USN takes DDG out of service

[D5CAV]

They have been for a very long time. A bunch of shots I would not have gotten except the .mil wanted me to (and extremely ill for some of them). I do not see why this situation is different.

Maybe his argument is that cerveza vaccines were not part of the deal when he joined, which reminds me of a joke that was circulating around army.mil circles a few years ago:

SGM for a brigade comes into the brigade commanders office and says, "Sir, I just put in my retirement papers. I want to tell you I've really enjoyed the last few years working with you. It capped a great 30 year career in the US Army."

BG says, "But Sergeant Major, I just put you in for CSM of the Division! You still have a great career ahead of you! If you play yours cards right, you could be SMA before you retire!"

SGM say, "Sir, I really appreciate your confidence in me. That means a lot to me, but when I joined the US Army, any small sign of homosexuality got you kicked out. When I was a junior NCO, it was "don't ask, don't tell". When I was a senior NCO, it was OK to be completely out of the closet. Now it's a prerequisite for promotion."

BG say, "That's true. Do you have a problem with that?"

SGM say, "No sir, but I just want to get out before it becomes mandatory!"

[blackeagle603]

"They have been for a very long time. A bunch of shots I would not have gotten except the .mil wanted me to (and extremely ill for some of them). I do not see why this situation is different."


And if you don't see why this is different at this point I reckon odds are low you ever will.

I just missed being dismissed for refusing and now am in limbo as .gov contractor illegal rqmt remains not fully resolved/put to bed.

[Vonz90]

"They have been for a very long time. A bunch of shots I would not have gotten except the .mil wanted me to (and extremely ill for some of them). I do not see why this situation is different."


And if you don't see why this is different at this point I reckon odds are low you ever will.

I just missed being dismissed for refusing and now am in limbo as .gov contractor illegal rqmt remains not fully resolved/put to bed.

I see why it is different, and don't think the vaccine should be mandatory, but it is still a lawful order.

[D5CAV]

I see why it is different, and don't think the vaccine should be mandatory, but it is still a lawful order.

Maybe.

That's why the case is in front of a federal judge who is hearing arguments from the USN as to why it is a lawful order and from the CO as to why it is not a lawful order.

The judge will make a decision as to whether it is a lawful order or not, and then it is up to the losing party to appeal.

While the case is still in litigation, you can always file an Amicus Curiae with the court stating your support of the USN's case.

Unless you are admitted to the bar someplace, you will have to pay a lawyer to file it for you.

You might want to come up with a better legal argument than "it is still a lawful order", but it's your money, so up to you.

[Vonz90]

I see why it is different, and don't think the vaccine should be mandatory, but it is still a lawful order.

Maybe.

That's why the case is in front of a federal judge who is hearing arguments from the USN as to why it is a lawful order and from the CO as to why it is not a lawful order.

The judge will make a decision as to whether it is a lawful order or not, and then it is up to the losing party to appeal.

While the case is still in litigation, you can always file an Amicus Curiae with the court stating your support of the USN's case.

Unless you are admitted to the bar someplace, you will have to pay a lawyer to file it for you.

You might want to come up with a better legal argument than "it is still a lawful order", but it's your money, so up to you.

Strange thing to say, I am not litigating anything. I am giving my opinion, as you are giving yours.

There is a lot of precedence for the military mandating vaccine, is that in question? If it is to you that is strange but your business.

If this CO or anyone else wants to hang their hat on overturning the order in civilian court, good luck to them I guess. Definitely trying to pull an inside straight there but maybe it will work out. He is the one risking his career on a rather thin reed. His career is over even if he wins; so there is no winning.

[Vonz90]

A superior’s order is presumed to be lawful and is disobeyed at the subordinate’s peril. To sustain the presumption, the order must relate to military duty. It must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order. Finally, it must be a specific mandate to do or not to do a specific act. In sum, an order is presumed lawful if it has a valid military purpose and is a clear, precise, narrowly drawn mandate. United States v. Moore, 58 M.J. 466 (C.A.A.F. 2003). The dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot excuse disobedience. United States v. Stockman, 17 M.J. 530 (A.C.M.R. 1973).

https://ucmjdefense.com/resources/milit ... rders.html

[D5CAV]

Strange thing to say, I am not litigating anything. I am giving my opinion, as you are giving yours.

