Military Justice?

[Rams]

Trump intervenes in military justice cases, grants pardons

The President is the military’s Commander In Chief, he has full authority to exercise this under his Constitutional powers.    He also has access to information that most will never see or understand.   Many civilians do not understand military rules and regulations.   Many do not understand Rules of Engagement.    I’m curious about how other veterans feel about the President’s decision to pardon two individuals and restore the rank of the other in these cases where military tribunals found them guilty.

Rams

[Jess from VA]

I have not done much reading on the specific cases mentioned.

But I think the US Military needs to police it's own with an eye toward trying to be the guys wearing the white hats in international conflict.  When running around places like Iraq and Afghanistan, it's important the local populace see us as liberators and not conquerors.   Outright murder, rape, arson or robbery of innocents and civilians warrants punishment.  

But some of these cases look more like political correctness and misguided micromanagement of men in combat than wartime military justice.  And men in combat should always be given wide leeway and every benefit of the doubt (and certainly deserve to believe they have the full support of national command authority, lest good men decide military service is not a worthwhile occupation).

And having policed our own for worldwide image, I generally am in favor of granting clemency after the dust has settled.  Especially when all our wars since Vietnam are in places where we fight enemies who do not serve in uniform, who follow no rules of lawful warfare, and who will murder and torture our service members without remorse or restraint.  Spending one or more tours in combat never knowing exactly who the bad guys are must be a nightmare.  Shooting first and asking questions later seems like a good plan to me, though it is an imperfect plan.  



 

[scooperhsd]

Generally - I trust what other military officers have decided - as a rule, I'd say that most military trials are far harder on the defendents than the comparable civilian trials, and deservedly so. I would want to know more on the specifics of each case before commenting on those specific cases.

[DDT (12)]

Second guessing decisions is… so many things. For some it is as simple as ‘what is the political party affiliation or ideological persuasion of the decision-maker’? If he/she is one of ‘them’, then naturally he/she is completely wrong. If he/she is one of ‘us’, then their decisions are obviously spot-on!

For others, the personal need to ‘virtue signal’ or ‘intellectual signal’ comes front and center in opinions rendered and expressed.  Choices of support or condemnation usually follow personal biases but are offered more to bolster the image of the opinioned than to advance the discussion or to seek ‘justice’.

The commander in chief is indeed empowered to grant clemency. As you well-stated, he/she will have far more information than those who would presume to second-guess decisions. Even for those who have been convicted by a tribunal, we can never know of evidence ‘excluded or allowed’ that might have tipped the scales the other way, but because of ‘technicalities’ were either allowed or barred. We can never know of other factors like simple compassion, or disagreement with assessment of evidence and verdicts rendered, that might influence choices.

The CIC is elected by the people of a nation to represent them and to exercise his/her judgement in matters of importance in their behalf. I’m inclined to defer to the CIC in matters of this sort, regardless of labels, likes or dislikes, petty personal inclinations. My personal judgement is usually withheld, even if I trust it more than I do that of the CIC, because his/her right to do so combined with my gross ignorance of the details simply would not allow me to fairly criticize, condemn, or complain… or necessarily endorse...

DDT

[old2soon]

             The former potus forgave bergdahl. RIDE SAFE.

[MarkT]

            The former potus forgave bergdahl. RIDE SAFE.

Given the abundance of blatant errors - especially rooted on politico which pretty much ALL were, not blind justice - he made, I'd say judging based on such a precedent would be invalid.  And I'd also guess that ALL such decisions by pretty much ALL potus office holders, are politically based, with fairness not much in the mix.  IOW - my next time around, if I am the focus of such a decision, I don't think I want the potus to have his finger on my "pardoned" button.  Unless of course his politics align with mine.

[Gryphon Rider]

He also has access to information that most will never see or understand.   Many civilians do not understand military rules and regulations.

Having access to information does not mean the information is actually accessed or intelligently evaluated by the person with access.  When you believe you're always the smartest man in the room, you can't be told anything that contradicts your presuppositions.

From 'Willful Ignorance.' Inside President Trump's Troubled Intelligence Briefings:

In the wake of President Donald Trump’s renewed attacks on the U.S. intelligence community this week, senior intelligence briefers are breaking two years of silence to warn that the President is endangering American security with what they say is a stubborn disregard for their assessments.

