The Admiral’s Mast choice, as I understand it seems like a smart move on their part, it might get the case away from the hands of the political hacks. The Navy guys could maybe elaborate on that better???
Not Navy, retired AF, but IMO they made a smart move. Under Non-judicial punishment they have very little in the way of legal protection. They basically confess to the “crime” and are then summarily punished by the commanding officer.
It’s a way of avoiding the court proceedings if it’s not very serious in nature. This sounds like a purely political move on the commanding officer’s part or he may have standing orders that this type of incident be handled.
Any NAVY/MARINE folks are more than welcome to correct my post.
SZ
Was legal o on my first ship. By forcing a courts-martial they remove the ability of the CO to impose his own particular brand of PC justice whichever way that blows on a given day.
It puts it in the hands of a jury (depending if it is summary, special, or general that makeup varies I think)and they have full legal counsel.
Most importantly the rules of evidence apply.
It will definitely limit, not eliminate, the CO/Admiral from imposing their personal whim for the day.
They refused the admiral's mast for this BS and dared the admiral to take this crap to trial.