Today we are announcing the start of a new collaboration between CAAFlog and the National Institute of Military Justice (NIMJ). This site brings together CAAFlog contributors and NIMJ’s directors, advisors, and some law students who have been recruited along the way to help keep us current on the latest news in military justice. We hope to be your one-stop shopping site for military justice news and content. NIMJ President Prof. Beth Hillman has this to say about the new collaboration:

We’re excited to join CAAFlog on a new platform that promises to share our collective interest and expertise in military justice with a broader audience. This collaboration will help NIMJ further its mission of promoting the fair administration of military justice and public education while creating an opportunity for more synergy and interaction. We look forward to realizing the potential gains of the combined site, and we’re grateful for the support of CAAFlog’s Michael Navarre (who doubles as an NIMJ advisor), Dwight Sullivan, and Zachary Spilman for their support.

Our new site also has some new features, some of which we’ll preview here and others that we will roll out by way of later posts. However, let’s for a moment talk about the name. The name of the new blog was a highly debated issue, but we finally settled on the logo reflected above. Much like Oriole Park at Camden Yards, you can call us whatever you want, but two things will remain constant: (1) topical military justice news and knowledgeable views and (2) our web address, If you are here because you were a fan of NIMJblog, do not fear: we’ve redirected NIMJblog to our address and archived all the old NIMJblog posts on the right side of our home page under“Categories,” just select “NIMJ Archive.”

Another constant will be our policy that posts represent the views of the author and not of CAAFlog, the other contributors, or any organization or entity with which an individual author might be associated. You can now add NIMJ and its advisors, directors, and other minions to that list. CAAFlog contributors who double as NIMJ advisors are particularly adamant that their posts don’t necessarily represent NIMJ’s views and posts by others affiliated with NIMJ in turn don’t represent the views of other NIMJ-affiliated contributors. We’ll see how widely our range of contributors expands with the new site and, maybe, some of our previously invited guest bloggers will now take up the keyboard and make a post or two (you know who you are).

We also want to take this opportunity to reiterate our comments “policy,” see here and here, that we discussed earlier this year.  We will not tolerate abusive comments, uncivil comments, personal attacks, inappropriate comments, etc., etc.  And we continue to prohibit anonymous comments but will permit commenters to register under a pseudonym, as described in our prior post.

We hope the new site and new contributors make us the best resource—and an occasional source of humor—for MJWs across the globe.

15 Responses to “CAAFlog and NIMJ Blog Join Forces”

  1. Brandon Barnett says:

    To me, the addition of NIMJ seriously undermines Caaflog’s credibility.

  2. stewie says:

    We haven’t seen this amount of unlimited power in one place since Vader joined with Palpatine!

  3. Ama Goste says:

    Capt Barnett, since there’s considerable overlap between the CAAFlog contributors and the NIMJ leadership, I’m curious as to why you believe the joint venture undermines CAAFlog. Congrats on the book, by the way–a very clever idea for a great cause.

  4. Ama Goste says:

    Stewie, I’d substitute “expertise” for “power”–I think both NIMJ and CAAFlog would both like more power than they currently enjoy.

  5. stewie says:

    The joke doesn’t quite work, Lord Vader, seeking unlimited…expertise.

  6. Brandon Barnett says:

    AG – CAAFlog has always been a good news source for military justice purists. A bit defense oriented, yes, but more information than propaganda. NIMJ, imo, is the opposite. Further, I don’t have much interest in what a nonmilitary law student has to say about military justice.

  7. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    Capt Barnett–

    First of all, even if your premise were correct about NIMJ (which it demonstrably is not), do you feel that Colonel Sullivan and I (or others that contribute) are so weak willed that we won’t be able to stand up to the pressure of this omnipresent/oppressive organization? That we are weak minded and won’t be able to see through their dogma? Really? Really?

