Yes, that’s typically what happens when one changes jobs.
Yeah. There may be an issue with people with certain sensitive skills working on certain areas. But it’s normal to take the skills your employer paid for you to learn and exercise them in a new job. I don’t like the implication that employees are owned by their employer and whatever they learned belongs in perpetuity to their employer. Heck, i don’t even like one-year non-compete clauses.
Again, military jobs are fundamentally different from other jobs, and that’s reflected in a variety of different laws, including the ones already in place around this exact scenario.
I never thought the upshot of this story would be people arguing for loosening the restrictions around military personnel retiring and turning mercenary for tyrants. Color me shocked.
Will say that:
“person A servicing airplanes sold to Saudi Arabia, as specified by treaty, as a member of the armed forces, under the control and guidance of the US government”
… is morally and socially the same as…
“person B selling nuclear doctrine to Saudi Arabia because he’s a retired air force officer and needs the money”
… was not an argument I expected to see constructed either.
There may be any number of good reasons for new laws or for enforcing existing ones differently, but an employer having previously paid for training is a strange one.
Except no one is saying that. There is specific sensitive information that is still covered by restrictions. It would be just as illegal to give that information to France as it would to give it to North Korea.
But the OP and some others are suggesting a blanket restriction on working for a foreign government if you worked for the military at any point. I’m not sure why retiring from the military as opposed to stopping work should matter. The proposed restrictions are far too broad and arbitrary, it’s a classic case of overreaching.
This. I am okay saying there are certain sensitive things that no American can give to other nations. But “because the government paid to train them to do their job” is not a reason I can buy into.
What about:
Maybe it’s just LHoD who is saying that.
Like US college graduates? Or wait even HS graduates. What you are saying is that no American can work for any nation you deem run by a “tyrant”.
Please note- US taxpayers didn’t pay for those military skills- those veterans did- by their service.
I was responding to JohnT who said that people in this thread were trying to equivocate servicing aircraft as a member of the armed forces to selling nuclear secrets to the Saudis. I don’t think anyone is saying anything like that.
Sorry, I misread your post.
Even if we had laws prohibiting ex-military from working for tyrants, they’d never be applied to Saudi Arabia. Not while we have an oil-based economy. But now I’m wondering about nations that the US is willing to call out, like North Korea, or Iran. I know there’s a bunch of sanctions on both countries; does that include working there? If I got a job as a dish washer in Pyongyang, would I get in trouble with the US government?
I’m retired from the Navy and I’m working for a foreign company in a foreign country. Should I be required to forfeit my retired pay and/or my citizenship?
What about “Person B servicing airplanes in Saudi Arabia because he’s a retired air force officer and needs the money”? Is that morally and socially the same? If not, why not? Is “the control and guidance of the US government” some magic aegis that manifests moral worth? (spoiler alert: Hell no, it isn’t. Quite the opposite!)
Because that’s the direct comparison, rather than the still-beating-your-wife version you offered. LHoD isn’t talking about obviously proscribed things like selling nuclear doctrines. They were talking about any work.
And note that my argument isn’t that ex-military should be free to work for tyrants. It’s that the active US military should stop working with them first, or else the moral aspects of the argument carries the negative weight of hypocrisy.
Yes, I disagree.
-
US defence firms are currently selling arms to Saudi Arabia and other autocratic states. If it’s okay to sell military hardware to a nation, it should also be okay to sell knowledge and skills to those nations. There’s no need to focus on retired military personnel. It should be a matter of whether it’s okay for US firms and individuals to be military suppliers to those nations, or not.
-
The focus should be on the service being supplied, not the former occupation of the supplier. The Washington Post article mentions cybersecurity. It’s probably a good idea to stop retired military from the US Cyber Command from working for the Chinese government. But that ban should be applied to any US citizen with cybersecurity expertise. Law enforcement personnel, government employees, defence firm employees, software company employees, and IT personnel from large corporations could all have cybersecurity knowledge that the Chinese government might want to take advantage of. Targeting US military retirees only addresses one part of the problem.
-
The “full stop” comment sounds like a blanket ban prohibiting retired US military from working for any part of the “tyrant” government. An issue with this is that autocratic governments typically have a lot of state owned enterprises. Take Aramco in Saudi Arabia. Is a US citizen working as a contractor for Aramco working for the Saudi government? Or what about a foreign university? Any number of hypothetical situations could be created. But the question I’m posing is would a retired military person be restricted from a position with a foreign state-owned enterprise or government institution that a non-military retiree would not?
Erm, what? This is a very inaccurate description of the situation. You left over taxes, not human rights; and you were deeply and systemically invested in a system of abusing THE SHIT out of an entire race of people for material gain at the time.
Good example, as my company sells software to them. Would it be a problem for our engineers to hire themselves out to Aramco to help secure their systems? Or only if they worked in the military?
The whole blanket ban is simplistic hypocritical approach to a complex and nuanced problem.
Can the retiree work as a janitor supporting Saudi Arabia?
How do you ensure compliance with current U.S. export restrictions?
If you can’t answer, that’s fine. My company has a department devoted to preventing accidental exports. Regular employees have to jump through multiple training courses every year. It’s a huge pain, but the penalties for failure are nasty.
Certainly not your citizenship. As to your retired pay, well… certainly not under current US law. But I believe I have already been clear enough on how far I would be willing to see US law go if it proved necessary to prevent the problem seen in the OP.
Anyway, I think there is a distinction between what I think you should be required to do and what I acknowledge you might be required to do if my plan were enacted. The gap, between should and might (or would) to be filled as necessary depending upon the administrability of the chosen law for the desired end.
I am not sure about that, but you can not send funds to or fro, under OFAC regs.