USN takes DDG out of service

A place to talk about all things military, paramilitary, tactical, strategic, and logistical.
User avatar
D5CAV
Posts: 2428
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:48 am

Re: USN takes DDG out of service

Post by D5CAV »

Vonz90 wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 2:09 amThey 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.
Congratulations! SCOTUS agrees with you: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/03/cour ... avy-seals/

Slightly different case. Some US Navy SEALS objected to vaccination on religious freedom grounds.

Supremes say USN can reassign unvaccinated SEALS.

No written opinion, which means there is no legal justification, just lazy judges rubber stamping us.gov policies. No surprise here.

Kavanaugh gives a commentary (not opinion) that us.mil can do whatever they want. So much for Constitutional protections or "military necessity".

If you are us.mil, they can do whatever they want to you. You have no constitutional protections according to this ruling. By this standard, using US Army soldiers as guinea pigs for nuclear weapons testing was "no harm, no foul". No comment on whether us.mil will be clawing back any of the settlements to those soldiers' families for the soldiers who died of radiation poisoning.

Might be a time to have a discussion with any relatives who are still serving regarding whether they want to re-enlist when their enlistment is up.

Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito dissented.

Yes, the CDR is now officially screwed. USN just brings this SCOTUS decision to the court and "game over".
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: USN takes DDG out of service

Post by Vonz90 »

D5CAV wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 9:25 am
Vonz90 wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 2:09 amThey 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.
Congratulations! SCOTUS agrees with you: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/03/cour ... avy-seals/

Slightly different case. Some US Navy SEALS objected to vaccination on religious freedom grounds.

Supremes say USN can reassign unvaccinated SEALS.

No written opinion, which means there is no legal justification, just lazy judges rubber stamping us.gov policies. No surprise here.

Kavanaugh gives a commentary (not opinion) that us.mil can do whatever they want. So much for Constitutional protections or "military necessity".

If you are us.mil, they can do whatever they want to you. You have no constitutional protections according to this ruling. By this standard, using US Army soldiers as guinea pigs for nuclear weapons testing was "no harm, no foul". No comment on whether us.mil will be clawing back any of the settlements to those soldiers' families for the soldiers who died of radiation poisoning.

Might be a time to have a discussion with any relatives who are still serving regarding whether they want to re-enlist when their enlistment is up.

Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito dissented.

Yes, the CDR is now officially screwed. USN just brings this SCOTUS decision to the court and "game over".
No opinion typically means there was no change in previous precedent. The whole vaccination thing was already settled in the early 70s.
User avatar
blackeagle603
Posts: 9770
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:13 am

Re: USN takes DDG out of service

Post by blackeagle603 »

so much for the lessons and code of Nuremburg. Informed consent? That's sooooo 20th Century
"The Guncounter: More fun than a barrel of tattooed knife-fighting chain-smoking monkey butlers with drinking problems and excessive gambling debts!"

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic;" Justice Story
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: USN takes DDG out of service

Post by Vonz90 »

blackeagle603 wrote: Mon Mar 28, 2022 10:40 pm so much for the lessons and code of Nuremburg. Informed consent? That's sooooo 20th Century
Washington required his troops to get smallpox vaccine (which was at the time very primitive of course). This isn’t new.
User avatar
blackeagle603
Posts: 9770
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:13 am

Re: USN takes DDG out of service

Post by blackeagle603 »

Yeah, that's makes everything OK then. And never mind the facts about how "safe and effective" that one was. Or how incredibly controversial and divisive it was at the time.
"The Guncounter: More fun than a barrel of tattooed knife-fighting chain-smoking monkey butlers with drinking problems and excessive gambling debts!"

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic;" Justice Story
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: USN takes DDG out of service

Post by Vonz90 »

blackeagle603 wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 1:23 am Yeah, that's makes everything OK then. And never mind the facts about how "safe and effective" that one was. Or how incredibly controversial and divisive it was at the time.
I disagree with your characterization of the vaccine although if it was up to me it would not be mandatory.

However, we can get ordered to charge into a death trap, we can be ordered to take a vaccine. It may be stupid or not, but it is a lawful order.
User avatar
D5CAV
Posts: 2428
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:48 am

Re: USN takes DDG out of service

Post by D5CAV »

Vonz90 wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 1:30 amHowever, we can get ordered to charge into a death trap, we can be ordered to take a vaccine. It may be stupid or not, but it is a lawful order.
Yes and no: https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/when- ... -an-order/

To go back to the statute you quoted before:
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).
There are some limitations here, specifically the Constitutional and statutory limitations, as well as valid military purpose.

The above link is about orders to commit war crimes, and you have an obligation to disobey that order. However your example of "charging into a death trap" also has some limitations.

For example, if you were in my command and I said "Private Vonz, go out in that field and draw fire from that DShK". You have a right to say "That's suicide! Why?"