Citing multiple in-person episodes, these intelligence officials say Trump displays what one called “willful ignorance” when presented with analyses generated by America’s $81 billion-a-year intelligence services. The officials, who include analysts who prepare Trump’s briefs and the briefers themselves, describe futile attempts to keep his attention by using visual aids, confining some briefing points to two or three sentences, and repeating his name and title as frequently as possible.

What is most troubling, say these officials and others in government and on Capitol Hill who have been briefed on the episodes, are Trump’s angry reactions when he is given information that contradicts positions he has taken or beliefs he holds. Two intelligence officers even reported that they have been warned to avoid giving the President intelligence assessments that contradict stances he has taken in public.

That reaction was on display this week. At a Congressional hearing on national security threats, the leaders of all the major intelligence agencies, including the Directors of National Intelligence, the CIA and the FBI contradicted Trump on issues relating to North Korea, Russia, the Islamic State, and Iran. In response, Trump said the intelligence chiefs were “passive and naïve” and suggested they “should go back to school.”

[MarkT]

He also has access to information that most will never see or understand.   Many civilians do not understand military rules and regulations.

Having access to information does not mean the information is actually accessed or intelligently evaluated by the person with access.  When you believe you're always the smartest man in the room, you can't be told anything that contradicts your presuppositions.

From 'Willful Ignorance.' Inside President Trump's Troubled Intelligence Briefings:

In the wake of President Donald Trump’s renewed attacks on the U.S. intelligence community this week, senior intelligence briefers are breaking two years of silence to warn that the President is endangering American security with what they say is a stubborn disregard for their assessments.

Citing multiple in-person episodes, these intelligence officials say Trump displays what one called “willful ignorance” when presented with analyses generated by America’s $81 billion-a-year intelligence services. The officials, who include analysts who prepare Trump’s briefs and the briefers themselves, describe futile attempts to keep his attention by using visual aids, confining some briefing points to two or three sentences, and repeating his name and title as frequently as possible.

What is most troubling, say these officials and others in government and on Capitol Hill who have been briefed on the episodes, are Trump’s angry reactions when he is given information that contradicts positions he has taken or beliefs he holds. Two intelligence officers even reported that they have been warned to avoid giving the President intelligence assessments that contradict stances he has taken in public.

That reaction was on display this week. At a Congressional hearing on national security threats, the leaders of all the major intelligence agencies, including the Directors of National Intelligence, the CIA and the FBI contradicted Trump on issues relating to North Korea, Russia, the Islamic State, and Iran. In response, Trump said the intelligence chiefs were “passive and naïve” and suggested they “should go back to school.”

I'm afraid that is likely true and is just scary.  Reminds me of similar reports on dealing with - hold onto your hat - a LOT of history at the very top of the Third Reich.  This may upset many here but even if you don't care to hear it, dig into the history - the Fuerer was all about denial of bad reports and often blamed the messenger.  And yes I voted against Hillary.

[scooperhsd]

Except that disagreeing with Der Fuhrer was alot more likely to end up with your life hanging in the balance.... Don't remember any comments about Stalin.

[MarkT]

Except that disagreeing with Der Fuhrer was alot more likely to end up with your life hanging in the balance.... Don't remember any comments about Stalin.

That's not an exception to my observation.  I didn't say DT does exactly the same as AH's reaction.  But he reacts badly and negatively to news contrary to his position as did AH.  And the reaction is against the messenger (and the message).  I find this discomforting.  But not surprising any more.

[Oss]

interesting observations
Our soldiers, airmen, sailors and others are on occasion, for different reasons,
given orders that may place them on the wrong side of a map line or border or
what have you.

Am I bothered by the recent clemency decisions no, but the deserter one bothered me under Obama

I still think Obama should not be prosecuted for the Mexican gun thing or his other deeds but that Hillary should be and if the trail leads back to him that is another matter

The CIC should not be under any impeachment scrutiny re Ukraine, or anything else presently   He is doing his job, unlike the Congress

The Executive is supposed to have power, if we dont like it we vote on election day  we dont waste 100's of millions on impeachment.  Comparisons to Hitler or Stalin are way out there  DDT hit it pretty much on the head, as usual

[scooperhsd]

Trump is nowhere near Hitler and Stalin - he just has the "I'm the smartest person in the room" syndrome and reacts negatively when it is shown that he isn't.

