Clandestine Cluster Fuck

[Gunnar Larson]

DHS

-------

Any person, subject to the UCMJ, who, at an alleged place and time, has
made a statement on or about a particular subject, so as to encourage
disaffection, disloyalty or both, or to interfere with or impair the
loyalty and morale among the members of the armed forces, the civilian
population or both, would be violating the Article 134 and shall be
punished as deemed fit through a court martial. The statement thus made by
the accused person is considered an offense, if it is in anyway disloyal to
the United States.

The elements of crime that should hold true, for the accused to be guilty,
are as follows:

The accused person should have actually made the alleged statement
The statement should have been made in public
The statement made was disloyal to the United States
The statement promotes or encourages the troops or the civilian populace to
be disloyal, hostile or both towards the United States
The statement impairs and/or interferes with the morale, the discipline or
loyalty towards the United States, of a member or multiple members of the
US armed forces.
The nature of the statement was such that it brings upon discredit to the
US armed forces or it disrupts the discipline and the good order of the
armed forces.
EXPLANATION OF THE OFFENSE
Under this punitive Article 134, a disloyal statement is a result of the
accused person’s conduct, which is prejudicial to the good order and
discipline of the armed forces and which brings upon discredit to the armed
forces. This means that the accused had acted or behaved in such a way as
to distort the armed forces discipline and to harm the reputation of the
service in general.

A person is said to have “made” a statement only if it was spoken, written,
published or printed, uttered, issued or put forth for circulation by him
or her. The statement is said to be made “in public” only when it was made
openly in the presence of many people, who have the knowledge that the
alleged statement was actually made by the accused.

The alleged statement made by the accused should incite disloyalty, where
the term disloyalty implies being untrue or unfaithful to the United States
as a whole. It is important to note that being disloyal to the US armed
forces, a government department of the United States or any other
organization need not necessarily be disloyalty towards the United States.

Similarly, the accused must have, by making the statement, promoted
disaffection, which means disgust, ill will, or a hostile attitude towards
the United States. Again, any disaffection towards the US armed forces or
any particular organization or group may not necessarily be disaffection
against the United States.

To be more precise, the accused person’s behavior, which constitutes
willful disobedience or encouraging another member or members of the
military or the civilian populace to disregard an order is not equal to
disloyalty, disaffection or both towards the United States. It must also be
noted that if a person is in disagreement with a policy or objects to it,
it does not in any way indicate that he or she is promoting disloyalty or
disaffection towards the United States.

MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT
Should the accused person be proven guilty under the Article 134, after the
evidence obtained by the court proves beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused made statements that promote disloyalty or disaffection towards the
United States, then he or she shall be subject to a maximum punishment of
no more than three years in confinement.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 4196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20230128/5c1483aa/attachment.txt>