By Medeea GreereJune 21, 2025Updated:June 21, 20252 Comments7 Mins Read
Share
군사재판 폭로: 모독과 결과 – 불복종하는 군 장교에 대한 군사재판의 CASE
진실을 밝힐 준비가 되셨나요? 거짓말에 지치셨나요? 지금 바로 텔레그램 채널에 가입하세요. 이제 진짜 이야기를 들어볼 시간입니다! 계속 소식을 받아보세요! 모든 독자분들께 감사드립니다!
군사법원: 대통령과 국방부 장관을 제2의 히틀러 또는 민주주의에 대한 위협으로 비난하는 퇴역 장교는 UCMJ를 위반하는 행위입니다. 헤그세스 국방장관은 이들에게 책임을 물어야 합니다.
어뮤즈 리포트: 군인복무규율은 낡은 유물이 아니라 군 기강의 근간이자 민주적 통치의 보호막입니다. 이제 피트 헤그세스 국방부 장관이 결정적인 시험에 직면한 가운데 군형법은 질서와 혼란을 막는 마지막 장벽으로 서 있습니다. 당면한 문제는 사소한 규약 위반이 아니라 군에 대한 민간인 통제의 핵심을 건드리는 노골적인 불복종입니다.
일부 퇴역 장교들은 헌법 88조와 133조를 무모하게 위반했으며, 남은 문제는 이 행정부가 기강을 회복할 의지가 있는지에 대한 의문뿐입니다. 이 장교들이 책임을 지지 않는다면 민간 권위의 약화, 군 엘리트들의 무분별한 도전, 공화국 자체를 위태롭게 하는 거버넌스의 위기 등 그 결과는 끔찍할 것입니다. 퇴역 장교들은 여전히 군사법원의 관할권에 속하며, 그들의 계산된 불복종은 단호한 조치로 대응해야 하는 위협입니다.
이러한 군법회의의 필요성을 이해하려면 먼저 관련 법령을 살펴볼 필요가 있습니다. 제88조는 위촉된 장교가 대통령에 대해 ‘경멸적인 말’을 사용하는 것을 명시적으로 금지하고 있습니다. 이 조항의 의도는 분명합니다. 국가의 방위를 위임받은 군 장교는 개인적 불만보다는 헌법과 지휘계통에 대한 충성을 바탕으로 비정치적인 행동을 유지해야 한다는 것입니다.
장교답지 않은 행동을 다루는 제133조는 명백한 불복종을 넘어 고위 군 지도자에게 기대되는 품위와 규율을 훼손하는 행동과 발언을 포괄합니다. 트럼프 대통령과 헥세스 장관을 공개적으로 악의적인 공격에 가담한 퇴역 장교들은 이 두 가지를 모두 위반한 것입니다.
These officers are not mere commentators or private citizens exercising their First Amendment rights unencumbered. They are retired generals and admirals who continue to receive government pensions, a reminder that they remain, in legal terms, part of the armed forces. They enjoy privileges from their service, from security clearances to advisory roles, yet they have weaponized their prominence to undermine the legitimacy of a duly elected president. This is not about policy disagreements; this is about a cadre of military elites who believe they are above the democratic system they swore to defend. Their public statements, laden with disdain and outright contempt, have emboldened insubordination among the ranks, threatening good order and discipline.
One of the most egregious examples is that of retired General James Mattis. His public letter in 2020, in which he excoriated President Trump as a divisive leader who “does not even pretend to try” to unite the country, was a blatant violation of Article 88. While cloaked in the language of statesmanship, Mattis’s words were intended to delegitimize the Commander-in-Chief in the eyes of the armed forces. He was not alone. Admiral Mike Mullen, another former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, claimed he was “sickened” by Trump’s use of military force to quell violent riots, a remark that cast doubt on the administration’s lawful exercise of authority.
Admiral William McRaven went so far as to declare that Trump was “destroying” the country, an inflammatory statement unbecoming of an officer and clearly contemptuous under the UCMJ.
Other notable examples include General John Allen called Trump’s leadership “the beginning of the end of American democracy.” General Martin Dempsey publicly warned against the use of troops domestically, a direct rebuke of the Commander-in-Chief’s authority. General Colin Powell declared that “Trump lies” and had “drifted away from the Constitution.”
