appreciate your attempts to educate. I'm not sure why the difficulty with understanding the distinction of status, but thanks for your explanations. I imagine you're gotten through to people who aren't commenting. I don't think you're posting in vain.

[James48]

57. No

"serving" means 24/7 for officers. Once they are commissioned, they potentially are subject 24/7 and COULD be prosecuted under the correct circumstances.

Source: I am a retired 21-year officer in the National Guard, who has seen a lot of weirder stuff in my time.

[madville]

62. Well, the Iowa National Guard disagrees with you

The Iowa State Code makes no distinction between Officer and Enlisted as far as establishing applicability of the code, it simply says members are subject to the code while "serving".

The Iowa National Guard has stated that the UCMJ and State Code do NOT apply to her unless she is drilling or on active duty orders, that's all that matters in this case.

I've been in since the 90's myself, never heard of an officer or enlisted guardsman/reservist charged under the UCMJ for something happening off duty. There can be other administrative actions that can come into play in certain scenarios (like someone gets a DUI off duty, they can be restricted from driving government vehicles or POVs on base) just not prosecution under the UCMJ or Iowa State Military Code like in this case.

[James48]

120. Yes

I am very familiar with a number of prosecutions under state level UCMJ actions for events that took place "off duty" and "off post".

I know of certain soldiers who were prosecuted and discharged under state UCMJ actions for drug use while off duty. And for domestic violence, which then negated their qualification to carry weapons, which ended up being prosecuted for disobeying an order. It's also actually quite common to order someone to active duty on state orders in order to prosecute them under UCMJ for "missing a movement", if they failed to report to duty when originally ordered.

It happens all the time. Yes, you are technically subject to being ordered to duty to face charges for events that could have happened when you were not on duty. But again, each case has to be examined, and the chain of command has to decide whether or not to order them to trial, or to let civil courts handle everything.

[madville]

124. Seen a bunch as well but

It still boils down to being "on duty". The hundreds of drug cases I've seen were people who failed drug tests while on duty, they may have done the drugs off duty but they were prosecuted and/or discharged for having the drugs in their system while "on duty".

Same with domestic violence off duty, they aren't punished specifically for the off duty arrest/conviction, they are charged or discharged because they are unable to follow their orders when they are "on duty".

Same with people losing their security clearance due to something that happened off duty, they aren't charged/discharged for that specific event, they are in trouble because they can't fulfill their duties while on the clock.

The missing movement thing is because they were technically "on duty" when they didn't show up and yes, they have to activate them in order to punish them in some cases but that's apples to oranges under this Ernst topic.

My point is Ernst will never be charged under the State Code or the UCMJ for something she says or does as a Senator off duty, it's just not going to happen and it shouldn't, you said the same as well, we agree on that. Now if she takes to Twitter and rants about whatever while on her annual two weeks active duty training, that would be a whole different scenario.

Have enjoyed the debate, I've always liked arguing military regulations and policy

[DallasNE]

134. Keep Reading

It goes on to state "However, under Title 32 orders, National Guard soldiers are still subject to their respective state codes of Military justice.".

[madville]

137. If she is on duty

If she is on duty, not under federal authority, then yes, she is subject to the state code. She wasn't on duty when she signed the letter, or made the state if the union response or made her political commercials, so the state code doesn't matter in these instances.

[DallasNE]

141. Show Me The Language In The Code

That says "on duty". Neither the quote I posted nor the Iowa code quoted in the top post contains this language.

[madville]

144. It says "while serving"

That's their version of "on duty".

The Iowa National Guard has already released an official statement that she is NOT subject to the UCMJ or Iowa Code of Military Conduct unless she is on duty (that's either active duty orders or in a drilling status, she was neither).

[B Calm]

155. She's still drawing a paycheck!

[madville]

164. Yes, which means nothing

As far as determining when she is subject to the UCMJ or state code. It's simple, on duty like weekend drills or active duty orders = subject to the applicable code. Not on duty, not subject to the codes.

