Comments for H&I FIRES* 16 July 2009

H&I FIRES* 16 July 2009

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:35:42 -0600

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite. *************************** CAPT H suggests this toolage for Castle brush clearing. I'm inclined to agree. Granted, a touch more expensive to feed than a regular chain saw. -the Armorer *************************** Greyhawk weighs in on Major Cook's lawsuit and such - was the Cook case a scam? Greyhawk better be careful... the Kossacks are citing him -though they don't give him right-wing fringe whackjob creds... From yet another not-really-friendly to the Major perspective, see TSO over at This Ain't Hell with Dear Crazy Birth Certificate Lawyer Lady. It's funny though... -the Armorer *************************** In today's From the Front 07/16/2009: (click link to read the stories headlined below) Michael Yon: Sangow Bar Village P.J. Tobia: Afghan Prez Outlaws Rape Old Blue: Twinkling City Helmand Blog - Afghanistan: 'It was like Saving Private Ryan': British soldier recalls Helmand rocket grenade Notes From Iraq: 15JUL09--Hail and Farewell Ann Scott Tyson: Marines Waiting on Basic Supplies (Ed Note: NEW BLOG - WaPo journalist embedded in Afghanistan) US Shifts to Advisory Role in Iraq Deployments Bombing Near Baghdad Funeral Site Kills 5 Arrest leads to discovery of weapons cache near Balad New U.S. Advisory, Assistance Brigades to Deploy to Iraq During Next Troop Rotation Forces Detain Insurgents, Seize Weapons in Iraq Warning From General on End to Afghan Combat Taliban Uses Afghan Fear to Fight Surge Clinton to Taliban: Forsake al Qaeda Scarcity of Copters Fuels British Debate Over War At Jail in Bagram, A Detainee Protest AND MORE... -David M - The Thunder Run ****************************************

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:26:25 -0600

Well, Ms. Barrister - as you well know there's a world of difference between what the rules say and what gets enforced...

Comment from olga on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:18:36 -0600

Interesting that you are saying that one can't show up in a civilian court in uniform if one's military status is not at issue... 2 years ago I went to a traffic court in NoVA to beat my parking ticket, I had to show up twice and on both days (months apart) there were several Navy seamen trying to beat their speeding tickets and every one of them was in uniform...

Comment from AFSister on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:46:39 -0600

yup.

His command was NOT amused or impressed.. and neither was the judge.

Comment from BillT on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:41:02 -0600

Moron is right. If you want to impress someone, you show up in greens.

Aaaaand, since you're gonna get smacked for wearing either uniform, at least leave them thinking that you had some class. Not much sense, but some class...

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:16:03 -0600

Heh. So he earned himself another hearing... this time in a different jurisdiction!

Comment from AFSister on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:03:34 -0600

Someone I know was telling me about this story last week:

An Atlanta area utility contractor, hired to mark buried lines with spray paint in the front yard of a house, was arrested and charged with animal cruelty when he sprayed the owner's dog with the paint. The dog was in their fenced-in back yard. The man had no reason going to the back yard.

When he appeared in court... he showed up in his Army Reserve ACU's.

To defend himself in civil court, on a civil matter, involving his civilian job.

Moron.

Comment from BillT on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:43:38 -0600

...it depends on whether or not your military status is a factor in the case

Good point.

The directives that Cannonshop is referring to, from my recollection of those days, were referrring to rallies, protest meetings and such.

Yup -- still in effect, too.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:41:06 -0600

Bill - it depends on whether or not your military status is a factor in the case (such as actions taken while acting in an official capacity). For example, it *was* permissible for me to go to court in uniform when I was asked to appear as a character witness for a soldier on trial. I know, you meant the soldier couldn't be in uniform in that instance, and you are correct on that - but if the issue is a lawsuit against the Corps of Engineers, the Corps is going to show up in uniform.

The Cook situation would be interesting. I know I'd be asking the JAG for a ruling on that, were I Cook, before showing up in uniform in court - but I wonder if it wouldn't be appropriate, since it is military status that gives him standing and is central to the case.

The directives that Cannonshop is referring to, from my recollection of those days, were referrring to rallies, protest meetings and such.

