Pertinent – and impertinent – observations about military justice
How dated is the B-52? Air Force Times reports that this venerable bomber was first launched in 1954. It was a workhorse of Cold War nuclear deterrence for decades.
The replacement bomber is still on the drawing boards, so some of the old airframes could be 90 years old before another bomber replaces them!
# # #
Military personnel should be cognizant of the Hatch Act, a Federal law passed in 1939. It restricts certain types of political activity by military members and Federal employees. The prudent would be wise to consult their unit judge advocate before strenuous electioneering.
# # #
Who wears the pants in the family? In the Navy, the answer includes women. Navy Times reports that this year, for the first time, women at the Navy Academy will be required to wear pants to the graduation ceremonies. This is the final step in a Navy initiative to standardize men’s and women’s dress uniforms at the Academy.
# # #
Modern times. A company called Trial Drone offers social media intelligence specifically for litigators. The firm claims to use cutting edge technology which previously had only been available to law enforcement and intelligence services.
Among their services:
· identifying a witness’s web of contacts on public social media
· revealing potentially undisclosed relationships of witnesses
· finding out what potential witnesses said on social media
· spotting possible media coverage of key events leading to the trial
# # #
The publication Task and Purpose claims that the military is providing unequal access to care for those with PTSD. Service members allegedly received varying levels of mental health care based on paygrade.
# # #
Decades later, Agent Orange is a supposedly catching up with Vietnam veterans. Concerns extend from debilitating, deadly health problems to heart disease to various forms of cancer. So reports the Messenger-Inquirer of Owensboro KY.
ABOUT FACEBOOK AND OPIONIONATED BLOGGERS ….
This country appears to become more litigious every day. May we offer a gentle observation about those who blog and write on Facebook? .
First, whether on the right or left, what’s wrong with writers taking a moment to fact check before passing on what might be completely erroneous data? Falsehood hardly helps to nurture enlightened citizens.
Second, forget about true/false. How about asking whether communicating this information would be useful. Recently, we saw a far-right suggestion that Chelsea Clinton was illegitimate. Meanwhile on the left, a blogger suggested that Mrs. Donald Trump had posed half-naked for a girlie magazine.
A useful three-part test might be this:
· Does it need to be said
· Does it need be said now
· Does it need to be said by me
Meanwhile, it’s vexing to see so many negative, belligerent comments on Islam. One example: A total and blanket condemnation of “Sharia law.”
But wait a minute. Doesn’t it depend on whether adherents of Islam are following :Sharia law” themselves or whether they insist it governs everybody ?
Isn’t the first option the right of every American?
Consider: Traditional Catholics turn to their clergy for decisions on annulments, along with permission to remarry. Orthodox Jews turn to their rabbis for a religious divorce. “Catholic canon law?” “Jewish law?” If a Moslem-American turns to his/her imam for guidance on divorce, that doesn’t seem to be some sort of alarming “Sharia law” – any more than the examples in other faith systems.
Perhaps we’re beating the proverbial dead horse. A wise woman commented that these individuals are not interested in the truth. Often frightened by societal changes, they naïvely swallow conspiracy theories. They will believe almost anything which confirms their bias.