[B Calm]

165. Amazing. . .

[progressoid]

78. Sadly, I think you're right. n/t

[BigBearJohn]

16. So we have two junior senators with broad military experience speaking against their President.

Cotton was a captain in the army with a Bronze Star no less, and Ernst a Lt. Col in the National Guard.
Where is the "honor" in their belittling our beloved President and his plans for peace?
Such fine examples of leadership (NOT) for the brave, honorable servicemen sacrificing for our country.
You would think they might have learned SOMETHING from the Code of Military Justice.
Disgraceful. They should each bow their head in shame.

[Cha]

18. Really? Well, who knew she'd jump right into it without giving it

a second thought?

I hope her vapid. vacant, insipid, a$$ gets busted.

[Hoppy]

26. While I agree with the intent of the post, where the hell did you ever get the idea that we are not

a police state?
















Yes, Arlene, its sarcasm.

[HoosierCowboy]

28. Busted to buck private

....and assigned to KP duty

[COLGATE4]

29. What exactly are the "contemptuous words against the President" in the

Iran letter that would permit her to be charged under the UCMJ?

[madville]

33. She's not subject to these military codes anywa

Unless she does something while in a drilling or active duty status. Simply being affiliated with the military or guard as a reservist does not mean one is subject to the UCMJ or in this case Iowa Code at all times. It only applies to actions when one is on duty.

When she is playing Senator in Washington she is not on duty and not subject to these codes.

[COLGATE4]

37. I defer to your knowledge of her being under the UCMJ

or not. IF (and that's obviously a big IF) she is subject to it, I still don't see what the supposed violation is.

[SunSeeker]

43. The letter implies Obama wants Tehran to build nukes. nt

[COLGATE4]

45. So how is this being 'contemptuous' to the President?

[SunSeeker]

49. OFFS. It suggests Obama is fine with Iran nuking us and/or Isreal.

[Calista241]

67. I agree. While idiotic, there's nothing outright disparaging to the President in the letter.

[SunSeeker]

87. How the fuck is suggesting Obama's fine with the US being nuked not disparaging? nt

And, as Kerry pointed out:

"It purports to tell the world that if you want to have any confidence in your dealings with America, they have to negotiate with 535 members of Congress," Kerry said. "That is both untrue and a profoundly bad suggestion to make."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/11/politics/john-kerry-iran-letter-hearing/

[onenote]

114. See post #72.

[Dont call me Shirley]

30. Do I smell a military coup?

[rurallib]

35. marking

[tblue37]

38. KnR. Someone should start a petition to have her charged--and we should

make it a point to publicize her violation of the law.

Republican legislators don't know the constitution, and Republican military members don't understand the USMCJ that they are supposed to operate under.

And those few that do know don't care when they violate the rules they have sworn to uphold or the Constitution they have sworn to defend.

Yet these are the same kinds of people who establish groups that they give names like "Oathkeepers."

[onenote]

77. Are you suggesting that you understand the UCMJ?

Because the clear evidence is that you don't.

See post #72.

[tblue37]

150. No, I don't. nt

[left-of-center2012]

41. And no one will do squat about it

That's why we Dems are in such a bad spot.
The GOP get away with what they do because we Dems keep turning the other cheek; roll over and play dead; expect the GOP to play nice next time.

[Telcontar]

52. Jesus flipping fucking Christ, stop with the amature lawyer bullshit

In the capacity of an elected official, immunity applies - UCMJ does not apply.

On top of that, you are mistaken conflating UCMJ regulations with Nation Guard. The only time a Guard member is subject to UCMJ is when under Federalization orders.

[Cryptoad]

53. Active duty and also a Senator

I thougth just that by itself was illegal...??? double dipping!

[UCmeNdc]

58. Bring UCMJ actions......

[Nye Bevan]

59. Please. Just stop.

A US senator should be prosecuted for using "contemptuous words against the President"?

Do you have any concept of how ridiculous you sound?