General Stanley McChrystal labeled Trump “immoral” and untruthful. General John Kelly openly questioned Trump’s character and honesty. These statements were not policy critiques; they were outright attacks on the legitimacy of civilian leadership.
The contempt did not cease with Trump’s presidency. These same figures, along with General Mark Milley, continued their insubordination by directing their ire toward Secretary Hegseth, undermining his authority before he had even begun his tenure. Milley, who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Trump, has reportedly called the new Secretary of Defense “unfit for command,” a direct attack that carries the weight of his former office. General Barry McCaffrey questioned Hegseth’s judgment and ethics, while General Lloyd Austin rebuked Hegseth’s stance on women in combat, declaring “enough already.” Major General William Enyart dismissed Hegseth as “spectacularly unqualified.” These are not mere critiques of policy but attempts to delegitimize the administration’s authority.
The result? A Pentagon where senior officers feel emboldened to openly question the legitimacy of their civilian overseers. The military is not a debating society. It is an institution predicated on hierarchy, order, and unwavering discipline. If those at the highest echelons of command believe they can openly defy civilian leadership without consequence, what message does that send to the lower ranks?
This is not a slippery slope argument; it is a reality already unfolding. Recent reports indicate an increase in officers speaking out against administration policies, citing the precedent set by these retired flag officers. The failure to act decisively now will only exacerbate this problem. A military that allows its senior leaders—active or retired—to publicly attack the legitimacy of its Commander-in-Chief is a military on the path to lawlessness. Today, it is public letters and interviews. Tomorrow, it is coordinated disobedience.
Some will argue that court-martialing retired officers for their words is excessive, even authoritarian. This is nonsense. The precedent for disciplining retired officers is well-established. For example, in 1921, retired Major General Peter C. Harris was reprimanded for public criticisms of the War Department. More recently, in 2010, retired Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski was demoted for conduct unbecoming an officer.
The UCMJ applies to them for this very reason: to ensure that their conduct does not degrade the integrity of the military. To suggest that Mattis, Mullen, McRaven, Milley, and their ilk should be exempt is to assert that senior officers deserve privileges that the rank-and-file do not. A private in the Army who publicly called the President a “threat to the Constitution” would face swift disciplinary action. That generals have been able to say as much, and worse, without consequence is an injustice that must be rectified.
The enforcement of Articles 88 and 133 against these individuals is not a matter of retribution; it is a matter of maintaining discipline, ensuring respect for the chain of command, and upholding the principle that military leaders serve under civilian authority. The Biden administration turned a blind eye to the contemptuous rhetoric from these figures because it was politically expedient. The Trump administration must not repeat that mistake. If Secretary Hegseth allows these violations to go unpunished, he will not only undermine his own authority but embolden future insubordination. These men must be made an example of. The future of civilian-military relations depends on it.
WAR COMMAND UPDATE — BREAKING: COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF ENGAGES — “THE GORILLA IS COMING” AS TRUMP UNLEASHES MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN; AYATOLLAH FLEES TO BUNKER — GREEN LIGHT CONFIRMED [VIDEO]
BREAKING: President Donald J. Trump, Commander-in-Chief, gives green light for a direct military strike on Iran — “The Gorilla is coming.” As missiles prepare to launch, the Ayatollah retreats to an underground bunker. War has begun. Surrender is not an option.
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF ENGAGES — “THE GORILLA IS COMING” – VIDEO
SEE ALSO: WAR COMMAND UPDATE: TRUMP’S STRATEGIC STRIKE ON IRAN IMMINENT — NUCLEAR TARGETING CONFIRMED, E-4B DOOMSDAY PLANE DEPLOYED NEAR D.C. – https://amg-news.com/war-command-update-trumps-strategic-strike-on-iran-imminent-nuclear-targeting-confirmed-e-4b-doomsday-plane-deployed-near-d-c/
ARTICLE SOURCE: https://x.com/amuse/status/1894411575869522257
답글 남기기
댓글을 달기 위해서는 로그인해야합니다.