Insurrectionists should not enjoy benefits they no longer deserve.

[BoyNextDoor]

"The behavior of these individuals is not representative of the large population of American veterans, the vast majority of whom served honorably and are appalled by the thought of insurrection in the country they served," he wrote in a letter. "Yet, many of the veterans and service members who attacked their own government actively and enthusiastically enjoy benefits not available to their fellow citizens."

Such benefits include access to disability compensation, more affordable healthcare options, and vocational opportunities.

Gallego added: "This situation is unjust. Any retiree or service member who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 forfeited their moral entitlement to the support of the people of the United States."

Nearly 20 percent of the individuals charged in the riot had a military background, according to an NPR report.

Gallego, a member of the US House Armed Services Committee, asked McDonough to work with Attorney General Merrick Garland to identify the riot participants, citing 38 U.S. Code § 6104 as a rationale to withdraw benefits.

source

 

[oggbashan]

OK in theory, but if they are facing a court hearing, the court's punishment should be enough without adding yet another penalty for the same offence.

Otherwise, they will be punished twice for one offence.

Years ago, When I was a personnel manager, my company had a policy about people tried and convicted by a court.

If the sentence included imprisonment that was not suspended, the employee was terminated. He/she couldn't work for the company while in prison.

For any other punishment, I had to consider how the offence affected what the company would consider about the employee as a result of the conviction.

If it was for fraud - dismissal. The company could not trust the employee.

Affray, motoring offences etc? The employee should not be punished twice unless he was banned from driving and his work required him to drive. If so - he can't do his duties - dismissed.

Rape? Dismissal. We had a mixed-sex set of employees. We could not trust him with the staff.

Domestic assault? Depends on the circumstances of the case and whether there were wider concerns.

The overall principle was that the person convicted had received an appropriate punishment from the court. We did not intend to punish him/her twice but how did the conviction affect our view of him as a future employee. If we had lost trust? Dismissed. If the conviction did not affect whether he was competent and trustworthy? Keep and review.

 

[jaF0]

The Lt Col should be recalled to duty and Court Martialed.

And any one in any Public Safety position should lose their certifications and pension.

 

[KeithD]

The Lt Col should be recalled to duty and Court Martialed.

And any one in any Public Safety position should lose their certifications and pension.

What's the Lt. Colonel's service status? Generals are considered recallable for life. Not so with lesser ranks. If he's in the reserves and still active there, he can be recalled. If not, and he's formally and fully retired from the military, he's fully retired and can't be recalled or his benefits rescinded short of an act of Congress (which is what is being brought up). Any retired federal employees benefits can be changed by an Act of Congress.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Would it apply to insurrectionists who stormed police stations, state Capitols, the Supreme Court and other government buildings, or just the clowns that stormed the Capitol in DC?

 

[Dribble]

Only Fascist traitors support Fascist traitors

 

[KeithD]

Would it apply to insurrectionists who stormed police stations, state Capitols, the Supreme Court and other government buildings, or just the clowns that stormed the Capitol in DC?

I'm sure it would--and, I believe has been, no matter how blind to the balance of it that you've chosen to be. Storming a police station, by the way, would be chargeable, but not as insurrection, as the police, while an arm of the authorities, aren't government. Insurrection is an attack on government.

What Supreme Court institution has been physically attacked, occupied, or destroyed? I believe state capitols have only been physically attack by your friends.

The attack on the U.S. Capitol clearly was insurrection and it was insurrection clearly led by Donald Trump, who should be prosecuted for attempting a failed political coup against the United States of America.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I'm sure it would--and, I believe has been, no matter how blind to the balance of it that you've chosen to be. Storming a police station, by the way, would be chargeable, but not as insurrection, as the police, while an arm of the authorities, aren't government. Insurrection is an attack on government.

What Supreme Court institution has been physically attacked, occupied, or destroyed? I believe state capitols have only been physically attack by your friends.

The attack on the U.S. Capitol clearly was insurrection and it was insurrection clearly led by Donald Trump, who should be prosecuted for attempting a failed political coup against the United States of America.

Around 170 to 300 protesters were arrested after rioters pushed past a police barricade and were banging on the doors of the Supreme Court attempting to get in. They were incited by claims made by Michael Avanatti, Christine Blakey Ford and some other psychos during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Their efforts to get in were unsuccessful and no damage was done, although some did get into Senate office buildings where they were taken away in cuffs. If you prefer calling it an attempted insurrection I’m cool with that. Back to my question: Should all insurrectionists be denied benefits, or just the 1/6/21 gang?

 

[Comshaw]

"The behavior of these individuals is not representative of the large population of American veterans, the vast majority of whom served honorably and are appalled by the thought of insurrection in the country they served," he wrote in a letter. "Yet, many of the veterans and service members who attacked their own government actively and enthusiastically enjoy benefits not available to their fellow citizens."

Such benefits include access to disability compensation, more affordable healthcare options, and vocational opportunities.

Gallego added: "This situation is unjust. Any retiree or service member who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 forfeited their moral entitlement to the support of the people of the United States."

Nearly 20 percent of the individuals charged in the riot had a military background, according to an NPR report.

Gallego, a member of the US House Armed Services Committee, asked McDonough to work with Attorney General Merrick Garland to identify the riot participants, citing 38 U.S. Code § 6104 as a rationale to withdraw benefits.

source

Nope sorry not until and unless they are tried for and found guilty of those actions defined in this statute,IE; mutiny, treason, sabotage. And I for one am not comfortable allowing the Secretary of Defense to make that call. It should be a full-on trial. If they are guilty, do it, strip them of all benefits. But these people served honorably while in the military and because of that have EARNED the protection of due process.