And yes - I also feel this impeachment crap is way out of bounds for Congress to be considering. Doesn't mean I like Trump - but I think the democrats are playing dirty and doing everything they can (legal / illegal, moral / immoral, etc.) to get him out. If they really have better ideas to run the country, then show it with the election coming up.

[MarkT]

I'm saying that there are behavior parallels that are scary to me and should be to others as well.  As for me, I'm thinking the reason Trump won the white house is because of who the Dems ran against him.  Many many including me voted for the least bad of candidates who could win rather than waste a vote. Not like my vote counted in this now blue state.  And there has never been a president here in our times with behaviors that are so un-presidential.  I'm guessing probably since Washington but I have not observed them or studied their details before - so many of them before my time.  I'll add I will NEVER vote dem their values are just too opposite of my paradigms.  But dammit let's have presidential candidates who act presidential not name calling and schoolboy behaviors we've seen lately.

[Jess from VA]

Granting clemency following criminal convictions is not the same thing as astute understanding of intelligence briefings.  

0's interference in the Bergdahl case was far from right thinking (and was clearly a purely politically motivated act).  Abandoning (and deserting) your post and comrades in time of war and in the face of the enemy is not deserving of (much) clemency.... though I might not have been too unhappy if a death sentences had been commuted to 15-20 years.  And how do you suppose that action was viewed by rank and file combat troops?
  
Examples must be made, but the execution of Eddie Slovic (the only American soldier to be court-martialed and executed for desertion since the American Civil War) was a very sad affair.  

Generally, I favor clemency (after some period of confinement) for most service members for misconduct while serving in combat.  That is the hardest and most dangerous job on the planet and it has long and short term effects on people.  There but for the grace of God, go I .....

Each case must stand and be reviewed on it's own merits though.

[The emperor has no clothes]

For sure those who have forgotten already. Obama did not pardon Bergdahl. He was court martialled, given a sentence, without any interference by Obama.

[MAD6Gun]

For sure those who have forgotten already. Obama did not pardon Bergdahl. He was court martialled, given a sentence, without any interference by Obama.

 Yeah but he did trade that worthless POS for five known terrorists that likely went back to fight and kill our military again. Not to mention the lives that were lost looking for that traitor when he went awol.

 I'm happy that these guys were pardoned. One was convicted for killing a unarmed terrorist. SO WHAT. These ISIS pricks put people in cages and then set them on fire. They are animals plain and simple and deserve to die as such.

[Rams]

I don't know each story or defense so I am unable to make a judgement.   I do know that military tribunals are susceptible to "politically correct" and international pressures.   That doesn't mean these decisions/convictions were based on PC or international pressures.   I have been on a couple of aviation boards that decided the future of an aviator's status and career future.   I can say that in those two cases, PC had no effect.   We tore the wings off of those two aviators (who were eventually separated from the military).   Ya don't come up hot on a Pee test and expect to keep flying is all I'm gonna say.   The rules/regs are pretty clear on what's gonna happen.   Blaming the spouses addiction and second hand smoke won't cut the mustard.

There are orders given, ROE issued and International treaties to be considered but, I wasn't there and don't know the circumstances of the three convicted and now pardoned personnel.  Did President Trump pardoned/restored the rank to get additional Conservative support?  Based on what I believe about our President, I doubt it.   He did it because of his "Take no prisoners attitude" and his desire to support our soldiers in the field, at least, that's my opinion.   

Is it right or wrong in the eyes of the rest of the world?   Don't give a rat's posterior.   If, the decisions made "in the field" were meant to protect our own troops, so be it.   That does not suggest I am in favor of murdering just anyone that wonders into the area.   But, those wonderers better have a good reason to be there and better not make any threatening moves because, I'm gonna protect the folks under my leadership.

Rams

[The emperor has no clothes]

I don't know each story or defense so I am unable to make a judgement.   I do know that military tribunals are susceptible to "politically correct" and international pressures.   That doesn't mean these decisions/convictions were based on PC or international pressures.   I have been on a couple of aviation boards that decided the future of an aviator's status and career future.   I can say that in those two cases, PC had no effect.   We tore the wings off of those two aviators (who were eventually separated from the military).   Ya don't come up hot on a Pee test and expect to keep flying is all I'm gonna say.   The rules/regs are pretty clear on what's gonna happen.   Blaming the spouses addiction and second hand smoke won't cut the mustard.

