Guy Noll
LightNews LightNews
banner
guynoll.bsky.social
Guy Noll
@guynoll.bsky.social
420 followers 1.1K following 250 posts
I'm a recovering hydrographer and former GK interested in democratic values, government services, mapping and spatial analysis, and the health of this ocean planet. Experience mapping coastal NE Pacific from SF Bay to Bering Sea. LAFC is my team.
Posts Replies Media Videos
guynoll.bsky.social
Bombogenesis
November 27, 2025 at 7:11 AM
Reposted by Guy Noll
kragar.bsky.social
They got it, deployed rootkits and created backdoors, and all our systems are compromised now
November 26, 2025 at 4:45 AM
Reposted by Guy Noll
paulginva.bsky.social
Tracey Gallagher has a thorough legal explainer here.
Tracey Gallagher @asmartbrunette1 Follow Seriously, this is nothing but political theater. 10 U.S.C. § 688 (recall of retirees) is not a blank check§ 688 authorizes recall only in specific circumstances (national emergency declared by the President or Congress, wartime, or to meet "operational requirements"). The Secretary of the Navy must personally approve each recall, and the retiree must be needed for a specific billet or skill. It cannot be used as a punitive tool to drag a retiree back solely for court-martial on old or dubious charges. See DoD Instruction 1352.1 (Management of Regular and Reserve Retired Military Members) and United States ex rel. Pasela v. Fenno, 167 F.2d 593 (2d Cir. 1948) courts have historically rejected punitive recall attempts. Jurisdiction over retirees is limited and shrinking: Retirees are subject to UCMJ only for offenses committed while on active duty or certain very narrow post-retirement acts (e.g., wearing the uniform falsely, accepting foreign employment without approval under Article 2(a)(4)-(6)). Purely political speech or activity after retirement is not UCMJ jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) in United States v. Dinger, 77 M.J. 452 (CAAF 2018) and the Army Court of Criminal Appeals in United States v. Phillips (2021) have both emphasized that retiree jurisdiction is narrow and does not extend to ordinary civilian political activity. 18 U.S.C. § 2387 ("sedition" against the military) is almost certainly unconstitutional as applied here. This Cold-War-era statute (part of the 1940 Smith Act progeny) has never been successfully used against a retiree for political criticism of policy or leadership. It criminalizes advising servicemembers to disobey "lawful orders" with intent to cause insubordination. Post-Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and Watts v. United States (1969), it is read extremely narrowly - there must be incitement to imminent lawless action that is likely to produce it. General political criticism (even harsh criticism of the chain of command or policy) does not meet that standard. No modern federal prosecution under § 2387 against a retiree for protected speech has ever been upheld. First Amendment protection is at its zenith for retired senior officers commenting on matters of public concern: Retired flag/general officers and astronauts have an especially strong claim to speak on military policy and leadership. See United States v. Howe, 37 M.J. 617 (N-MCMR 1993) (dismissing Article 134 charges against a Marine major and that was for protesting the Vietnam War while off duty an active-duty servicemember). Post-retirement speech is civilian speech. The Supreme Court in Parker v. Levy (1974) explicitly distinguished active-duty restrictions from civilian ones. The "lawful order" presumption does not apply to hypothetical future orders. The statement's reminder that "orders are presumed lawful" and personal philosophy does not excuse disobedience is irrelevant unless a specific, actual lawful order was disobeyed. Threatening prosecution for possible future hypothetical disobedience is textbook prior restraint. No Secretary of the Navy in the modern era has ever recalled a retired 0-6 or higher to active duty solely for court-martial on political-speech grounds. Attempts to do so (e.g., the 2006 threatened recall of retired generals who criticized Rumsfeld) went nowhere because the legal footing is extraordinarily weak and the political blowback would be catastrophic. Military retirees are subject to the UCMJ only in the narrowest circumstances, none of which include post-retirement political speech protected by the First Amendment. 10 U.S.C. § 688 cannot be weaponized for punitive recall, and 18 U.S.C. § 2387 does not criminalize criticism of policy or leadership. Any attempt to recall and court-martial a retiree for protected speech would be immediately enjoined by a federal court. This is not a serious legal threat; it is intimidation theater. @CaptMarkKelly
November 24, 2025 at 8:25 PM
guynoll.bsky.social
Ok. They get their opening in February.
November 23, 2025 at 5:57 AM