    Second, if you’ve enjoyed our posts for the last year or so then you must enjoy posts from NIMJ Advisors because I’ve been one for the last year or so. I should go tell all your compatriopts that you are a NIMJ-lover. Is that somehow a punishable offense where you work? If so, you should be brought up on 365 counts of NIMJ-hearting.

    Third, what the heck is a “military justice purist”? Is that like a Puritan or a Quaker? Do you not use electronic versions of the UCMJ? Do you only travel to conflict zones on horse and buggy? Bottom line, NIMJ has been advocating postions relating to military justice since you were a teenager. The collective experience of NIMJ advisors is . . . . 100s of years. And guess what, not every member of NIMJ has the same opinion on every issue–shocking as that may sound to you.

    Fourth, your attack on “a nonmilitary law student” is unwarranted and just a cheap shot. To be honest I really don’t want to hear what a closed minded, HQMC Marine Corps’ Captain has to say about military justice. So I won’t be reading your posts–oh wait, you aren’t a contributor on this blog so I don’t need to worry about that. But thanks for commenting. Speaking of commenting, if you think so little of us now . . . . why do you keep coming back and commenting?

    Best, No Man

  8. Vic Hansen says:

    It is important to separate “propaganda” from legitimate criticisms and calls for reform and improvement of the military justice system. NIMJ has since its inception, understood this important distinction, and in my opinion, always provided an important and informed voice on military justice issues and military justice reform. I have not always personally agreed with every reform or criticism that NIMJ has advocated or espoused. I am however, confident that anyone who is serious and thoughtful about military justice sees NIMJ for what it is; a respected and important voice. To dismiss NIMJ as an instrument of propaganda is simply inaccurate.

  9. John O'Connor says:

    That post is below you, No Man. I do not believe it is beyond the pale for some CAAFlog readers to have their doubts about the effect the restructuring will have on CAAFlog, and you post does nothing more than try to shout down an opinion that was stated civilly.

  10. Ama Goste says:

    CAPT B and others weighing in, I understand the concern–I’m not a big fan of change myself and am quick to question motives. However, having observed senior DoD and other officials of all political persuasions over the years, it is interesting to note their reactions to NIMJ’s opinions on a range of issues. I was somewhat surprised to learn that, by and large, even those who don’t agree with the organization’s positions hold its leaders in high esteem. That goes a long way towards credibility in my book. Have you had bad experiences with NIMJ?

  11. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    JO’C —
    I respectfully disagree. I had not even intended to post a response to this thread until the “civil,” but personal, attack on a law student that is helping us keep our content current. “Uncivil” isn’t the only type of unwelcome commentary on this blog.

    And, I was not shouting down anyone. Did I go a little far in using a bit of humor to counter the comment, ok, maybe. But I do not like personal attacks and I think I illustrated my point about personal attacks having no place in comments. If you don’t like someone’s writing or have no interest in someone’s writing, then I suggest you just not read it.

    So in closing, Capt B, I apologize if I went a little far with the humor and analogies. Feel free to email me and engage in a discussion off-line ( But, please, stay away from personal attacks.

  12. Brandon Barnett says:

    No Man,
    No personal attack intended. Just expressing my preference. I’ve been a big fan of CAAFlog since it began. I appreciate the apology, but it was not necessary. I understand that my comment was not helpful in furthering meaningful discussion. We can talk offline if you want.
    Capt B

  13. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    Capt B–Thanks for the follow-up comment, and we aprpeciate you following our little blog that could. I hope all of our readers will judge the future of the blog by its future content–which I think you will find remains worth reading as we approach a milestone anniversary.
    No Man

  14. Ama Goste says:

    Group hug :)

  15. k fischer says:

    I know Quakers who drive Porsches. You’re thinking of the Amish, No Man.

    (I learned that distinction the hard way when a Porsche-driving, drunk Marine Judge Advocate picked me up and body slammed me at the Article 6 visit in Seoul when I accused him of betraying his Quaker roots by using a computer and titanium golf clubs.)