There are orders given, ROE issued and International treaties to be considered but, I wasn't there and don't know the circumstances of the three convicted and now pardoned personnel.  Did President Trump pardoned/restored the rank to get additional Conservative support?  Based on what I believe about our President, I doubt it.   He did it because of his "Take no prisoners attitude" and his desire to support our soldiers in the field, at least, that's my opinion.   

Is it right or wrong in the eyes of the rest of the world?   Don't give a rat's posterior.   If, the decisions made "in the field" were meant to protect our own troops, so be it.   That does not suggest I am in favor of murdering just anyone that wonders into the area.   But, those wonderers better have a good reason to be there and better not make any threatening moves because, I'm gonna protect the folks under my leadership.

Rams

Only two of them were convicted. The one hadn't went to trial yet.

[old2soon]

       We as Military Men and Women Are/Were held to a Higher Standard. As well we should be because any of the 5 Military Branches represent The United States of America. I'm Not privy to the reasons for pardons or their original convictions. I also believe President Trump has our Militaries best interests at heart. Again while Not privy to the information our P O T U S has/had he might have felt the pardons were the best course of action for those involved. RIDE SAFE,

[scooperhsd]

Speaking of pee tests -

I'd imagine old2soon had a different environment than those of who came later. As a midshipman in the early 80's - popping positive was a quick exit from the program. By the time I had graduated college / was in the training command - it was all officers. Within a year or 2 it included senior enlisted, then midgrade ( E4-E6), then finally all personnel. Afloat - it was handled as NJP, the standards were to the max that the CO (holding NJP) could do - usually busted a paygrade, max time restriction / extra duty / etc.

[old2soon]

Speaking of pee tests -

I'd imagine old2soon had a different environment than those of who came later. As a midshipman in the early 80's - popping positive was a quick exit from the program. By the time I had graduated college / was in the training command - it was all officers. Within a year or 2 it included senior enlisted, then midgrade ( E4-E6), then finally all personnel. Afloat - it was handled as NJP, the standards were to the max that the CO (holding NJP) could do - usually busted a paygrade, max time restriction / extra duty / etc.

            No names or ranks BUT I've picked up my fair share of Pilots that maybe shouldn't have flown that day.  Those Ford and Dodge crew vans smelled of sweat until about a month before we were to depart CONUS and then the alcohol fumes were STRONG. Helped certain Pilots on take off couple times. Had to help on one landing. Use yer imagination. RIDE SAFE.

[Jess from VA]

In Strategic Air Command, if you peed positive for weed, you could get an Article 15 only if 1st term enlisted (often followed by an admin discharge).  All others got a court martial, usually with a Big Chicken Dinner (Bad Conduct Discharge).

I was sent TDY to Comiso AS Sicily to defend a 1st term airman security specialist being court martialed for positive pee for weed.  His first question was why was he being courted when first enlistments always got an Article 15.  It was because he personally guarded GLCM nukes with a machine gun.  He said he only shared a joint on the beach with girls while on leave way up Palermo, never on duty.  I believed him, but how could command know that?  He had a good record otherwise and I saved him from a BCD, but he got 3 months in jail, E1, and loss of his job and clearance, and I'm sure he was later discharged.

The best story I ever heard was of a fellow judge advocate captain in AK, who peed positive for coke.  And his nanogram count (parts per million) was the highest anyone had ever seen.  He had prosecuted a number of airmen for drug use during this tour, and at his General court martial, during sentencing, they played a tape recording of the sentencing argument he had made against one of those airmen.  It must have been a good argument because he got the five year maximum sentence, in Leavenworth.

Do stupid things, win stupid prizes.

