'Scared' Ex-Generals Stay Silent Over Fear Trump Will Use Rare Military Law Against Them

[babylonsister]

‘Scared’ Ex-Generals Stay Silent Over Fear Trump Will Use Rare Military Law Against Them
by Lesley Abravanel | November 4, 2025 - 6:24am

— from Alternet


A military law that allows prosecution against ex-generals and retired senior military officers who speak out with "contemptuous" statements against President Donald Trump has rendered many silent, according to a report in the San Antonio Express News.

"Generals, admirals and other top commanders no longer in uniform are worried the administration might pursue criminal charges, tax investigations or other legal retribution against them," they report.

Retired military officers are worried because of Article 88, a section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice titled “Contempt Toward Officials," the newspaper reports.

Under this law, "officers can be court-martialed for speaking 'contemptuous words' about the president, vice president, defense secretary, members of Congress, the U.S. secretary of Homeland Security and the governors or legislatures of any state."

This is why many are staying silent even as they vehemently disagree with actions of the Trump administration, including the strikes on boats in the Caribbean under the guise of a war against alleged drug traffickers.

"The Trump administration is using the law as a weapon to go after its enemies, exact revenge and suppress dissent," said Frank Kendall, who was secretary of the Air Force under President Joe Biden and, according to the Express News, has been sharply critical of Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

more...

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/lesley-abravanel/115341/scared-ex-generals-stay-silent-over-fear-trump-will-use-rare-military-law-against-them

[Lovie777]

2. And the suffering of the USA and her people continue?.......................

democracy dies?

Speak up, show up, most know the evilness and wrong doing, stop him before it's too late.

[Hotler]

3. The Merick Garland effect. Im scared....

[duckworth969]

4. Mortgages and pensions

Losing everything after 30 years of service, I don’t know how I would feel about that if I were in their shoes.

From my vantage point, that would be a hard call especially if you have others depending on you.

Sigh, it’s all a hot mess that will not end well.

It’s going to come down to an illegal order that will be refused by the ranking officer on site.

Having said that, I also believe some of our troops would fire on civilians. All it takes is a few shots.

I wish I didn’t feel that was true, but two words have taught me to believe otherwise: Kent State.

[MineralMan]

5. The Military Can Have Restrictions on Members, Both Active and Inactive.

You serve your term of duty as an enlisted person, and you get discharged after your term of enlistment expires. Except that you actually don't. I served four years in the USAF, but was in the inactive reserve even after my term of enlistment was ended. I don't remember how many years that was, and it never restricted me from doing what I pleased after my discharge.

There were other restrictions, as well. I worked in an job that involved Top Secret materials, some of them SCI documents. When I was discharged, that did not free me from restrictions about that work. For 10 years after that, I had to notify the USAF if I traveled outside of the USA. I was barred from traveling to certain countries for an indefinite period of time. As far as I know, I still cannot go to those countries. I also cannot reveal some things about the work I did. Even though some of it has been declassified, not all of it has, and there's no clear boundary about that. So, I say nothing other than the things I was told at the time I could talk about. I just don't know what I can discuss and what I cannot. Nobody's watching me, of course, but there's always a risk.

For senior officers in the US military, the restrictions are even tighter. Really, you can't ever completely retire from the military if you are in that category. You can be relieved from duties when you retire, but you are always subject to being recalled to duty. So, that's what's going on with the issue in this thread. You take an oath when you join or are commissioned. You are never relieved of that oath. It remains part of your life.

[maxrandb]

6. Don't surrender, or obey in advance

Last edited Tue Nov 4, 2025, 02:13 PM - Edit history (2)

as a retired military officer, I have a very simple take on this issue.

First, the extremely rare and unprecedented "recall" to active duty has only been used in extremely limited cases when crimes were committed while on active duty and discovered AFTER retirement, or for particularly despicable crimes, like murder, rape, treason, kidnapping, production and distribution of child porn. In the entire nations history, there has NEVER been a retired veteran recalled to active duty to face a Courts Martial for mean tweets about a president. In fact, the act of recalling a retired veteran to active duty to face UCMJ charges, is considered so extreme, that only the Secretary of the branch concerned has the ability to do so.

Second - if we are in a country where the Secretary of the Army, Air Force, or Navy would recall a retired veteran for this...

- if we are in a country where that veterans neighbors, family, friends, coworkers, fellow parishioners and community would stand by and allow that to happen....

- if we are in a country where a senior flag officer would convene a Court Martial for this veteran....

- if we are in a country where a senior JAG officer would agree to serve as the presiding judge in this veterans trial...

and

- if we are in a country where 6 of the 8 Active Duty Officers and Enlisted assigned as Court Martial members would convict this veteran...

then

THE COUNTRY THIS VETERAN SERVED HONORABLY FOR 20-30 YEARS IS NO LONGER WORTH FIGHTING FOR!