4 ms·

Sure, but "without exception" is definitely overbroad. The fact that they define limits, in fact, means he still had the right because the limits would not nee

• dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Sure, but "without exception" is definitely overbroad Probably, but that only really is going to matter if and to the extent he is charged with disobeying an order, which I suspect won't be the only charge.
  • ghoward 5y ago
    What other charges do you think would stick?
    • dragonwriter 5y ago
      Before looking at the actual charges, and from the descriptions without actuslly viewing the material, I would have said: Art. 88 (Contempt for officials),, Art. 89 (Disrespect for superior commissioned officer), Art. 133 (Conduct unbecoming), and maybe Art. 134 (Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline), though for the last the preemption doctrine would apply to any conduct that actually fell into the coverage of the other articles. The actual charges that have been announced are being considered (which weren’t included when the article was first posted) include Art. 88 and 133, as well as two different disobeying-a-lawful-order offenses (Art. 90 and 92.)
      • ghoward 5y ago
        Knowing the military, they'll make those stick. We can disagree about whether he is guilty of them, or should be punished (I don't think so, considering he is critical of mistakes that lost American lives), but yeah, the military will probably make them stick. That's one reason I left before I incurred an obligation. So glad I did because I do not have to follow orders that I disagree with. Edit: Upvoted your comment because, well, you are correct.