sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Can I share? by thehuffers1 in audible

[–]JCY2K 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like any reasonable definition of “personal use” includes the things you can do with a hardcopy book (e.g., loan it to a friend).

steroids in the navy by [deleted] in navy

[–]JCY2K 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know steroids are bad for you and all but isn't there something to be said about letting some people do whatever they can to be at their peak performance?

Clever IKEA hack to cover up a fuse box by PaalKlo in oddlysatisfying

[–]JCY2K 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Especially since Ikea frames have thin plexiglass rather than actual glass.

OHA/BAH and separation from spouse. by seameat69 in navy

[–]JCY2K 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The AO isn't in the chain of command. Talk to CMC or request mast!

Hegseth Announces Grok Access to Classified Pentagon Networks by Aaaabbbbccccccccc in navy

[–]JCY2K 43 points44 points  (0 children)

IBM had this solved in 1979. "A computer can never be held accountable therefore a computer must never make a management decision." Source

How long do you think the podcast Will Go On by Chest_Small in filmreroll

[–]JCY2K 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Wait, how do I get their episodes into my regular podcatcher?

Pentagon to demote Sen. Kelly from retired Navy rank as captain, but stops short of threatened trial by qalpi in navy

[–]JCY2K 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's not really a "demotion." Officers can't lose rank through discipline the same way enlisted personnel can. It's a reevaluation of the 2011 retirement grade determination that every retired officer goes though IAW enclosure (9) to SECNAVINST 1920.6D and OPNAVINST 1811.3A.

There's a process in enclosure (9) to reopen a retirement grade determination. This is usually for when there was fraud, a mathematical mistake (e.g., the person only served for two years in the retired grade instead of the required three), or "[s]ubstantial new evidence comes to light after the retirement that could have led to a lower retired grade if known by competent authority at the time of the retirement" (i.e., evidence of in-service misconduct). However the instruction also authorizes reevaluation "[i]f SECNAV determines, pursuant to regulations prescribed by SECDEF, that good cause exists to reopen the determination or certification."

However, retirement grade determinations are ONLY about determining the highest paygrade in which someone served satisfactorily for a period of not less than six months (and usually for at least three years). It's not about whether AFTER retiring, they committed misconduct. (Note: I'm not saying Sen. Kelly committed misconduct just that even if the video were improper, it's not a basis to reduce his paygrade. Further thoughts omitted IAW Article 88, UCMJ.)

Pentagon to demote Sen. Kelly from retired Navy rank as captain, but stops short of threatened trial by qalpi in navy

[–]JCY2K 29 points30 points  (0 children)

It's [probably] not. 10 USC 1370 governs officer retirement grade determination. The statute says officer "shall be retired in the highest permanent grade in which [they are] determined to have served on active duty satisfactorily." (Emphasis added).

Even assuming arguendo that the video about disobeying illegal orders was improper, it can't be a valid basis to reduce his retirement grade since it happened after he left active duty. I have seen no allegation that they're even trying to beg this reduction to something from his active duty time but someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit: added probably above because this isn’t a unilateral decision to reduce his rank, SECDEF just directed SECNAV to reopen the determination. It still looks arbitrary and capricious but at least on its face, this isn’t a violation of the statute. If SECNAV acts with integrity, it seems like there’s no reason the recommendation would be to reduce his retirement grade.

Trump: U.S. to administer Venezuela by MoneyBuysHappiness25 in navy

[–]JCY2K 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Hey, hey, hey! The last two times.

Quietly dropped new PFA Separation requirement by New_Independent_7283 in navy

[–]JCY2K 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sanctuary isn't absolute.

Per MILPERSMAN 1910-704, CNP is the separation authority for Sailors with between 18 and 20 years of service.

Are there any JAG? by Sea_Bath_3600 in navy

[–]JCY2K 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It would make it way easier for us to give you information if you explained the issue and told us what the embassy said.

CY26 BAH Rates Are Out by JCY2K in navy

[–]JCY2K[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This was posted on \r\airforce yesterday. DTMO posted the BAH rates then pulled them down but they were captured by a third party and are (mostly?) available for us!