Another case that I found amusing was representing the wing commander's senior enlisted advisor (E7).  He was long married (very unhappily) to a French woman and they lived in married housing on Incerlik AB Turkey.  He fell in love with his Turkish janetress who cleaned his workplace.  The only way her family would let them date was if they married, so he married her (too), downtown (she knew he was already married).  They were going to court martial him,  but I reminded them under our NATO status of forces agreement, the Turks had primary jurisdiction for non military offenses, and they would find out and demand he be turned over to to them (and we'd have to comply)(and we never let that happen if at all possible)(and we didn't need the bad press we'd certainly get), so being retirement eligible, I got him retired in one week (which was a lot of paperwork).  During this time, his French wife was out for blood and wanted him keel-hauled, until I explained to her if he was convicted with a punitive discharge, he would be jailed, and penniless (with no pension), and they wouldn't even ship their household goods home.  She had a miraculous change of heart about the whole thing,

Polygamy is one of the rarest crimes for a reason.  

Then there was the guy who got a 15 for farting at his squadron section commander (this was apparently disrespect).

There's more, but I'll spare you.

[old2soon]

           I recall that the first time we were in Japan off the ship we had some interesting things read to us. The Forces agreement was something along the lines if the Japanese L E Os got you on a civil charge and you were incarcerated in a Japanese jail for the crime when you were released even IF your hitch was over the U S Navy was NOT done with you. Don't recall the exact wording but along the lines of you weren't available to do your assigned tasks in Uncle Sugars Canoe Club. My time in was Feb 1964 to Feb 1968. Another thing bout the Navy-if you were unlucky enough to get brig time the U S M C ran the brigs. Only thing they hated more than a sailor in the brig was one of their own in the brig. RIDE SAFE.

[Jess from VA]

Yes Dennis, because enlisted men serve certain (contractual) periods (years) of enlistment, any bad time incurred during that enlistment is added to the end of your scheduled date of separation.  To my knowledge, it's always been that way.

Besides foreign (or domestic) incarceration time, any debilitating injury or disease you get during service which is found in a formal Line of Duty Determination to be... not in line of duty, due to own misconduct will add all of the time missed from duty to the end of your current enlistment (if it's not bad enough to court martial you or administratively separate you from service right away).  One that comes to mind is an airman in the dorm who took his dirt bike out on base at night with no lights and clothes-lined himself on a telephone pole support cable.  (And as an aside, once you separate from service, you cannot get service connection for that injury or disease and either money benefits or medical care for it from the VA if incurred not in line of duty, due to own misconduct.)

Any bad time given is documented on every DD214 issued at the expiration of an enlistment.

The upside of foreign incarceration is that every branch of service has regulations requiring the judge advocate to monitor your trial with an interpreter (for some semblance of due process), and personally visit you in jail to make sure you are OK and being treated well or given medical, allowed mail, and you can get a chaplain on request or a military doctor if necessary.  I had this duty for an unfortunate member of the US Army doing two years in Turkish prison for black marketing.  In Turkey, the USAF JAG undertook several functions for all branches of service located there as they had no jags in country.

[Newstart2k]

US Navy moves to kick SEAL Trump pardoned out of unit
by Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) Nov 21, 2019

The US Navy on Wednesday began a procedure that could remove from its elite SEALs unit an officer accused of war crimes whom President Donald Trump pardoned last week.

Along with three other unidentified members of his unit, Edward Gallagher, 40, was "notified today that a process will start to evaluate and look at their continued service as SEALs," spokeswoman for US special forces Tamara Lawrence told AFP.

A panel of Navy SEAL officers will convene in December to decide whether Gallagher can remain in the unit, Lawrence said.

The panel will give its opinion to the commander of the US Navy special forces, Rear Admiral Collin Green, who will make recommendations to US Navy command, which will make a final decision, she added.

In July, Gallagher was acquitted of charges related to the stabbing death of a wounded Islamic State prisoner in Iraq, and of other killings of civilians.

But he was convicted of posing with the slain fighter's body in a group picture with other SEALs.

Gallagher's case was championed by Fox News, which is closely followed by Trump, and last week the president reversed the military court's decision to reduce Gallagher's demotion following his conviction

He also pardoned a former US soldier convicted of murder and a Green Beret charged with killing a suspected Taliban bomb-maker.

Lawrence declined to say whether the proceedings started on Wednesday had been opened in response to Trump's moves.

"Discussions have been ongoing since before the president's action," she said, but the sailors concerned "were notified today."

The procedure is administrative and not legal, and even if they are excluded from the SEALs, they will be able to continue serving in the Navy.

