What if the Dept of Defense activated veterans convicted in the attack on the Capitol?

[zstat]

The veteran identified by the FBI is activated back into his military service with his former rank. He is court-martialed for sedition or treason. Honorable discharge status revoked. Benefits rescinded. And, sentenced to serve time in jail.

IMAGINE:
IF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACTUALLY ACTIVATED VETERANS AND TRIED THEM FOR TREASON COMMITTED ON 1/6, TODAY -- HOW MANY VETERANS WOULD BE PARTICIPATING WITH THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS, PRACTICING AN ASSAULT ON THE STATE CAPITOL, PLANNING TO KIDNAP THE GOVERNOR, MARCH IN A PARADE WITH A WEAPON WHERE VIOLENCE IS HIGHLY PROBABLE?

Should all organizations practice the rule. Taking the oath to defend the constitution of the United States is not a part-time oath, applicable only during your tour of duty or time in office or while your employed as a police officer. IT IS FOR LIFE. There are extra responsibilities placed on you - FOR LIFE. You are accountable while on duty, in office, in your police job AND afterwards you leave your service/office/job.

There is something wrong with the idea that one day you leave the Army as a sergeant trained in demolitions and with an Honorable discharge and the next day you join the extremist militia group in your state and practice in the woods being an armed white supremacist plotting the next attack.

Being a veteran carries continuing responsibilities. Being a former police officer carries continuing responsibilities. After discharge and upon retirement, your community expects that you continue to adhere to your oath to protect the constitution. Your community looks up to veterans and former police officers as trusting and often able adults in time of need, when help is needed when community action is needed.

[MineralMan]

1. That's more difficult than you think.

For example, when I finished my enlistment in the USAF in 1969, I was in the inactive reserve for a period of some years. I don't remember how many. With that status, I could be recalled. Once that period expired, however, I could not be.

I do not know how that works today, but I'm sure something similar is still in place.

Recalling a discharged enlisted veteran isn't all that easy. It's easier for officers, but not easy for enlisted personnel.

It's also a very costly process, which means it is almost never used.

OK, I checked. It's an 8-year total commitment, so if you serve four years, you are in the IRR for four more.:

A Long-Term Commitment
All enlistments in the United States military incur a minimum eight-year service obligation. Any time which is not spent on active duty—or in the active (drilling) Reserves or National Guard—must be spent in the IRR.

https://www.thebalancecareers.com/u-s-military-rules-for-being-recalled-to-active-duty-3357010#:~:text=Inactive%20Reserves,for%20service%20by%20the%20president.

[Wounded Bear]

2. Not as simple as that and probably doesn't work with former enlisted men.

Enlisted men serve on a contract. Now sometimes, that includes years after active service on an "inactive reserve" status, which is subject to callup in dire circumstances, not sure if this would apply. I know we used to joke that once the contract ran out our status was basically "first after women and children."

Officers are a different matter. They serve on commission, which is a little different than contract. In many cases they can be called back up because of their status as a former officer, they get to carry the title of the rank they earned around.

Nice idea, but it's not as simple as all that.

[JT45242]

3. Seems like there ought to be strings attached to those lifetime benefits...

The ONLY job in this country that guarantees health care if you held the job for 2 years without a dishonorable firing. Even congresspeople have combined age/service rules to opt in to the retirement health plan.

Teachers don't get that, firemen don't get that, police don't get that. But if you fulfilled your military of at least 24 months (assuming you enlisted after 1980) and there is no time minimum prior to 1980.

So, if you can have the ONLY totally socialized health plan in the US then there ought to be strings attached like don't commit sedition.

I think that universal health care coverage should go to all people in the US.

According to data that I found about 65% of the 20 million or so people who are eligible use those services.

My dad used to say to me that "As long I am paying, then I am saying" ... I knew that if he was financially helping me that I had to live by his rules. Seems like a simple concept that I use with my kids.

Ought to apply to these guys too.