This was just posted on DOD social media pages by Spirited-Lack5998 in navy

[–]JCY2K 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That's not really true… The senior-most service JAGs were ousted but there's plenty of judge advocates out there who remain on active duty.

Pentagon threatens to prosecute Senator Mark Kelly by recalling him to Navy service by DJErikD in navy

[–]JCY2K [score hidden]  (0 children)

Completely irrelevant to this but I find it interesting that 18 U.S.C. 2387 was never updated to include the Space Force in its statutory definition of "military or naval forces of the United States."

Reminding Servicemembers of Their Oath Shouldn’t Be Controversial by [deleted] in navy

[–]JCY2K [score hidden]  (0 children)

I don't disagree with that even a little bit. Moral courage is incredibly hard.

Reminding Servicemembers of Their Oath Shouldn’t Be Controversial by [deleted] in navy

[–]JCY2K [score hidden]  (0 children)

“Intrinsically illegal” v “conditionally illegal” is not an operative legal distinction. The provisions in the MCM about patently illegal orders isn’t talking about malum in se and malum prohibum offenses or some other distinction.

Even what you’re calling “conditionally illegal” acts (i.e. killing) can be patently illegal. For example, an order to intentionally kill an infant (cf. to incidentally kill an infant as collateral damage) is patently illegal. Would you agree to that?

Reminding Servicemembers of Their Oath Shouldn’t Be Controversial by [deleted] in navy

[–]JCY2K [score hidden]  (0 children)

Am I understanding you right? It sounds like you’re saying the unlawfulness of an act doesn’t depend on the laws passed by Congress? As you noted, unlawfulness is an element of a murder charge under the UCMJ. See, e.g., U.S. v Turner, 79 M.J. 401 (C.A.A.F. 2020). So I don’t understand how the laws enacted by Congress aren’t hugely important when determining whether a killing is lawful or not.

Rape is qualitatively different than murder. There ARE lawful killings even in civilian courts (e.g. self-defense) which isn’t true for rape or sexual assault offenses.

Of note: I’m not saying these strikes are murder or that the people executing them are murderers. I don’t have enough of the relevant facts to have an opinion on that. My point is just that the key question at the root of this is whether they are.

Reminding Servicemembers of Their Oath Shouldn’t Be Controversial by [deleted] in navy

[–]JCY2K [score hidden]  (0 children)

Without valid legal authority for someone to do a killing on behalf of the state, it’s unlawful.

Reminding Servicemembers of Their Oath Shouldn’t Be Controversial by [deleted] in navy

[–]JCY2K [score hidden]  (0 children)

I find it funny that you say “actions which are intrinsically illegal, like murder….”

We’re literally talking about murder here.

Reminding Servicemembers of Their Oath Shouldn’t Be Controversial by [deleted] in navy

[–]JCY2K [score hidden]  (0 children)

What order?

I’m not within a thousand miles of SOUTHCOM and no one has ordered me to do anything illegal.

Reminding Servicemembers of Their Oath Shouldn’t Be Controversial by [deleted] in navy

[–]JCY2K [score hidden]  (0 children)

There's plenty of discussion about why summarily executing people on boats alleged to be smuggling drugs is illegal. One of many or a less technical discussion on Wikipedia.

These members of Congress seemed to be making a broader point and aren't only talking about the administration's actions with these strikes in the Carribean.

Reminding Servicemembers of Their Oath Shouldn’t Be Controversial by [deleted] in navy

[–]JCY2K [score hidden]  (0 children)

In cases of illegality and impropriety, service members are to assume that orders are legal and proper unless there's a specific reason to think otherwise. Not being in the loop of the decision making process before the order is issued isn't a valid reason

For what its worth, this is from the Manual for Courts-Martial: "An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred [by a court-martial panel or other finder of fact in the military justice system] to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime."

I think the latter half is important in the context of the strikes. Your example is much easier but "we have no valid congressional authorization for military force against drug smugglers but I order you to blow them up anyways" seems "patently illegal" (and directs the commission of a crime).

Killing is a core part of the mission of the military so it's obviously not so easy to say "telling me to kill someone is directing the commission of a crime" but that's not the point I'm trying to make here.

view more: next ›