[old2soon]

          Should he be bounced from the SEALS no matter where he goes in the Navy his career is basically dead. Being bounced from an organization as elite as the SEALS Will Always be a black mark on that mans record. He might play three different kinds of hell hanging onto to his post service benefits. Jess would Know more bout that than i would. RIDE SAFE.

[Jess from VA]

It's natural for a military branch (or the corporate world) to take action in justification of it's previous actions (especially when pardoned or commuted).  Barring any further troubles, I think Chief Gallagher's future pension and benefits are pretty well secured.  The Navy may move him out of the Seals and put him some place they know he won't like, and his chances at future promotion are probably gone, but as long as he performs at a satisfactory level, he can probably earn his living as long as the rules permit.

When I was getting out of HS, I had buddies show me pictures their older brother's had sent home from Vietnam, with dead Viet Cong bodies and heads held up for the camera.  Everyone alive in the pictures seemed to be smiling and having a good time.  I don't recall anyone ever getting in trouble for those pictures, back in the day.   It may be macabre humor but what other kind of humor do you expect from wartime battlefield service?  (Hey mom, miss you and wish you were here?)

My mom told me that the WVU med students in her day used to take pictures of the dead bodies they were practicing on, holding up and eating pieces of chipped ham from cadavers.  Certain career fields seem destined for macabre humor.  If that's criminal behavior, its definitely in the low misdemeanor variety, like jay walking.  

[MarkT]

While the war was going on the observed viewpoint of the upper echelons from the first-termers place was they looked the other way against such misconduct like tokin weed off duty and haircut / uniform violations by the working crew.  They needed to keep warm bodies to do the work during an unpopular war; the draft was going on to keep the ranks populated.  After the war was over then the enforcement began - they needed to reduce the ranks so then strict adherence to AFI 36-2903 (current reg #) that might cause attrition became the norm. Previous to that weed and such were considered relatively harmless apparently.  At U-Tapao the base commander was more concerned there would be an epidemic of streaking - said anyone doing that, the penalties would be SEVERE.  I recall tokin up a doobie on the ball park when a U-2 spyplane took off, turned almost vertical, and rotated the belly at me.  I got so paranoid they just photographed me takin a hit I crushed it out and vamoosed before the SP's showed up with the bracelets. Yeah it was pretty good weed, driving that paranoia...

Cheap weed in SEA might be laced with strong opiates so airmen / grunts etc might return to the world with an expensive and dangerous habit created by smoke that required a needle to service here.  We didn't have Jess' viewpoint on the legal consequences of the JAG while I knew a couple guys who ran afoul of it.  Just about all first term enlisted I knew was smokin off duty without getting busted by being somewhat low profile on that.  My hair was in violation of the regs and I was not "squared away" uniform-wise at that time.  I once was yelled at for wearing sandals in uniform but that was it.  I knew some guys who were doing stronger stuff like acid but didn't hang with them for long.  I quit doing weed sometime in my 20's as I realized the harm to memory and such and to this day stay away from it.

[old2soon]

        My first deployment the Yorktown was already at Yankee Station. A large area in the water we patrolled. What I immediately became aware of was for those that kept their hair regs weren't really adhered to. Also beards were legal while deployed. Tats weren't a big deal then either. I chose to shave my head to deal with the heat and humidity. BUT when going on Liberty your Uniform had best be 4.0. The transition from an operational unit off Nam to rules and regs in CONUS was a Very Abrupt change and you had from Hawaii to San Diego on the ship to git at least 98% squared away. Maybe 5  6 days. Beards gone hair legal attitudes adjusted. And remember to salute and say Sir when that had been overlooked due to the tempo of the ops. We showed Respect at sea but way more relaxed respect. I only got my ass in a crack at A School at N A S Memphis. Found out yer not sposed to call an E-5 (i was an E-3) an azzhole even though he was an azzhole. I week restricted barracks. And That was expunged from my permanent record. Didn't mean to wander but oh well!  RIDE SAFE.

[Jess from VA]

We had a new direct appointment 1Lt refer to a JAG school instructor Major as.... Yo' Maj'.

It was funny, and even the major laughed, but he insisted the guy stop doing it, lest he use it on someone without a sense of humor.  Once someone makes O6 Col, they insist on Col or Sir... but His Holyness is out.

