Subject: Re: Buffett from Barron’s,

Kahuna, Milley is retired

SNIP So how can retired military members make public statements against a political candidate, a political cause or a sitting politician? The reason is that DoD Directive 1344.10 -- Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces, which governs active-duty political participation, is limited to just that: active-duty members only.

DoD Directive 1325.06 -- Handling Dissident and Protest Activities Among Members of the Armed Forces is also limited to active-duty members only.

Since the rules contained in the DoD Directives explicitly state "a member of the Armed Forces on active duty" are subject to the regulation, any active-duty member who violates the rules contained in the directive may be charged under UCMJ Article 92 -- Disobeying a Lawful Order. The lawful orders, in these cases, apply only to active-duty members.

While retirees are technically subject to the UCMJ, they are usually only charged under it for serious crimes. In fact, Army Regulation 27-10 states, "Army policy provides that retired Soldiers ... will not be tried for any offense by courts-martial unless extraordinary circumstances are present."

The military can, and does, still court-martial retirees if the charges are serious enough. The military's legal authority and scope are being challenged in the courts at this time. SNIP

https://www.military.com/benef...

Milley has a genuine concern in that there is a directive that can be ignored by Trump as he is the Commander in Chief, and can reactivate someone at will. It isn't clear if a Trump appointed judge presides how they will react and rule. Could be messy.

It isn't clear at all to me how someone can be prosecuted for something they said while retired, but evidently Trump was talking about doing that at one point and Milley protected them.