Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

[hscs]

The requirement for the Covid vaccine was rescinded by an act of Congress that overrode DoD policy. That has zero bearing on the lawfulness of the order - now, or in retrospect. The order was lawful when it was issued. Those that disobeyed the order were in violation of the UCMJ and faced the consequences of that violation. That the requirement was subsequently rescinded has no bearing on that UCMJ violation. While I believe in redemption and second chances, these members who are rejoining the ranks are going to have to work hard to earn back the trust they lost.

I would say most that refused the vax were looking for a way out of their contact, and I would hypothesize that we see very few returning. Those that return are getting lots of press and likely not a statistically significant number.

 

[hscs]

Why is a shelter the best risk reduction strategy?

Worked well for Saddam……

 

[taxi1]

SVMs

???

@Spekkio , you make it sound like time has proven that the Covid vaccine was a bad idea, ala the My Lai massacre. It sure seems to me like time has proven the opposite in the case of COVID vaccines.

This smacks directly of the pardons of the January 6th cohort.

 

[Hotdogs]

No.

I'm saying that an order is lawful until proven otherwise. So if someone is going to disobey an order on the grounds that it's unlawful, they have some homework to do. Aka it's an 'affirmative defense.' The people who were discharged for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine were dealt with appropriately, pending further appeal.

However, that homework has resulted in courts ruling that the order was unlawful. Or rather, the government playing damage control to avoid further litigation because it knows it was unlawful. And part of being in the military is that you accept the policy decisions of civilian leadership. So you gotta get over the fact that the policy has changed. Brett is chest-thumping, but if he were still AD in command then he would color inside the lines... because almost no GOFO (advised by senior JAGs) have stood up to the policy.

So those SVMs stood their ground and won. That's commendable. I would take anyone that committed to their moral compass on my team any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

As a food for thought: the only person to have served time for the Mai Lai massacre was a 2LT, who was later pardoned. The only person who had a moral compass that day was a SGT who shot himself in the foot to bow out of the incident.... everyone else was 'just following orders.' Furthermore, no American was jailed for the unrestricted submarine warfare crimes in WWII, unlike German Admirals.

If you are active duty, then you accept the authority of civilian leadership to make policy decisions. Which means that if you disagree with their handling of COVID-19 vaccine deniers, you are wrong and they are right. If the administration changes parties in 2 years and that flips, then you also need to flip your opinion... or else again you are wrong, and they are right. You may go to jail for following the orders of one administration over the other... that's the price of a quarter million dollar a year salary.

If POTUS says you shall discharge every transgendered servicemember because they pose a threat to national security, you say aye sir. If the next administration lets them back in, you say aye sir. And again, no GOFO is making noise over it. If you think it's illegal, then argue it at your article 92 trial.

If one President says that you shall waterboard 'non-combatants' and put them into 3x3 carboard boxes, and subsequently use SERE to experiment with 'enhanced interrogation' then you do it. If the next one says that's torture, then you stop. The only person to ever stand trial for it was a whistleblower.

I want you to reconcile a vaccine denier with people who willingly tortured brown-skinned people for worshipping another religion. The almighty Brett as a JO decided that he aligned with the organization's moral values, and I decided to join them after the fact. We've all got blood on our hands.

So yeah, these things are VERY political, and we have a very long, ugly history. Welcome to the suck. Don't like it? Vote with your feet.

Did we just compare taking the vaccine to the My Lai massacre? Waterboarding? Did that just happen?

You’re out of your fucking mind.

 

[Flash]

The people who were discharged for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine were dealt with appropriately, pending further appeal....However, that homework has resulted in courts ruling that the order was unlawful.

When was the COVID-19 vaccine ruled unlawful? From what I can see the Supreme Court allowed the mandate to move forward and denied appeals of court orders ruling dismissals for refusing it along with denying further appeals of dismissals and back pay.

Mandated vaccines for military personnel is almost as old as the US military and epidemic diseases have long been a bane of all militaries to include ours, if folks can't meet the requirements of service they shouldn't be able to serve.

 

[Flash]

Any thoughts on how the B-1 evacuation from the UK foreshadow US forces overseas? Perhaps we move our aircraft to countries that fork out the cash to build various types of shelters?

A $3.8 Billion Supersonic U.S. Fleet Was Almost Wiped Out By a Glorified Child’s Toy

Operation Spider's Web proved $2,000 toys can hunt supersonic giants. Now the Pentagon is rattled.

www.popularmechanics.com

How are they any less vulnerable parked on the ramp at Dyess or Ellsworth?

As for building shelters, how about we actually create a requirement for them instead of assuming that there was some sort of deficiency on the part of the host nation? If we don't tell them, how the hell are they supposed to know to build them? Are they supposed mind readers now? Should they consult their local seers to figure out what our leadership plans to do in the next few years, much less the next few days? Or maybe we bring along some of our own portable ones?

And folks wonder why some of our friends and allies are exasperated/annoyed/angered with us and our asshole behavior recently.

 

[Swanee]

How are they any less vulnerable parked on the ramp at Dyess or Ellsworth?

As for building shelters, how about we actually create a requirement for them instead of assuming that there was some sort of deficiency on the part of the host nation? If we don't tell them, how the hell are they supposed to know to build them? Are they supposed mind readers now? Should they consult their local seers to figure out what our leadership plans to do in the next few years, much less the next few days? Or maybe we bring along some of our own portable ones?

And folks wonder why some of our friends and allies are exasperated/annoyed/angered with us and our asshole behavior recently.