To enhance the reality of evidence in my mock trial in JAG school, I xeroxed up some black and white twenty dollar bills, and broke off two cigarette butt filters and twisted them up to look like joints; bagged up and fitted with chain of custody receipts.  Holy crap they got all excited when they thought I was counterfeiting and using real mary jane in the classroom.

[scooperhsd]

I think everybody goes through something like that - when is it necessary to use proper military Rank name and when first names / nicknames are acceptable. Your Major at JAG School sounds like he was a pretty cool guy.

[Jess from VA]

I think everybody goes through something like that - when is it necessary to use proper military Rank name and when first names / nicknames are acceptable. Your Major at JAG School sounds like he was a pretty cool guy.

Yes I can't remember his name now.  You might appreciate this, during my time in JAG school (4/84), 8 of the instructors (O3-O5) (including this major) did a fair impression of the old Sha-Na-Na 50's style dancing and singing group.

They all wore the basic blue uniform with short sleeves, navy blue jacket zipped to the top with the collars turned up, dark Buddy Holly shades, greased back hair, and bright white sox with their pants tucked under the sox.

We were mostly in classrooms, but there was a big theater conference room for the whole class we used every day, and on a few occasions, they would come in and do a song and dance routine A cappella that was not bad, and absolutely hilarious.  The course was extremely challenging and amounted to a full semester of law school crammed into 7 weeks, so it was a great bit of needed comic and stress relief.

I have a picture of them on my office wall to this day, posing all dressed up looking 50's tough, around the deputy jag school commander's mint white drop top 57' Tbird.  (I can't post pics here)

They called themselves Jag-Na-Na.  Inevitably, they had to do a command performance for our Judge Advocate General when he visited the school.

It was drilled into us that since we enforced the laws and regs against the entire USAF, we were expected to set the standard in uniform, custom and courtesy, and professionalism.  But amongst ourselves, we had some fun when we could.

 

[Rams]

Based on the news I'm reading about the restored rank of the Seal Team member, the brass is not wanting to keep him on their team.   President Trump has interjected his opinion and has indicated the Seal should remain with the unit.

Being honest, I don't agree with the President.   Teams like this are a brotherhood.   While the Team has not offered their opinion, the Brass in charge have and they don't want him as a team member.  On this one, I'm thinking President Trump should keep his tweeting to himself.

Rams   

[Willow]

Based on the news I'm reading about the restored rank of the Seal Team member, the brass is not wanting to keep him on their team.   President Trump has interjected his opinion and has indicated the Seal should remain with the unit.

Being honest, I don't agree with the President.   Teams like this are a brotherhood.   While the Team has not offered their opinion, the Brass in charge have and they don't want him as a team member.  On this one, I'm thinking President Trump should keep his tweeting to himself.

Rams   

By office the President is Commander in Chief.  That makes every member of the military, all branches, subordinate.  Whether you and I agree or disagree it is his choice to involve his rank in that or any other decision.

I do wish the President would use Twitter less bu I'm not young and that may be the way of the future.   

[Jess from VA]

I do wish the President would use Twitter less

I support him all the way.  But I agree.  The tweeter is his free speech medium (because he's not going to use press conferences or fireside chats to get his words/opinions out), and I get it.....  but the tweeter seems to add to the perpetual circus frenzy, rather than defuse the frenzy.

Everyone who's sick of the frenzy raise your hands.

I'm starting to think our parliament should be dissolved (at least for about six months).  Wouldn't that be wonderful?

And double Xanax for everyone (go ahead and spend tax dollars for it, we're OK with it).   

[MarkT]

 

I vaguely remember, isn't that character on the right "Bowzer"?

[Jess from VA]

I dunno.  At that time, I was not a fan of their music or shtick.

[scooperhsd]

That gentleman with his mouth wide open (was a schtick of him) is Bowzer (I believe (about 95% certain)).

[Rams]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/11/24/pentagon-chief-fires-navy-secretary-over-seal-controversy/23866923/

Somehow, I think there is more to this story than is being put out.

Rams

[scooperhsd]

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/11/24/pentagon-chief-fires-navy-secretary-over-seal-controversy/23866923/

Somehow, I think there is more to this story than is being put out.

Rams

Just remember who POTUS is and some of his traits. That's all I'm going to say about it...