38 U.S. Code 6104

Comshaw

 

[KeithD]

Around 170 to 300 protesters were arrested after rioters pushed past a police barricade and were banging on the doors of the Supreme Court attempting to get in. They were incited by claims made by Michael Avanatti, Christine Blakey Ford and some other psychos during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Their efforts to get in were unsuccessful and no damage was done, although some did get into Senate office buildings where they were taken away in cuffs. If you prefer calling it an attempted insurrection I’m cool with that. Back to my question: Should all insurrectionists be denied benefits, or just the 1/6/21 gang?

Citation, please. You aren't a reliable source.

 

[Comshaw]

Around 170 to 300 protesters were arrested after rioters pushed past a police barricade and were banging on the doors of the Supreme Court attempting to get in. They were incited by claims made by Michael Avanatti, Christine Blakey Ford and some other psychos during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Their efforts to get in were unsuccessful and no damage was done, although some did get into Senate office buildings where they were taken away in cuffs. If you prefer calling it an attempted insurrection I’m cool with that. Back to my question: Should all insurrectionists be denied benefits, or just the 1/6/21 gang?

Hmmmm...


Comshaw

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Citation, please. You aren't a reliable source.

Here are just a few of the many news reports. Are NBC News, CNN, and Reuters reliable? If not, Washington Post, ABC News, NPR, and many other outlets covered these events as well. Hopefully you can find one you trust. Back to my question: Should benefits be denied to all insurrectionists (including those that storm state capitals, police headquarters, other government institutions) or just the 1/6/2021 insurrectionists? A simple yes or no will suffice.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/kavanaugh-protests-us-capitol/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-protests-idUSKCN1LN2K3

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...pitol-hill-ahead-brett-kavanaugh-vote-n917351

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Here are just a few of the many news reports. Are NBC News, CNN, and Reuters reliable? If not, Washington Post, ABC News, NPR, and many other outlets covered these events as well. Hopefully you can find one you trust. Back to my question: Should benefits be denied to all insurrectionists (including those that storm state capitals, police headquarters, other government institutions) or just the 1/6/2021 insurrectionists? A simple yes or no will suffice.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/kavanaugh-protests-us-capitol/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-protests-idUSKCN1LN2K3

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...pitol-hill-ahead-brett-kavanaugh-vote-n917351

So all these persons, if guilty, should lose their veteran's benefits?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

So all these persons, if guilty, should lose their veteran's benefits?

That is the question I’m asking you. I believe you started this thread stating that insurrectionists should be denied veterans benefits. I’m asking if that includes all insurrectionists?

 

[BoyNextDoor]

That is the question I’m asking you. I believe you started this thread stating that insurrectionists should be denied veterans benefits. I’m asking if that includes all insurrectionists?

IMO, and in the judgement of Rep. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, a Marine Corps veteran, veterans participating in the January Insurrection should lose their benefits.

Yes it includes all insurrectionists.

 

[Dribble]

That is the question I’m asking you. I believe you started this thread stating that insurrectionists should be denied veterans benefits. I’m asking if that includes all insurrectionists?

If they vote Republican...absolutely. As far as I am concerned...no veteran should get a life-long free ride unless there is a damn good reason.

 

[oggbashan]

I still think that could be a double punishment for a single crime and therefore wrong - unless the court finds that appropriate after conviction.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Around 170 to 300 protesters were arrested after rioters pushed past a police barricade and were banging on the doors of the Supreme Court attempting to get in. They were incited by claims made by Michael Avanatti, Christine Blakey Ford and some other psychos during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. Their efforts to get in were unsuccessful and no damage was done, although some did get into Senate office buildings where they were taken away in cuffs. If you prefer calling it an attempted insurrection I’m cool with that. Back to my question: Should all insurrectionists be denied benefits, or just the 1/6/21 gang?

Lol, what a dumb boomer.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

IMO, and in the judgement of Rep. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, a Marine Corps veteran, veterans participating in the January Insurrection should lose their benefits.

Yes it includes all insurrectionists.

Got it. At least you support the principle being applied consistently.

 

[Dribble]

Lol, what a dumb boomer.

Yea...given that was several years ago...you would think the websites he visits would know how many were arrested...and not a fucking guess between 170 to 300. Besides...those detained but not charged really shouldn't count except for moron counts

 

[Paul_Chance]

Here is the official position of the VA on what happens when you're convicted of a crime. (Short answer - some benefits are reduced or denied. There is path to restoration after release.)

It would take Congress enacting a law for anything beyond this.

Veterans benefits are an earned benefit and the VA does not have unilateral control over them. Denying benefits unlawfully is a crime and you have the full range of administrative and judicial appeals available to you to have the harm remedied, including punitive damages.

I don't think we need new laws there, nor do I think it would be wise to do it, since any change in an earned benefit also impacts the veterans spouse and children.

 

[Dribble]

I still think that could be a double punishment for a single crime and therefore wrong - unless the court finds that appropriate after conviction.

Who cares? Wasn't your country they tried to overthrow. They would still be getting less than they deserve

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Yea...given that was several years ago...you would think the websites he visits would know how many were arrested...and not a fucking guess between 170 to 300. Besides...those detained but not charged really shouldn't count except for moron counts

The range estimate I provided is accurate. Different media outlets had slightly different arrest numbers and there were disruptions in 3 different buildings. Sorry you’re having so much trouble reading news reports.

 

[icanhelp1]

Got it. At least you support the principle being applied consistently.

Insurrection includes civil authority as well as a government itself, so violence against SCOTUS falls within the definition.

 

[icanhelp1]

Got it. At least you support the principle being applied consistently.

Incarceration could affect VA benefits, a reduction by 50% would start after the 60th day but I believe would be restored.