Stand by for high seas, heavy rolls in NSW and JAGC

[Rugby_Guy]

I don’t know much about IGs or the like, but I did enjoy his take about Article 88 and the fact that there’s (apparently) a bunch of commissioned officers running around openly talking smack about the CiC and how it’s sort of bad for business when that happens.

I would also put my money on SOC Gallagher’s lawyer; he’s been pretty successful for his client thus far.

But I’m sure you disagree with his (and my) analysis on that as well. ?

I’m still waiting for the prosecution lawyers to be investigated, and charged, for their actual crimes. Not for breaking articles of UCMJ, but of the constitution.

 

[HAL Pilot]

SOC Gallagher has his retirement papers in. The SEAL Admiral directed this action to happen before his retirement date basically as a kick in the nuts fuck you on the way out the door. It would change nothing within the community as SOC Gallagher is never going back to a team or deploy again before he retires. This was purely vindictive by the Admiral.

 

[SlickAg]

I’m still waiting for the prosecution lawyers to be investigated, and charged, for their actual crimes. Not for breaking articles of UCMJ, but of the constitution.

I believe they have to pass a state’s bar exam and be licensed to practice law before they can start JAG-ing. Interested to see if their bar associations will bring them up before their disciplinary committees.

 

[xmid]

That’s fine. It is, however, POTUS’ prerogative to NOT respect that. Such as is happening in this case.

The Navy is pretty good at appearing to scapegoat people (see recent propublica article about CDR Benson), and I’m sure SOC Gallagher’s supporters (which include POTUS) feel like he is being subjected to excessive persecution. Perhaps, given such high-level attention on this issue, a better overall strategy for NSW would be to do some introspective thinking, and handle their business themselves so other people don’t feel the need to handle their business for them.

I don't see where the disconnect is here. POTUS is the CO of CO's. We've all served under CO's we weren't a huge fan of. At the end of the day you voice your concerns and tell your CO you don't agree with his direction, but if he tells you to do it you say "yes Sir" and execute. You don't continue to try to undermine his lawful order. If he's wrong, the fallout is on him.

If those guys that drew a dick in the sky had infuriated CNAF and he wanted them to be taken to mast and the CNO said no. And then CNAF said "well I'm going to FNAEB those fuckers a couple weeks before they can go to the show" and the CNO said, "no they're days from being out, just let them go." And CNAF was like, "No. Fuck the CNO (I hate that guy), I'm taking away their wings"... Would anyone here be reacting the same way?

But Trump and all...

 

[Brett327]

That’s a horrible analogy.

 

[SlickAg]

That’s a horrible analogy.

I have a feeling if you replace CNO with POTUS it’s probably close to what’s happening here with the SOC Gallagher situation.

I think @xmid was using mil/mil vice mil/CIV (albeit CiC) to illustrate his point about the chain of command.

But, again, this is all academic, because the POTUS has the final say.

 

[HAL Pilot]

That’s a horrible analogy.

It’s only horrible to you because it doesn’t meet your all knowing narrative.

 

[Brett327]

I have a feeling if you replace CNO with POTUS it’s probably close to what’s happening here with the SOC Gallagher situation.

I think @xmid was using mil/mil vice mil/CIV (albeit CiC) to illustrate his point about the chain of command.

But, again, this is all academic, because the POTUS has the final say.

Here’s a better analogy. FAA pulls a commercial pilot’s quals due to drinking while on duty. Does POTUS have the authority to override the FAA administrator and restore that pilot’s quals?

 

[HAL Pilot]

Here’s a better analogy. FAA pulls a commercial pilot’s quals due to drinking while on duty. Does POTUS have the authority to override the FAA administrator and restore that pilot’s quals?

That’s a bullshit analogy. In your scenario, the drinking compromises the pilot’s ability and competence. Taking a picture with a dead terrorist doesn’t compromise a SEAL’s ability or competence to perform his mission.

 

[Dontcallmegump]

That’s a bullshit analogy. If this scenario, the drinking compromises the pilot’s ability and competence. Taking a picture with a dead terrorist doesn’t compromise a SEAL’s ability or competence to perform his mission.

What's the underlying reason for regulations prohibiting what he did?

Alcohol has a clear and measurable detriment to anyone's skills, and judgement. Using it on duty even without getting in the air would destroy trust in a pilot or member of a flight crew to perform their duties safely and bring into question what other times does this person ignore the rules?

Similarly, what effect does breaking an established rule have on the perception of Gallaghers judgement and his superiors trust in him? Sure it doesn't make him any less able to kill, but it does cast doubt on his ability to carry out a mission to the best results including how the world sees it when the dust settles or what other rules might be conveniently forgotten when it suits him.

I recall being told once that we aren't paid for our skills, were paid for our judgement. I bet that applies to the NSW community too

 

[SlickAg]

Here’s a better analogy. FAA pulls a commercial pilot’s quals due to drinking while on duty. Does POTUS have the authority to override the FAA administrator and restore that pilot’s quals?

That’s a horrible analogy.

But if you’re asking if the pilot could end up flying again...the answer is yes. It’s a long hard road, but there’s already a process in place for that pilot to do so. Google HIMS.

And it could also happen regardless of POTUS’ political party.

 

[squorch2]

you didn't answer the question.

which is its own answer.

 

[Spekkio]

Have them all sign a Page 13, now they can't say they didn't know.

I know this is an accepted practice, but it makes my blood boil. "I didn't know the rules" is not an acceptable answer for a legal defense, it shouldn't be acceptable for committing an infraction in the military. It's your responsibility to know what is and isn't allowed.

 

[SlickAg]

you didn't answer the question.

which is its own answer.

Yeah because it displays a glaring lack of knowledge about what would actually happen in that situation. There’s several issues at play here. Actually flying a plane with a certain BAC isn’t illegal. It IS against 121 airlines’ policies though.

But yes, if the pilot was charged with a crime and found guilty, POTUS could pardon him. The question is if the pilot could get a medical. THAT would require enrollment in the program that I discussed earlier.

Does that satisfy you?

I stand by my statement that it is not a good analogy of the situation which we’re discussing. I could throw out my own stupid scenario too: imagine a Navy O-6 is charged with Article 88 of the UCMJ because of posts he made on a semi-private forum and is found not guilty by a court-martial. However, during the investigation they found he broke a law by asking one of his JOs to charge his room to their government card bc his was turned off. In doing so he violated the JTR, and is taken to Admiral’s Mast, and gets a NPLOC. Should his ensuing FNAEB take his wings and can POTUS override the FNAEB?

 

[Rugby_Guy]

Here’s a better analogy. FAA pulls a commercial pilot’s quals due to drinking while on duty. Does POTUS have the authority to override the FAA administrator and restore that pilot’s quals?

A better analogy would be if the Captain was ACUSED of drinking while flying, and then took a nap once at cruising altitude. FAA couldn’t prove the drinking, but put him in jail over the weekend anyway. Once his lawyers got him out and said “hey man, that was BS”, the airlines pulled his wing for the nap, publicly.

That’s closer to what happened here.