Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

maxrandb

(16,880 posts)
10. I really don't understand this
Tue Jan 4, 2022, 11:54 PM
Jan 2022

I was a "collateral duty" Legal Officer in the Navy for several years. That means they sent me to multiple classes on the UCMJ. I handled Non-Judicial Punishment, prepared appointment letters for investigating officers, handled some routine legal matters and provided Notary Services. For more complex issues and legal matters, I would refer those to our ISICs JAG Officer

I didn't attend Law School, I just played a lawyer in the Navy.

I knew that active duty military had the ability to appeal, but I thought that went through the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

I don't understand why the Navy couldn't just take these folks to Captain's Mast for Failure to Obey Orders or Regulation. If they refuse Non-Judicial Punishment, then you take them to a Court Martial where the punishment is much more severe.

I'd like some more details. Is this just one judge, but it now goes to the full panel?

Is the military now blocked from enforcing any order or regulation?

Is that what we do now? Find some wingnut law firms and sue if a Navy Corpsman doesn't want to treat some one due to "religious preference". How about if someone says; "sorry, I can't fly that mission, or fire that weapon, or help those people because "religion".

I don't see how this doesn't just destroy good order and discipline throughout the military.

There must be more to this story.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Federal judge blocks Pent...»Reply #10