Shelters aren't very effective unless you plan to keep the airplanes there and never take them out. True that it helps to minimize their time under threat, but it doesn't really solve the problem, it just shifts it to another area.

Given the emerging sUAS threat, we're sitting ducks at home just as much as we are in combat zones. We're fortunate that no one has brought that fight here.

 

[Spekkio]

Did we just compare taking the vaccine to the My Lai massacre? Waterboarding? Did that just happen?

You’re out of your fucking mind.

What I compared was the thought process behind each of these events.

If you want to take the attitude that sailors should 'respect mah authoritah' no matter what, then you get events where, in retrospect, we really wish someone or a group of people had spoken up.

When was the COVID-19 vaccine ruled unlawful?

The point of my post is that it won't ever be. We will never rule an order unlawful because that would incur criminal charges for the people who issued it (which right now is the sitting President).

The only way anyone will say we issued illegal orders is if we lose a total war and the imposing government says so.

Military law of armed conflict and international law are fake constructs. They only serve a convenient purpose to give the US legitimacy among allies.

You don't have to convince me vis a vis vaccines in a general sense. I got my 4th MMR vaccine recently because HMs can't keep paperwork properly. Now my body STRENUOUSLY OBJECTS to measles.

But the COVID-19 vaccine had an undue high risk of side effects, was only 55% effective, and had a 2-3 month half-life. Forcing people to take it was contrary to medical science that was knowable at the time. I took it because it wasn't my hill to die on, but that doesn't make the policy any less retarded.

 

[Hotdogs]

What I compared was the thought process behind each of these events.

If you want to take the attitude that sailors should 'respect mah authoritah' no matter what, then you get events where, in retrospect, we really wish someone or a group of people had spoken up.

You’re talking to several dudes here with decades of experience. You don’t think they understand the nuances of communicating commanders intent? Are you fucking retarded?

 

[ea6bflyr]

What I compared was the thought process behind each of these events.

If you want to take the attitude that sailors should 'respect mah authoritah' no matter what, then you get events where, in retrospect, we really wish someone or a group of people had spoken up.

So, by your logic, we should get rid of the oath of enlistment? You know, the whole “follow the orders” part?

 

[taxi1]

But the COVID-19 vaccine had an undue high risk of side effects, was only 55% effective, and had a 2-3 month half-life

First, which vaccine? There were at least four developed.

Second, all of your claims are wrong.

 

[Spekkio]

So, by your logic, we should get rid of the oath of enlistment? You know, the whole “follow the orders” part?

You raise an interesting question.

First thing to get out of the way is that the oath is ceremonial and not legally binding.

Second, almost every enlisted person will say that they have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders, despite that being objectively false in a legal sense. Determining the legality of orders is GOFO business, with the burden of "this doesn't seem right" falling on O5-O6s.

However, it took way more enlisted people than officers to make the holocaust happen. And "enhanced interrogation."

And we have case studies where it's appropriate for enlisted ROs to tell officers, including the CO, to pack sand if ordered to violate reactor safety. But... that's a case of you better be right or your ass is grass.

No sailors who refused to do their firefighting duties on Bonhomme Richard went to jail. Zero. And part of Eddie Gallagher's pardon is a result of the fact that there's a lot of ugly in his CoC if you lift that proverbial rock, and no one wants to.

So, at least in the Navy, orders are actually optional from a practical sense. I get that's not going to sit well with many people.

You’re talking to several dudes here with decades of experience. You don’t think they understand the nuances of communicating commanders intent? Are you fucking retarded?

Well, "retarded" was removed from the DSM for "intellectually disabled" and using the word "retarded" can get you fired for using a slur these days because it's marginally better than the n word with a hard r, but either way I haven't had a healthcare provider tell me they think I'm at risk.

Anyway, I don't follow your comment in the string... you're going off on random tangents over vaccine refusals.

"Commander's intent" is what absolved the battalion CO and company commander in Mai Lai while NCOs and platoon grade officers stood trial.

When all the COVID-19 stuff was being held at the 3-star CNP level, that's a tripwire that something's grossly wrong.

 

[ea6bflyr]

You raise an interesting question.

First thing to get out of the way is that the oath is ceremonial and not legally binding.

Second, almost every enlisted person will say that they have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders, despite that being objectively false in a legal sense. Determining the legality of orders is GOFO business, with the burden of "this doesn't seem right" falling on O5-O6s.

However, it took way more enlisted people than officers to make the holocaust happen. And "enhanced interrogation."

And we have case studies where it's appropriate for enlisted ROs to tell officers, including the CO, to pack sand if ordered to violate reactor safety. But... that's a case of you better be right or your ass is grass.

No sailors who refused to do their firefighting duties on Bonhomme Richard went to jail. Zero. And part of Eddie Gallagher's pardon is a result of the fact that there's a lot of ugly in his CoC if you lift that proverbial rock, and no one wants to.

So, at least in the Navy, orders are actually optional from a practical sense. I get that's not going to sit well with many people.

Yeah, you’re wrong.

10 U.S. Code § 502​

The Oath of Enlistment is not merely ceremonial; it is a legal requirement for individuals enlisting in the United States Armed Forces, as mandated by federal statute. This oath signifies a commitment to support and defend the Constitution and obey military orders.

 

[Spekkio]

Yeah, you’re wrong.

10 U.S. Code § 502​

Title 10 is like 5 lines of separation from an enlisted person.

 

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

First thing to get out of the way is that the oath is ceremonial and not legally binding.