> The identification of the armed individuals on the convoy and near/in the WCK vehicles had not been done in a professional manner. The mindset involved in the decision making was wrong.
> It was inferred a number of times that not only had the gunmen associated with the WCK aid convoy exhibited tactics similar to Hamas, but that in fact ‘they were Hamas’.
> Head FFAM confirmed that only the video feed being used by the UAV operators was used to identify the
gunmen as Hamas.
> Mobile phone footage has emerged that appears to contradict Israel's account of why soldiers opened fire on a convoy of ambulances and a fire truck on March 23, killing 15 rescue workers.
> The video, published by the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS), shows the vehicles moving in darkness with headlights and emergency flashing lights switched on - before coming under fire. The PRCS said the video was obtained from the phone of a paramedic who was killed.
> The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) initially denied the vehicles had their headlights or emergency signals on.
Most famously due to a former US citizen turned Australian citizen awaiting extradiction back to the US for allegedly training chinese fighter pilots (although this seems to be more of an ITAR violation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Daniel_Duggan
“Retired military personnel” have completed their 20+ years of service and retired with full pension. “Veteran” refers to anyone who has served in the armed forces.
I'm not sure that it is a distinction with a difference in this specific case, because to my reading, the only folks who might not be covered publicly were those who were not officially, formally, regularly, or directly employed by military agencies, while doing the work alongside those who were so employed. Contractors, for example, may not be bound by the clause if they were not previously a reservist, a civilian DoD employee, an enlisted solider, or an officer in the armed forces. I am narrowly reading this to steelman their position, and it seems there might be some narrow wiggle room there, but I'm not sure if that's what they meant of if they're quibbling simply to have something to say. They might be technically right though, you be the judge:
> APPLICATION OF THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE TO DoD CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
AND MILITARY PERSONNEL
[The following paragraph is from the conclusion, and I think this might be Justice Department interpretations, as I don't think these issues have been tested before the Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer, nor do I speak for the military or Justice Department.]
> The Emoluments Clause to the Constitution applies to all Federal personnel. The Clause prohibits receipt of foreign gifts unless Congress consents such as in the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, 5 U.S.C. § 7342. For retired military personnel, the Emoluments Clause continues to apply to them because they are subject to recall. The Justice Department opinions referred to in this paper construe the Emoluments Clause broadly. Specifically, the Justice Department construes the Clause to include not only gifts of travel and food, but also payments such as proportionate profit-sharing. To avoid an Emoluments Clause problem resulting in suspension of retired pay, retired military personnel should seek advance consent through their respective Service consistent with 37 U.S.C. § 908. It is prudent for retired military personnel to obtain advance approval even when there is uncertainty about the Clause’s applicability.
Perhaps there's some nuanced reading of "veterans" that includes folks who aren't armed services, although I think they would likely still fall under the purview of this clause, though I am curious about the factors at play here.
Edit: I think that if you are retired and fail to comply to the Gov's liking, all foreign payments are able to be counted against any military pension you may receive. I am less certain about how non-officers who have no pension are treated, or if they are still beholden to the clause after leaving the armed forces.
Here is additional material from the Commissioned Corps Personnel Manual:
So you think that if you are a pilot that left after 19 years you can go and train Chinese pilots without permission?
Veterans is just another word for retired military personnel. If you were in the military and are not dishonorably discharged you are a veteran. Whether you do 2,3 or 20 years.
I am pretty sure the rule though applies to all regardless of discharge status.
> Veterans is just another word for retired military personnel.
A sergeant who leaves after a three-year enlistment is a veteran, but not a retiree.
The distinction matters because military retirees retain some privileges from their service, most importantly, a pension. Those privileges mean retirees fall under the emoluments clause.
However, a veteran not receiving retired pay is not subject to the emoluments clause as they have no relationship with the federal government. The Congressional Research Service states:
> Former servicemembers with no military status and not entitled to military retired pay can perform [foreign military service] on the same basis as a U.S. national who never served in the armed services. [1]
Interestingly, this implies a retiree could forfeit their retired pay to avoid being subject to the emoluments clause.
> It was inferred a number of times that not only had the gunmen associated with the WCK aid convoy exhibited tactics similar to Hamas, but that in fact ‘they were Hamas’.
> Head FFAM confirmed that only the video feed being used by the UAV operators was used to identify the gunmen as Hamas.
reply