[onenote]

85. +the biggest number possible. See post #72

[valerief]

63. Does this mean she has to give back all the money for signing it? nt

[Duval]

71. If there is any way she can

be held accountable, I hope we can make it happen.

[onenote]

74. Which is why the concept of charging her under the UCMJ is so absurd.

That is, if you bothered to know anything about Article 88, its history and its interpretation.

And if you actually adhered to anything remotely resembling progressive values regarding the First Amendment as espoused by folks such as Justices Douglas and Brennan, among others.

[onenote]

72. When did criminalizing speech become a progressive value?

Last edited Thu Mar 12, 2015, 07:01 PM - Edit history (1)

The reasons that it is ridiculous to suggest that Ernst be prosecuted for violating either the UCMJ or its Iowa counterpart are legion. They include, as others have pointed out, the fact that the Iowa National Guard has itself said she is not subject to their code of conduct during times when she is not actually serving "on military duty." That alone moots the point.

Beyond that, there is the fact that since it was adopted as part of the UCMJ, there has been exactly one conviction under Article 88. -- a case in which an Army Lieutenant was convicted for carrying a sign during an antiwar demonstration that read “Let’s Have More Than A Choice Between Petty Ignorant Facists In 1968” on one side and “End Johnson’s Facist Aggression In VietNam” on the other side.

Why only one serious prosecution? Probably because the only way the provision would survive constitutional scrutiny would be to interpret it very narrowly.

But most importantly, it s ridiculous for this suggestion to appear (and be supported) on DU because it is contrary to core progressive values. While the constitutionality of Article 88 has not been passed on by the Supreme Court, companion portions of the UCMJ that are used to criminalize speech -- Articles 133 and 134 -- were the subject of First Amendment review in 1974. While five justices rejected the claim that these provisions were unconstitutionally vague, William O. Douglas, , William Brennan, and Potter Stewart dissented strongly (Justice Marshall did not take part in the case but one can pretty easily predict where he would have come out based on his other first amendment decisions). Douglas in particular cited the one Article 88 case as an example of how such restraints on speech -- even speech by members of the military -- offended the constitution.

Sadly, I fear now that there more than a few members of this board that wouldn't hesitate to label progressive champions like Douglas, Brennan, Marshall etc. as RW trolls.

Finally, turning more specifically to the facts, the only reason that Articles 133 and 134 survived constitutional attack was because the majority found that the military had published examples of what constituted a violation of those sections that sufficiently narrowed their scope and gave adequate notice as to what would be a violation. The only way Article 88 could survive would be if it too was interpreted and applied narrowly by the military -- which is exactly what has happened. The Manual for Courts Martial indicates that
Article 88 is limited to “words which are disrespectful or contemptuous in themselves, such as abusive epithets, denunciatory or contemptuous expressions, or intemperate or malevolent comments." Moreover, the Manual goes on to state that
“If not personally contemptuous, adverse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article."

One last finally -- for those so gung ho to throw the First Amendment and military law precedent out the window -- did you know that Article 88 can apply to retirees? You think that there aren't military retirees, such as John Conyers, who have had some rather harsh things to say about previous presidents? Do you really want to start down that road?

The good news of course is that no one with an ounce of sense would pursue a charge against Ernst for signing the gang of 47 letter. Which means those who want that will be spared making her a martyr (for being singled out for a frivolous prosecution) and a hero (when that prosecution fails).

In other words, as Nye and others have suggested -- Please stop. Just stop.

[Duval]

75. Thanks. I understand it

much better now.

[SunSeeker]

89. Treasonous lies are not protected speech.

Last I checked, most progressives (including you, right?)have long advocated that Cheney should be prosecuted for lying us into the Iraq War and outing Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. Are you now saying all that is protected speech?

[onenote]

92. And when did throwing around the word "treason" become a progressive value.

Now you're just doubling down.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."


I suppose you are still disappointed Jane Fonda wasn't burned at the stake.

[SunSeeker]

96. No one is casually throwing the word out. So you're fine with Cheney walking free?

Last edited Fri Mar 13, 2015, 01:38 AM - Edit history (1)

And odd that you should bring up Jane Fonda. Jane Fonda is a private citizen who did nothing to impede our government or endanger Americans. This letter does both.

