TRAITOR!

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Thumpalumpacus said:
No, it's not, and my DD-256 separating me from the Reserves after my 4-year active-duty hitch specifically relieved me of duty to my oath. Needless to say, I agree with our late friend on an emotional level, but legally, no, once separated, an enlisted troop is released from obligation.

Officers, on the other hand, while released from their oaths, may be called back into commission and prosecuted under UCMJ authority for crimes committed after their service.
Click to expand...
I do not remember anything in either of the two DD-214s* (enlisted separation from Active Duty form) that said anything about being released from the oath I swore upon my first or second enlistment.


* When I re-enlisted after 4 years the USMC first separated me from active duty, then, one minute later, enlisted me for another 4 years.
 
GreenKnight121 said:
I do not remember anything in either of the two DD-214s* (enlisted separation from Active Duty form) that said anything about being released from the oath I swore upon my first or second enlistment.


* When I re-enlisted after 4 years the USMC first separated me from active duty, then, one minute later, enlisted me for another 4 years.
Click to expand...
Nothing released you from your oath. If a document was later officially declassified then you could talk about it.
 
GreenKnight121 said:
I do not remember anything in either of the two DD-214s* (enlisted separation from Active Duty form) that said anything about being released from the oath I swore upon my first or second enlistment.


* When I re-enlisted after 4 years the USMC first separated me from active duty, then, one minute later, enlisted me for another 4 years.
Click to expand...

Nor I. The astute reader will have noticed I referenced my -256, which released me from my follow-on reserve obligation. I'll see if I can dig it up and post a picture.
 
SYDNEY, May 12 (Reuters) - A former U.S. Marine pilot fighting extradition from Australia on U.S. charges of training Chinese military pilots to land on aircraft carriers, unknowingly worked with a Chinese hacker, his lawyer said.

Daniel Duggan, 55, a naturalised Australian citizen, feared requests by Western intelligence agencies for sensitive information were putting his family at risk, the lawyer said in a legal filing seen by Reuters.

The lawyer's filing supports Reuters reporting linking Duggan to convicted Chinese defence hacker Su Bin.

[...]

Su Bin, arrested in Canada in 2014, pleaded guilty in 2016 to theft of U.S. military aircraft designs by hacking major U.S. defence contractors. He is listed among seven co-conspirators with Duggan in the extradition request.

[...]

Duggan knew Su Bin as an employment broker for Chinese state aviation company AVIC, lawyer Collaery wrote, and the hacking case was "totally unrelated to our client".

Although Su Bin "may have had improper connection to (Chinese) agents this was unknown to our client", Duggan's lawyer wrote.

'OVERT INTELLIGENCE CONTACT'

AVIC was blacklisted by the U.S. last year as a Chinese military-linked company.

Messages retrieved from Su Bin's electronic devices show he paid for Duggan's travel from Australia to Beijing in May 2012, according to extradition documents lodged by the United States with the Australian court.

 
A Sydney judge on Friday ruled that former U.S. Marine Corps pilot Daniel Duggan can be extradited to the United States on allegations that he illegally trained Chinese aviators, leaving the attorney-general as Duggan's last hope of remaining in Australia.

Magistrate Daniel Reiss ordered the Boston-born 55-year-old to remain in custody awaiting extradition.

While his lawyers said they had no legal grounds to challenge the magistrate's ruling that Duggan was eligible for extradition, they will make submissions to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus on why the pilot should not be surrendered.

www.marinecorpstimes.com

Judge says Marine vet who allegedly trained Chinese pilots can be extradited

Daniel Duggan served in the Marine Corps for 12 years before immigrating to Australia in 2002.
www.marinecorpstimes.com www.marinecorpstimes.com
 
Maybe it's been covered already, but apart from any oath that he may have taken, there's still the overarching issue of ITAR, the International Trade in Arms Regulation, that prohibits exports of technical products (hardware, software, expertise, information) without a license from the State Department that specifically authorizes that transfer by that person to that end customer. It's serious stuff and violations can get you a fine of up to a million dollars if you've incorporated yourself as a business (half that if you did it as an individual) or 10 years in prison or both, for each offense, i.e. for each "thing" that got exported without a license. It's interesting to read exactly what's covered on the Dept of State's website, especially the sections about training, which includes "Military training of foreign units and forces, regular and irregular, including formal or informal instruction of foreign persons in the United States or abroad or by correspondence courses, technical, educational, or information publications and media of all kinds, training aid, orientation, training exercise, and military advice." No wonder he's fighting extradition.
 
Lots of verbal fellatio in evidence here; I strongly suspect many of those getting tumescent haven't even served. My branch of service was bound by the Official Secrets Act; we knew that its strictures lasted beyond the extent of our active service. So what? Seeing people tug themselves off discussing what they will or won't do to 'x' person just sounds like kids trying to out-boast each other. Show some decorum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Thorlifter
Bergdahl - Traitor or not
Replies
4
Views
1K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
DerAdlerIstGelandet
Back