There is a lot of precedence for the military mandating vaccine, is that in question? If it is to you that is strange but your business.

If this CO or anyone else wants to hang their hat on overturning the order in civilian court, good luck to them I guess. Definitely trying to pull an inside straight there but maybe it will work out. He is the one risking his career on a rather thin reed. His career is over even if he wins; so there is no winning.

It's my opinion that women have no place in combat arms units and men can't become women just because they "self identify", but the courts have ruled otherwise.

I've already told you that your point has merit, however mandating a useless vaccine (in my opinion) is like mandating scrotum rings; useless (in my opinion, but there are those who appreciate them), and with potential long term health risks.

My point is if the us.mil can mandate something that is essentially political with debatable health benefits, it can just as easily mandate that a "CAPT Ramsey" can't trigger some LGBTQRST crewperson's CPTSD.

Yes, that CDR's career is over. I think he knew that when he refused the vaccine. We all make choices in our lives.

There are many opportunities to make a lot of money that I turned down. As Mulligan asked in "Kelly's Heroes", "is it dirty or just illegal?". They weren't illegal, just a little slimy for my taste. I blame my mother for dragging me to church every Sunday.

There are men who were hanged because they were "following lawful orders", and not following their conscience. This is certainly not a hanging offense, but he has his conscience and he is following it. I respect that.

[D5CAV]

A superior’s order is presumed to be lawful and is disobeyed at the subordinate’s peril. To sustain the presumption, the order must relate to military duty. It must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order. Finally, it must be a specific mandate to do or not to do a specific act. In sum, an order is presumed lawful if it has a valid military purpose and is a clear, precise, narrowly drawn mandate. United States v. Moore, 58 M.J. 466 (C.A.A.F. 2003). The dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot excuse disobedience. United States v. Stockman, 17 M.J. 530 (A.C.M.R. 1973).

https://ucmjdefense.com/resources/milit ... rders.html

Yes, that is what is being litigated; whether or not it is a lawful order, and whether or not it conflicts with his constitutional rights.

The reason most of the questions in that transcript are about the performance of the DDG and the operational readiness of the ship is the second highlighted point, whether the order has a valid military purpose.

If the judge rules that it is a lawful order, it gets kicked back to the UCMJ, where they read the USN version of this statute and his career is over.

[Vonz90]

A superior’s order is presumed to be lawful and is disobeyed at the subordinate’s peril. To sustain the presumption, the order must relate to military duty. It must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order. Finally, it must be a specific mandate to do or not to do a specific act. In sum, an order is presumed lawful if it has a valid military purpose and is a clear, precise, narrowly drawn mandate. United States v. Moore, 58 M.J. 466 (C.A.A.F. 2003). The dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot excuse disobedience. United States v. Stockman, 17 M.J. 530 (A.C.M.R. 1973).

https://ucmjdefense.com/resources/milit ... rders.html

Yes, that is what is being litigated; whether or not it is a lawful order, and whether or not it conflicts with his constitutional rights.

The reason most of the questions in that transcript are about the performance of the DDG and the operational readiness of the ship is the second highlighted point, whether the order has a valid military purpose.

If the judge rules that it is a lawful order, it gets kicked back to the UCMJ, where they read the USN version of this statute and his career is over.

I roughly agree with you on mandating this vaccine, but it is besides the point. An order can be wrong and still legal. As there is lots of precedence on vaccines, he has to show that this one violates his rights but others don't. Thus my "inside straight" comment.

If he was going down swinging about having a bunch of unqualified women and LBTQ-whatevers on his ships, he still probably would not win but I could understand the cost/benefit balance. This is just throwing himself on his sword.

[D5CAV]

My favorite story of someone disobeying a lawful order is Nelson at Copenhagen.

He had already lost an eye in the battle of the Nile. He was commanding one of the squadrons under Admiral Parker.

He commences his attack. Some of the ships in his squadron get in trouble and the Danes put up a good resistance, but Nelson is confident he can win.

ADM Parker is watching the action at a distance and panics. He raises signal flags to discontinue the action and retreat. CAPT Foley, commander of the ship Nelson is on sees the signal flags and reports this to Nelson.

Nelson puts his telescope on his blind eye, tells Foley that he must be mistaken, he sees no such signal flags and to continue the attack.

Yes, it helps that he won.