[onenote]

99. Your position is that only government officials can commit treason?

Have you checked to see what country's constitution you are reading?

[SunSeeker]

160. No, that's not my position. I think Cheney is a traitor. Do you?

Funny how you refuse to answer that question.

[onenote]

163. I think Cheney harmed this country immeasurably.

I'm not sure how his actions "aided" or gave comfort to Iraq.

[SunSeeker]

169. It certainly helped al qaeda. You know, the guys who actually attacked America. nt.

[onenote]

170. Good luck proving that Cheney's intent in fomenting war was to help al qaeda

Did it help them? Yes. But that was just another one of the fuck ups of an administration that couldn't tie its shoes without fucking up.

[Telcontar]

105. Yes, yes they are

Else we'd have flag burners arrested.

Get off the fascism bus already

[SunSeeker]

159. OFFS. Burning a flag is not the same as sabotaging a nuclear disarmament deal.

Last edited Fri Mar 13, 2015, 02:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Get off the fascism bus already? Seriously?

[Telcontar]

172. Oh, I see. You're charicature

I didn't realize yours was a parody post, my apologies. Good job, by the way. You really fooled me into thinking you were a raving authoritarian with a touch of cult of persinality worship.

[niyad]

73. so breadbag joni stuck her foot in it again????

[S_B_Jackson]

81. Trumped by Article , Section 6 of the US Constitution

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

We are not at war with Iran and so they hyperbolic "Treason!" rhetoric is uncalled for and just as counter-productive now as it was back when Darth Cheney and Commander in Bunnypants occupied the Whitehouse.

[SunSeeker]

88. Section 6 specifically exempts them from protection if it is an act of treason.

How the fuck is lying to the world that our President has no power to do this treaty and falsely claiming the Senate must ratify this treaty not treasonous? How about the letter ' s suggestion that Obama is fine with Iran getting nukes?

[onenote]

90. You're joking right?

You seem to have a copy of the Constitution. I suggest you read the section on treason and then explain how the letter "aids" Iran?

[SunSeeker]

91. You're joking right?

You seem to read newspapers. I suggest you read about how Iran is now using the letter for propaganda purposes as evidence America is in "disarray." Also, the whole point of the letter is to blow up Obama's negotiations aimed at stopping Iran from building nukes. This letter directly aids Iran's efforts to build nukes that will threaten us and our allies.

[onenote]

95. so why doesn't Iran just walk away?

If they don't want to negotiate why are they negotiating?

[SunSeeker]

97. Because the deal would end the sanctions that are crippling their country. nt

[onenote]

98. Right. So tell me again how interfering with the negotiations aids Iran

They want to get rid of sanctions. If the repubs crater the deal the sanctions not only stay in place, they probably get worse.

Logic can be your friend if you let it.

[SunSeeker]

161. If the GOP craters the deal, the extremist mullahs win.

Logic (and knowledge) can be your friend if you let it.

Of course sabotaging the negotiations does not aid the ordinary citizen of Iran. But for the extremist mullahs who what to blow up Israel, this would make them happy. They can say I told you the West can't be trusted; they will be able to resume the nuke program. They don't give a shit if their people suffer under sanctions, they just want to blow up Israel. The mullahs are in a power struggle with Iranian moderates, such as they are, who are trying to show that if Iran works with the international community and ends its nuke program, sanctions will end and Iran would be better off than if it pursued its nuke program.

Sadly, the mullahs and the GOP both want the same thing: a self-destructive war. The mullahs and the GOP are thus each traitors to their own people.

[WillowTree]

100. You might want to check out Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, too.

WRT the President

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur......."

If what he's negotiating is a treaty, then it has to be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[S_B_Jackson]

167. Indeed.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Are we at war with Iran that they are the Enemy? I must have missed when that was declared by Congress - or even a AUMF vote. Or perhaps your definition is so malleable that it covers everything from not liking the color of someone's eyes to them actively taking up arms against the United States?