Comment from SezaGeoff on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:33:38 -0600

Re the M249 brushcutter:- reminds me of the time up was up with my mate having a bit of a shoot at his mother's place in the bush. She rang us and asked if we could get the ladder and the saw and remove some of the tree branches from around the power lines. Trev told his mother we would look after it, and don't worry about the ladder etc. I had my Browning B92 in 44 Mag. with me, and it did a great job of bringing down the errant branches without recourse to ladders and saws. ( Note - there is a very big hill behind the trees/powerlines, and no innocents were harmed in the commision of this great fun!).

Comment from BillT on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:20:27 -0600

It is also impermissible to appear before a civil court in uniform if you are one of the parties involved.

Ollie North got a *huge* pass for doing that during Iran-Contra.

Comment from Cannonshop on 2009-07-17

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:01:32 -0600

If he showed up in UNIFORM, that looks to be prosecutable-particularly as the court tossed the complaint. (One is NOT to play politics against the Civilian Executive while in Uniform. I REMEMBER that one, though I do not recall the exact regulation number, it was stressed to us largely as a result of the election of one William J. Clinton in '92.)

Comment from Maggie on 2009-07-16

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:13:18 -0600

That TSO is a funny bastid. He is driving the Birthers wild. They are screaming at him for being liberal....too funny.

Comment from Grumpy on 2009-07-16

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:42:47 -0600

The Court threw the case out / dismissed it. The Court lacked jurisdiction, supposedly this is the description from the findings from the Court itself. He goes to the US District Court in Georgia in Military Uniform to file suit against POTUS. Then, he is joined by a MG Childers in this suit. I am trying to figure how to look at this event and put it into some type of context. Now, was this an extension of an act of the Military Judicial System's findings? Was this a civilian-legal event or a military-legal event? For it to be military-legal event, he would have been going through the "Chain-of-Command". If we bypass the "Chain", it tends to "Torque Their Jaws". There are many ways to work within it, but try to stay within it. Was this possibly a political event, in the Military and in uniform, *bad mix*.

I tread on this one very lightly, Major, you might want to talk with a chaplain or other medical professional, let them do a full assessment. Be open and transparent, then go from there.

Comment from BillT on 2009-07-16

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:14:50 -0600

Merely frighteningly ironic.

Billy Jeff Clinton couldn't make the cut before he was elected, either...

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-07-16

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:42:02 -0600

Ironically frightening, isn't it?

Comment from BillT on 2009-07-16

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:24:41 -0600

Did the DSS (Defense Security Service, the clearance people) step out of line when they essentially revoked his clearance? There I'm not so sure.

Heh. Considering Teh Won's past -- and possibly continuing -- associations, he wouldn't even qualify for a clearance under DSS criteria.

Comment from Boquisucio on 2009-07-16

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:11:04 -0600

Don't know whether Massa John will get new neighbors, Grumpy. But I hope that he will get a couple of eastbound visitors, though.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-07-16

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:08:38 -0600

At this point, I'm not sure Cook has done anything prosecutable (based solely on what I've seen thus far). Just filing the suit doesn't constitute "saying bad things about the President" per se.

Has he killed whatever military career he had? Probably. Has he run afoul of his employer? Yes. Did the DSS (Defense Security Service, the clearance people) step out of line when they essentially revoked his clearance? There I'm not so sure. The rules have changed a lot since 9/11, and I don't pretend to be up to speed on them sufficient to offer an opinion.

Comment from Grumpy on 2009-07-16

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:54:14 -0600

As I have read the previous thread with comments, this Major might just find himself starting on the "Path to SCOTUS". But one of the lessons to be learned is this, starting is not arriving, there are many opportunities for an element of surprise. A question, is John, The Armorer going to get a new neighbor? Armorer, I wouldn't hold my breath until he visits the "Castle", I figure his social life will be severely curtailed.

As always, Grumpy

Comment from Cannonshop on 2009-07-16

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:49:21 -0600

Well...Cook looks manufactured. No, seriously, the case looks like something a spinmeister would manufacture to take the heat off of Watada.

Too bad it probably isn't.

If I recall correctly, there's rules about saying bad things about the President while in uniform...