If I say, "Because I want to see the effect of a DShK on a human body", you have the right to refuse the order because I haven't stated "a valid military purpose" for my order.

If I say, "Because that DShK has us pinned down. If we can't take it out, we're all going to die. I want you to draw fire while we try to flank it and take it out," now you have to "charge into a death trap" because I stated "a valid military purpose" for my order.

You might still die, but it is now a lawful order and you are subject to Article 92 if you disobey.

Yeah, I think that SCOTUS ruling means the Federal Court will just kick this back to the UCMJ.

At that point, his only defense is that the order didn't have "a valid military purpose".

Yeah, that's going to be hard.

Either way, his career is over. The only difference is a LTH discharge now (if he is found guilty of violating Article 92), or retiring out as a CDR after sailing a desk for another two or three years (if UCMJ finds him not guilty).
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: USN takes DDG out of service

Post by Vonz90 »

D5CAV wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 12:36 pm
Vonz90 wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 1:30 amHowever, we can get ordered to charge into a death trap, we can be ordered to take a vaccine. It may be stupid or not, but it is a lawful order.
Yes and no: https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/when- ... -an-order/

To go back to the statute you quoted before:
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).
There are some limitations here, specifically the Constitutional and statutory limitations, as well as valid military purpose.

The above link is about orders to commit war crimes, and you have an obligation to disobey that order. However your example of "charging into a death trap" also has some limitations.

For example, if you were in my command and I said "Private Vonz, go out in that field and draw fire from that DShK". You have a right to say "That's suicide! Why?"

If I say, "Because I want to see the effect of a DShK on a human body", you have the right to refuse the order because I haven't stated "a valid military purpose" for my order.

If I say, "Because that DShK has us pinned down. If we can't take it out, we're all going to die. I want you to draw fire while we try to flank it and take it out," now you have to "charge into a death trap" because I stated "a valid military purpose" for my order.

You might still die, but it is now a lawful order and you are subject to Article 92 if you disobey.

Yeah, I think that SCOTUS ruling means the Federal Court will just kick this back to the UCMJ.

At that point, his only defense is that the order didn't have "a valid military purpose".

Yeah, that's going to be hard.

Either way, his career is over. The only difference is a LTH discharge now (if he is found guilty of violating Article 92), or retiring out as a CDR after sailing a desk for another two or three years (if UCMJ finds him not guilty).
Yes, I agree generally with what you are saying.
User avatar
D5CAV
Posts: 2428
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:48 am

Re: USN takes DDG out of service

Post by D5CAV »

Interesting! Federal court order on another case gives some support for CDR of DDG: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... nor-ruling

This ruling pushes back on the SCOTUS ruling that kicked-back the prior ruling by this judge giving USN Seals protection against vaccine mandate on 1st Amendment grounds. While acknowledging the SCOTUS ruling, the judge affirms that the USN cannot force vaccination or take disciplinary action on Article 92.
Fourth, the extent to which the exercise of military expertise or discretion is involved weighs in favor of review. “Courts should defer to the superior knowledge and experience of professionals in matters such as promotions or orders directly related to specific military functions.” Mindes, 453 F.2d at 201–02. Of course, “judges don’t make good generals,” but “it’s a two-way street: Generals don’t make good judges—especially when it comes to nuanced constitutional issues.” U.S. Navy SEALs 1–26, 24 F.4th at 349; see also Air Force Officer v. Austin, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2022 WL 468799 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 15, 2022). Thus, Plaintiffs have satisfied all four Mindes factors, and the claims of the Navy Class are justiciable.
The judge references "Lawful Orders":
Defendants argue that “In the deadly business of protecting our national security, we cannot have a Sailor who disobeys a lawful order to receive a vaccine because they harbor a personal objection any more than we can have a Sailor who disobeys the technical manual for operating a nuclear reactor because he or she believes they know better.”
However, the judge points out that some "exceptions" were made, so USN can't refuse vaccination waivers on 1st Amendment grounds, when it give exemptions on other grounds:
But the Navy’s willingness to grant hundreds of permanent and temporary medical exemptions belies this insistence on complete uniformity and widespread vaccination. Defs.’ Ex. 4, App. 56, ECF No. 121. It is “illogical . . . that Plaintiffs’ religious-based refusal to take a COVID-19 vaccine would seriously impede military function when the Navy has over 5,000 servicemembers still on duty who are just as unvaccinated as the Plaintiffs.
The judge stays his prior order per the SCOTUS decision that allows USN to reassign personnel as it wants.
This class-wide injunction is immediately STAYED in part, “insofar as it precludes the Navy from considering respondents’ vaccination status in making deployment, assignment, and other operational decisions.”
However, he affirms his prior decision saying the USN cannot take any disciplinary action against personnel who refuse vaccine on 1st Amendment grounds.

So it looks like that CDR isn't going to be driving any more DDGs, but he probably won't face a LTH discharge on Article 92.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Post Reply