In light of some comments in the Bergdahl discussion thread that were brought to our attention, which have now been removed, we’d like to remind everyone of the comments policy on this little blog, here and here.  In particular, keep this eloquent summary from ODFL:

The Internet, of course, is a wide-open place and anyone can upload content on the Internet saying anything he or she pleases.  Heck, there’s even a website that devotes itself to, among other causes, attacking CAAFlog.  (I find it surprising that anyone cares enough about what we say in our little gabfest to go to the trouble, but the author certainly has the right to attack us.)  Anyone who wants to could set up a website to post anonymous personal attacks against military justice practitioners and judges.  But we at CAAFlog have no obligation to host such content.

Thanks for keeping it classy, San Diego.


29 Responses to “Comments Policy”

  1. Philip Cave says:

    There’s an antiCAAFLog site?

  2. Concerned Defender says:

    My public apologies for crossing the line with my prior comments.  It was in error of judgment, in spite of how strongly I feel about the topic for which I previously posted.  
    It is puzzling how anyone would have an anti-CAAFLog site.  What in the world would they possibly discuss?  

  3. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    CD–Thanks for acknowledging.  I’ve drafted a number of posts over the years only to delete them before posting. 

  4. Will M. Helixon says:

    Fair enough — Will M. Helixon

  5. Burt Macklin says:

    It is ridiculous that the moderators took down Helixon’s post and CD’s remains.  It is not like objectivity has ever been a hallmark of this blog but in the words of South Park’s Jimmy Valmer, “I mean, come on.”

  6. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    PC–There are whole pages dedicated to defaming each contributor on this little blog.

  7. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:


    I think the intended target of CD’s inappropriate comments would probably appreciate that we took down both posts.  The remaining post, while not something I would write, did not on its face violate the comments policy.  Though I also defer to my colleagues to take a second look at it.

  8. Alfonso Decimo says:

    The best practice is to remove clearly ad hominem attacks and I think the blog-masters do a good job. It helps that most of the bloggers seem to seek mutual understanding and mastery of this area of law, rather than “winning” the argument.  If it were otherwise, eventually only one or two lonely trolls would remain, full of sound and fury. Good call, “no man” and company!

  9. Burt Macklin says:

    Ah, right.  I recall how well the mods enforced the prohibition on ad hominem attacks during the US v. Sauk commentary.  Just make sure we only trash the government appellate folks! 

  10. Concerned Defender says:

    I’d say that individuals holding public office, even in the military, should expect criticism when their decisions “lack objectivity” and are “ridiculous” as I believe most (polling numbers ranging from a recent low of mid-40s% to a recent high of 50%) Americans feel about Mr. Obama.  Surely a critical comment about our leader is allowed… when it comes at least to matters of legal decisions and military justice.  I can say there are few good decisions of the administration, and none when it comes to matters of significance.  Can’t stand the criticism, don’t hold political office; or at least don’t make repeated bad decisions.

  11. DCGoneGalt says:

    CAAFLOG is awesome, it just needs more consistently pro-G commenters. 

  12. Defense Hack says:

    CD – Whether or not a decision is good or not is a matter of politics, and thus subject to both informed and uninformed debate, as whether the decision was good or bad in the eye of the informed and uninformed beholder.
    With that said, where is this anti-CAAFLog site?

  13. stewie says:

    If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it 100 times, DCGG will read anything you put on the teleprompter. Anything.

  14. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    Best comment of the day stewie.

  15. DCGoneGalt says:

    stewie:  Don’t make me pick up a trident.

  16. Scott says:

    What is the site devoted to attacking CAAFLOG?

  17. k fischer says:

    [No] Man, I don’t even have an opinion on that. 

  18. Laura Bateman says:

    I had no idea there was an anti-caaflog page.  I found it with minimal googling.  It is as entertaining to read as it is inexplicable that it exists.

  19. J.M. says:

    I think I found the anti-caaflog website. That guy’s brain is like a bag full of cats.

  20. Michael Korte says:

    I’ll try my hand at being a/the pro-Government voice around July. Congratulations to the moderators for being popular enough to have your own Contingent of Haters (great band name).

  21. RKincaid3 (RK3PO) says:

    Doggone–looks like I have missed all the fun of late.  Keep up the good work, CAAFlog.

  22. Philip Cave says:

    LB, and the link is?

  23. Burt Macklin says:

    “That guy’s brain is like a bag full of cats.”  Also not an ad-homiem attack.  Probably due to the deft use of simile.  However, when it is suggested CD’s posts are like (simile) someone from the hyperbolic tin-foil hat wearing society, the red card is drawn and comments get deleted.
    This site is basically that military judge who decides to randomly weigh in sua sponte at trial because “he’s not just here to call balls and strikes.”

  24. stewie says:

    Wait FBI’s Burt Macklin are you saying CD is the one running the anti-CAAFLOG site?
    I’m confused.
    I just thought J.M. was showing off his The Avengers quoting skills.

  25. k fischer says:

    Agent Macklin,
    I am the president of the tin foil hat wearing society, and I assure you CD is not a card carrying member.  There are no red cards, but we do have red pills.  RK3PO took one, and now his name is MacChewy…….

  26. Philip Cave says:

    LB.  Don’t bother.  I thought you had found a different site.
    We (who shall be further nameless) regularly get emails from the blogger about different cases and events.
    It think there was a time he posted comments on CAAFLog, but may have been one of the few to be actually banned.

  27. William Kevinson says:

    That anti-caaflog website guy seems to think that law enforcement allegations of forgery and fraud in the president’s identity documents should somehow be more important to the military justice community than the case of some random military guy asking to see Obama’s birth certificate.
    Guano loco.

  28. Dwayne Mulligan says:

    Kevinson is a troll. Obviously no law enforcement agency has asserted there is probable cause to believe forgery and fraud have been perpetrated in the production and distribution of the President’s identity documents because if any did every ethical military justice lawyer in the country would call for an investigation to clear the matter up. Especially if they thought such allegations were false.
    Nice try Kevinson. Take that trolling crap someplace else.

  29. Contract Lawyer says:

    How do you ban someone from CAAFLOG?  I have seen at least one accused posting and surprisingly attempting to keep it classy while arguing for his pecuniary interests.  I am surprised that more people with personal interests do not use this forum for attacks, though this may happen and the material is deleted before most of us can see it.  I think I once crossed the line and after searching for about ten minutes for the edit or delete button I contacted the moderators and told them I was not aware that there was no delete or edit button and I was granted clemency.  I just checked the link and see how someone can be banned or prevented from posting, though that is easy enough to get around.  I am not suggesting that anyone do it, but just saying.  I believe attorneys posting have many ethical obligations to keep in mind, though those same obligations may not apply to non-attorneys and definitely do not apply to an accused.  For an accused whose name is listed on a sex offender registry, they do not have much to lose by using any forum to make attacks, whether the attacks are true/untrue or valid/not valid.  Those of us who are part of the system do have special obligations, though there is still much room for fair criticism and I believe there are some current circumstances that do justify higher levels of criticism.  It also helps to not have to list your name on your post.  I suppose the next step is requiring registered accounts and then we may have government officials requesting lists of names that are responsible for particular comments.  That would really tone down the comments except for folks such as accuseds and those who do not work for the government.
    What is the link for that anti-CAAFLOG website?