Vonz90 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 16, 2022 12:09 pm
It is actually more asinine. The .Nav wants to remove the CO (supposedly not vaccine related but who knkws) but has been stopped by a judge.
I have no opinion if the CO should be relieved or not but having a judge inject himself onto the question is very bad.
I don't know all the history of this case, if you have information that the USN is relieving the CO for reasons other than vaccination status, please share that.
I read through the transcript. It is one-sided because it is the testimony of the CO. He is being questioned by his own counsel and the USN's counsel. Most of the questions are about vaccination status and whether or not that affects operational readiness.
The reason this is in front of a federal judge and not UCMJ is that the CO brought the case against vaccination based on religious exemption on 1st Amendment grounds.
I'm here today because the military is not executing this policy while respecting the constitutional freedoms laid out in the First Amendment or RFRA. I should not be the one standing here to say that today; generals and admirals, the executives in our service, should be here to say that to the politics, to the bureaucracy, to their decision-making. It should also not be my junior sailors or the hundreds of thousands of military servicemen out there to say, "Hey, I have a religious objection to this. Why is no one not speaking out that we can do this and still do the job, the mission?" That's for me to do when my superiors will not.
I understand that I took an oath to the Constitution, that is what my oath is, and it's different than the enlisted oath,
which is to follow orders. Every general on flag takes the same oath as me, to uphold the Constitution, to bear true faith
and allegiance to the Constitution and the country whose course it directs. That requires that I know the Constitution.
Our religious freedoms are being attacked. And when I read the declaration that talks about, you know, there are no
less restrictive means other than vaccination, and they use examples in there such as, you know, the port entry
requirements such as the pre-ROM deployment sequester. Those are less restrictive means in and of themselves.
There are many references to vaccination status and whether or not vaccination impacts operation of the ship, so vaccination is clearly the main issues here.
There are no questions around reasons other than refusal to get vaccinated, even by the USN's counsel.
I don't have the USN's filing to get the motion dismissed or the original USN action. Those might have some other reasons for dismissing the CO and taking the DDG out of service.
If you do, please share.
