Comments on: Interesting CAAF order [Updated]

By: Cloudesley Shovell

Cloudesley Shovell — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:28:21 +0000

My good sir,

Of course, you are correct! I should not parse English after a jolly evening at the pub.

Yrs humbly,
CS

PS. Mr. Emoticon–Yes, a dissent in a motion seems a waste of time, except when it concerns the scope of Art. 67 (aka jurisdiction), a little matter that has grabbed some attention of late.

By: John O'Connor

John O'Connor — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 03:22:35 +0000

Cloudesley:

Glad to have you back.

By: ;-)

;-) — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:15:43 +0000

Some things aren’t worth writing a dissent over. Jesus.

By: Dwight Sullivan

Dwight Sullivan — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:45:11 +0000

My dear Admiral,

I meant that CAAF granted the motion without explanation. Here’s the portion of the order granting the motion, in its entirety: “That said motion is hereby granted.”

By: Cloudesley Shovell

Cloudesley Shovell — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:39:27 +0000

Is CAAF a court of limited jurisdiction that exists to conduct legal review of court-martial convictions, or does it exist to provide civilian court supervision of the military justice system? Seems to still be leaning in the “supervision” direction, though perhaps not so starkly as in the past.

Also, if CAAF did not rule until after the gov’t filed an opposition to the motion, did CAAF really “summarily” grant the motion? Maybe the word does not mean what I think it means.