I have had this problem for a long time using Chrome, IE, Firefox, on a PC.  In order to get access I downloaded and used the Opera browser.  And aaaaagh, I have a Mac — and you can get Army in Chrome on a Mac. 

So, absent them changing their security certificate, those are some options. 

I’m sure he has a bright financial future on the wingnut talk circuit. He chose this path, hard to feel sorry for a guy who threw away a promotion to O-6 and a guaranteed retirment worth millions.

Having heard Lakin speak on radio shows I beg to differ on his value on the talk circuit. It is hard to underestimate his charisma and presence. His book launch has been delayed several times. 

One other point worth mentioning is that the results of such war crimes courts-martial will vary significantly based on where they are tried.  Had the Haditha cases been tried in Iraq, they would have gone to court faster, with better access to local witnesses, and with more focus on strategic consequences of the crimes rather than the patriotism of the offenders.  

I think Mr. Gittens would have a better shot getting it as a discovery request. 

Good points.  Do you think that asking for the ethics investigation numbers (# of complaints; # of investigations; # of referrals or discipline) without names, could consitute the grounds for a legitimate FOIA request?  Or to request the actual complaints/investigations, with names redacted?

The KS denial has nothing to do with his ability to practice medicine, rather it is based on a “dishonorable conduct” criterion (I messed up the spelling above) which is defined by the board in this case as not meeting the obligations of a physician to treat patients.  It does not address Dr. Lakin’s confinement (they learned to avoid that with Huet-Vaughn) just his reliability and his ability to honor his patients. 

I think that there was a 30 day window in which he could appeal the ruling which occurred in December of 2011.  He may have done so.

Dr. Huet-Vaughn never grovelled and to this day maintains that she was correct in her actions.  She is still winning awards from anti-war/peace groups and is involved in left leaning political movements.  She also still serves the area she was in during Desert Storm. She had an established practice in KS when the board censured her.  She paid a fine and that was the reason she could not go any further with the case.  Had she refused or paid a bond instead she may have won her case but the question of a felony was never brought up due to an error on her part. (Paying the fine.)

It doesn’t sound like they trust his judgement. (duh)

I guess they learned something from Huet-Vaughn.

Of course, Dr Lakin never had a license to practice in KS, so the Board has wider discretion and does not have to defend the position that they think he was derelict in his actions. Dr. Lakin does not have a right to the license and the KS board (which is very conservative, believe me) would rather not have him practice in the state.

As an aside, CAPT Huet-Vaughn was in my Reserve unit for a day or so and we all disapproved of her actions. Still, I did write a letter to the Board urging them not to take her license away as she was serving a very poor part of Kansas City, KS and seemed sincere in staying on there. The Board, from what I heard, was inclined to can her but made the decision to censor her instead. I think that was the right decision and I think they made the right decision concerning Dr. Lakin.

I know a number of attorneys in the Navy JAG Corps who would disagree with your last statement.  Not only have there been a slew of baseless ethics “investigations” but the charges on some were beyond laughable.  All were ultimately dismissed, though I wonder how much of it was due to the integrity of the investigative process, and how much of it was due to certain members of the SASC getting ahold of it and asking some pointed questions.  Still, now because of the overzealous vindictiveness of certain members of the JAG Corps, when each of these attorneys fills out a bar application, the answer to the question “have you ever been the subject of an ethics complaint”, the answer is yes, regardless of the fact it proved meritless.

The uniform doesn’t give you immunity if they need a scapegoat. 

He did have a replacement — but per the Kansas board’s decision, that’s not good enough, ethically or professionally, to satisfy a physician’s personal responsibility to the patients who come in seeking his care. 

You’ll also recall, as COL Sullivan reported during the trial, that MAJ Dobson — the doctor who had to go to Afghanistan when Lakin refused to go — missed some of his training and wasn’t able to deploy with the unit:

When he arrived at Fort Campbell on 26 April, most of his squadron had already gone to Afghanistan.  He wasn’t able to attend the predeployment course required for deploying doctors.
When he arrived in Afghanistan, his unit was on the Pakistani border in Kunar Province, just north of Jalalabad.  The previous unit had left a physician’s assistant behind to fill the gap when the 1-32 arrived without a doctor.  MAJ Dobson testified, “She was very happy to see me.”
Then came the most powerful testimony of the court-martial.  On MAJ Dobson’s second day in country, his unit “had mass casualties” — a total of 16.  He testified that he felt he didn’t treat them as well as he could have had he had more time to prepare for his deployment.