[...Make Sure to Accept This Exchanging Invitation...]…

This whole INCIDENT demonstrates if this ill advised order was issued in fort dix nj or tim bucktoo montana it would have been a big deal.

I would not be surprised if the General issued this order without the review of his SJA (or, at least, that the SJA assigned the tasks of advising the General and drafting the order to a junior JAG).

For many SJAs — especially of the international/operational law sort — mere military justice is beneath them.

Would it be suprising to you that a General would push this order out without some type of leagl review?

Not that I’m accusing Army JAGs of making mistakes….

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/01/army_jag_bans_e.html

This order does’nt need the effort it takes for legal analysis. Even the order is unable to state its intended purpose. Oh, did you hear ther CG’s explanation on CNN.

wELL Intended but truly poorly conceived.

The right to procreate is a fundamental interest, so the test is “strict scrutiny.” I agree that there is a “compelling government interest” in not sending an otherwise able-bodied Soldier home and having to find someone to replace her. However, I think the Government loses on the “narrowly tailored” part of the test. First, the ban on getting pregnant is asking “Soldiers” to control something that they can’t–and I’m not talking about their sex drives. People who use birth control would be just as guilty as those who don’t if the birth control fails. Second, the ban is dicriminatory in its application, based on gender. Third, the ban is not “narrowly tailored” The fact remains that commanders have to “switch out” Soldiers unexpectedly all the time due to injury or illness. Are commanders going to order Soldiers not to get sick? Are they going to order Soldiers not to get shot, hit w/ an IED, etc.? This is a big loser for the government.

The nexus, as constructed, is getting a female Soldier pregnant. Other servicemembers subject to the UCMJ in the MND-N AOR are prohibited from getting female Soldiers pregnant but not members of other services.

Probably not what was intended, but it’s hard to argue otherwise.

So your argument is that the word “Soldier” has a specific meaning to imply those in the Army, and would exlude the other branches of service because they are not “Soldiers”, and despite Webster’s Dictionary we must think inside the box and look into what may be implied.

I think your understanding of the definition of a “wise man” is a kin to the narrow definition of the word “Soldier” that you are advocating.

I see your point though, as I pointed out the capitalization of “Soldier” in military contect would imply Army.

It is a poorly worded order, it should say Armed Forces or maybe Squids, Jarheads, Flyboys, and Grunts.

But no, don’t take my word for it. How about you shut your yap and open up a Dictionary and look up the word Soldier:

Main Entry: 1sol·dier
Pronunciation: \ˈsōl-jər\
Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English soudeour, from Anglo-French soudeer, soudeour mercenary, from soudee shilling’s worth, wage, from sou, soud shilling, from Late Latin solidus solidus
Date: 14th century

1 a : one engaged in military service and especially in the army b : an enlisted man or woman c : a skilled warrior

2 : a militant leader, follower, or worker

3 a : one of a caste of wingless sterile termites usually differing from workers in larger size and head and long jaws b : one of a type of worker ants distinguished by exceptionally large head and jaws
4\ˈsō-jər, ˈsōl-\ : one who shirks work

— sol·dier·ly \-lē\ adjective or adverb

— sol·dier·ship \-ˌship\ noun

The real danger that commands face is that the Soldier tells family at home, who then tells casualty’s family — since they’re probably in the same community. Facebook and blog postings are another source of leaks. That’s what part of the GO is about. The onus of this provision is on keeping the Soldier’s mouth shut until official notification procedures are completed.

Soldiers in MND-N are a pretty self-contained unit. I doubt there are many conceivable instances where Soldier A (in MND-N) knows well enough and has enough regular contact to tell Soldier B (in MND-C, for instance), who then tells his family, who then tells the casualty’s family, before the official notification procedures are complete.

Soldier A already erred by telling someone outside of the unit what happened.

Certainly, there is the potential for some strict liability in an outlier case, but short of an outright order on saying anything about casualties to anyone (which would also be criticized by many), this is a reasonable way to address the problem.

For example, if a male Soldier gets a female Airmen pregnant the female Airmen should be subjected to a battery of test for STD’s and in addition go through a Mental Health review, possibly a type of Sanity Board. If contaminates are indeed found she should be jettisoned into the Army via “Blue to Green” program. How’s that?

The word “Soldier” when capitalized and used in an official Army document and correspondence has a specific and unique meaning: members of the Army. Army usage would trump Webster’s any day in an Army document. No Man made a good observation when he pointed out the poor or questionable wording of this provision.

Also, the GO refers elsewhere to “United States military personnel.” That is not a distinction without a difference.

The word “Soldier” like “Troops” can mean generally anyone in the military according to Webster’s Dictionary. Many people, including myself, will use the term Soldier in the generic sense.

Consider that the word “Airman” can apply to anyone in the Air Force or anyone in the Navy with an MOS applicable to aviation.

Although certainly you can make a colorable argument that its application is Army, they did Capitalize the word (which implies a title).

I’m guessing though that plain language would carry the day. I’m wondering if those already punished were people in other Services.

What is wrong with para. 3s? The Army is very protective of the official notification procedures for casualties. Some units even shut down all outside comms (NIPR) after casualties until the family has been notified. Certainly the chain of command can enforce this concern under GO1.

This is just unnecessary and somewhat ridiculous.