[Nye Bevan]

104. What a ridiculous, embarrassing thread.

And 94 recs? The mind boggles.

[COLGATE4]

116. AMEN! Thank you for the refreshing breaths of

fresh (and accurate) air on this thread.

[tammywammy]

119. Agreed.

This and calling everything under the sun treason is getting ridiculous.

[onenote]

121. Ain't that the truth.

[jmowreader]

117. Sorry, doesn't apply

DOD Regulation 1344.10 (the one about political activities) doesn't apply to reservists who aren't currently activated for at least 271 days.

If it did...the same regulation also says people subject to it can't hold elected federal offices.

[Thinkingabout]

128. Perhaps the hog castrations affected her thinking.

[Blue_In_AK]

130. So did Alaska's Dan Sullivan

who just relinquished his command of a national guard unit. He says he couldn't criticize the president while "in uniform," but now apparently all bets are off. I still think it's shameful.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/03/10/sullivan-marines-senator/24713685/

Sullivan says separating his roles isn't hard. He says he doesn't criticize the president when he wears his uniform.

[DallasNE]

132. Wouldn't This Also Apply To Sen. Graham

Last I knew he was still a reserve Officer in the military.

[onenote]

138. It even might apply to retired members of the military

if it applied at all, which it doesn't under the military's own interpretation of Article 88.

Don't believe me? See post #72.

[flying-skeleton]

139. Yes ... but

As much as I wish it were so ... There is no way the Armed Services or the White House will go after her. It'll just make it look like a vendetta and you just know the Democrats and this White House Administration do not have the teeth or backbone to take this on.

[onenote]

143. And maybe that won't because Article 88 has zero application here.

see post #72

[YOHABLO]

148. Unfortunately, you are right. We don't want to ruffle any feathers with the GOP

[onenote]

152. Or maybe, just maybe, we want to act like progressives

and honor the rule of law.

[samsingh]

146. kick

[blkmusclmachine]

147. IOKIYAR

[yuiyoshida]

175. This..

for sure, this.

[father founding]

151. Contract with America

Every Congressman should have to sign a pledge that they will only work to uphold the constitution of the USA and no other furrin gubmint..

[nakocal]

153. She needs to immediately resign her commission or be court-marshaled the next time she is activated

She needs to immediately resign her commission or be court-marshaled the next time she is activated. If Lyndsey Graham signed this letter he needs to do the same thing.

[onenote]

166. If you don't know how to spell court martial, you probably also don't know Article 88

see post #72

[DeSwiss]

158. Here's what they look like.....

- Hopefully there are still some out there with a pair working in government. Try the basement of the DOJ?

K&R

[Javaman]

168. come on, we all know nothing is going to happen to any of these traitors. nt

[calimary]

171. GUYS - RED ALERT! I just phoned my Senator's office and complained about this,

read from this (above):

29B.85 CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS.
Any person subject to this code who uses contemptuous words against the president, the governor, or the governor of any other state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which that person may be serving, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

And the staffer was interested. Asked me to send in this information so the staff could look at it and evaluate it.

I pointed out that Senator Boxer really has nothing to lose at this point, she's not running for reelection, so she could actually DO something about this. The staffer seemed interested. He wanted to know about this Iowa State Code of Military Justice, since Miss Hog-castrator is presently listed as on ACTIVE DUTY as a Lt. Col. with the Iowa Army National Guard - which means she's active military, smacking her Commander-in-Chief around in public - which sure looks like a violation to me. So I'm gonna print out a copy and mail it to them.

