Bill Cassara
10/8/2021 04:39:54 pm
Talk about a "rocket docket."
Brenner
10/8/2021 05:16:45 pm
Up for a road trip?
Bill Cassara
10/8/2021 06:09:41 pm
Could be fun but, alas, I am out of town.
Anon
10/9/2021 11:02:53 am
I'll take the over under there is SPCM deal. Why do this otherwise? IT would give the G a contested trial over what would be contentious political questions. This is the "I will be quite and get out of jail and the G gets its message sent...." Looks like a good deal for both sides and deescalation.
Tami a/k/a Princess Leia
10/10/2021 11:04:59 pm
Why would there be a deal in this case? I see an overly broad order not to post anything to social media or to communicate through 3rd parties, which means it's an unlawful order, general griping at former secretaries and former presidents, which doesn't count for "contempt of officials," discussion about preferring charges against General McKenzie, which he can legally do, general acknowledgment by senior officials that withdrawal from Afghanistan was a SNAFU. And while some disagree with the way he's spoken out, there are a lot of people who support him and think higher of him for daring to speak the "truth" as opposed to toeing the company line.
CTC
10/11/2021 01:45:12 pm
The incentives for a litigated court-martial aren't there, even if the order was overly broad (I doubt it was---there are several regulations prohibiting mere unprofessional conduct on social media that have been around for years--none of which have been successfully challenged that I'm aware of). So good luck with any argument that being ordered to refrain from posting derogatory comments about command on social media is an unlawful order. That's a non-starter, IMO. Comments are closed.
|
Links
CAAF -Daily Journal -Current Term Opinions ACCA AFCCA CGCCA NMCCA Joint R. App. Pro. Global MJ Reform LOC Mil. Law Army Lawyer Resources Categories
All
Archives
April 2022
|