Replies

I never accepted that your use of the term "ignorance" suggested anything other than what the word means (and "dumb" is not in the definition). And, apologies usually have some form of the phrase "sorry, I . . . . ." Frankly, I had no idea that there was an "apology" going on. For what? What did you say that you felt a need to apologize for? I thought we were having a discussion and this discussion appeared to be centered, at this point, around a definition of positions.

However, your assumption that I am "ignorant" of the UCMJ is incorrect. You stated "Based on your post #13, I did not have to assume you were less than knowledgeable about the UCMJ." But the fact is that you chose to assume it rather than consider that I might have some knowledge in this area.

I have lived with the UCMJ since I was a kid, including my own military service, and I have seen it used to screw totally innocent men to the wall. Frankly (as I have clearly indicated), my faith in the UCMJ is no higher than it is in the civilian justice system. In fact, depending on the political ramifications of a given case, the UCMJ can be substantially worse than the civilian justice system.

Lt. Pantano committed no crime worthy of any UCMJ action. Had his CO been something other than a PC-controlled wuss, he would have listened to both sides of the story and told Coburn to get the h*ll out of his office and never return.

Instead, he forwarded the allegations upstream. That this issue is now in the domain of the UCMJ is outrageous. That a brave, honorable, Marine Lt.'s career is down the toilet, regardless of the outcome of a court-martial, is indisputable. What's the UCMJ got to say about that?

"Lt. Pantano committed no crime worthy of any UCMJ action. Had his CO been something other than a PC-controlled wuss, he would have listened to both sides of the story and told Coburn to get the h*ll out of his office and never return."

Have you ever had a command? Have you ever been directly involved in Military Justice procedures other than receiving an Article 15?
You have absolutely no idea of the LT's guilt or innocence because you have not been made privy to the information that the Article 32 investigation is obtaining. Thus, whatever you conclude is based exclusively on assumptions and you know what they say about assumptions.

And I withdraw my apology. You are ignorant in the connotative sense.