Now let me say this: I've taken quite a drubbing here from some DU brothers and sisters who scoff at any efforts to start a drumbeat, or voice a complaint, or sign any petition or attempt ANY action whatsoever. Which leads me to my resulting question - "so then we just sit in silence and do nothing?" I saw an item reported on MSNBC earlier this morning that said some 250-thousand people have signed a White House petition asking that the 47 TRAITORS in the Senate face punitive action for treason for that shitty little letter they signed. Well, we have TWO military types on there, including the little snot-nosed rookie from Arkansas who wrote the damn thing. There should be consequences for this. There really MUST be consequences for this. Otherwise - what's to stop them? What will they do next, if nothing's done to check this miserably horrible, reprehensible, and yes - TREASONOUS behavior? Well, 250-thousand people is an awful lot. Got MSNBC's attention, at least to put a story about it on the air. And now that such a thing is on the air, AND we also have the New York Daily News earlier this week - issuing that same label to this - remember "TRAITORS" in big bold block letters on the front page on Monday? Here, lest it be forgotten:

[img][/img]

"ooooooohhhh, you can't say TREASON... it technically is something else blah-blah-blah..." BULLSHIT. I'll say it 20 times a minute if I feel like it. Especially if it fits even in the slightest way.

Ask yourself: what would the GOP be doing if this situation were reversed? And one of theirs was in the White House and 47 Dems signs such a paper during a time of international conflict where we've currently got actual boots on the ground in actual hot zones, and the guy in the White House is the Commander-in-Chief? What would the GOP be doing now? Would they just mumble to themselves and go sit down? Or would they be stirring things up and making tons of noise about this - until it starts getting the public's attention and it starts growing and gathering momentum and metastasizing all over everywhere from coast-to-coast, and thereby becomes a very definite public "thing" to have to face and to deal with.

WHAT would they be doing? Nothing? HARDLY!

I'm printing out a copy of this and sending it to my Senator's office. We can ALL do something like that.

If they think you don't care, they won't, either! So, Dammit, let 'em know you CARE!!!!! Start the drumbeat.

[B Calm]

173. Damn right she's active! She still is on the National Guard PAYROLL!

Thank's for bringing it to Senator Boxer's attention!

[calimary]

174. Please feel free to bring it to YOUR Senator's attention.

And before you say - "but they're both GOPers..." NEVER MIND! They STILL need to hear this! They need to feel the heat, too. They need to see, hear, and understand that there's a groundswell building. And even if they don't give a damn, they still need to be made aware that this behavior is NOT okay, and there's GONNA be a backlash.

You might even consider identifying yourself as a fellow GOPer, and telling them you are horrified by how they have defiled the good name of your party, and how you find this unsupportable - even among one of your own. You might say something like -

"it's behavior like THIS that makes me ashamed of the GOP, which my parents and grandparents belonged to and were proud of, and I just can't support anymore. This has made me decide to abandon this party and look elsewhere. If this happened to a Republican President, you wouldn't stand for it for a nanosecond, would you?!"

Further, you could tell them you're a DONATING member of the GOP and you've decided you won't do that anymore, either.

THEY HAVE TO KNOW THIS SHIT HAS CONSEQUENCES. THEY HAVE TO HAVE IT SHOVED INTO THEIR FACES.

A mere statement of outrage won't do squat. As I told the staffer in Barbara Boxer's office this morning.

"I can't stand to see so much evil go unpunished." GREAT statement uttered in the Boston Marathon bomber's trial today. Evidently by one of the witnesses testifying in court. Well, I, TOO, can't stand to see so much evil go unpunished. ESPECIALLY when it's perpetrated by TRAITORS in the GOP!!!

[sheshe2]

177. This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

should be an Op, calimary. I'll print it and send it to Senators Warren and Markey!!!!!!!!!

[calimary]

181. Done.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026365069

[hopemountain]

178. calimary ~

i am calling my senator on monday and my congressman to pass on this info. thank you for keeping the drumbeat. i agree - things get done when a committed group of people work together. 250k is nothing to ignore - 1/4 million people. imagine there are hundreds of thousands of phone calls, texts, and twitters to legislators and the white house. so be it.

thanks you to kpete for the op.

[lovemydog]

179. You are correct hopemountain!

Thanks calimary and kpete too.

[Jamastiene]

180. This should be an OP.

That way more people can see it and act on it.

[calimary]

182. Done!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026365069