US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Jura

General
Nov 5, 2018
I still recall discussions at Fox News (if to deploy to the border) from the time I had lived in the US, which was in 2001 and 02;

at first glance it sounded like an outrage to have "permeable" borders with Terrorists potentially coming,

but from what I figured, there wouldn't have been enough Illegals to for example pick up apples for less-than-minimal wage, so

LOL no big tasty apple for a quarter,

and of course enough Lobbyists to keep this going

(not sure if it's changed since then)
now
Supreme Court: Trump Can Use Pentagon Funds for Border Wall
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Supreme Court cleared the way Friday for the Trump administration to tap billions of dollars in Pentagon funds to build sections of a border wall with Mexico.

The court's five conservative justices gave the administration the greenlight to begin work on four contracts it has awarded using Defense Department money. Funding for the projects had been frozen by lower courts while a lawsuit over the money proceeded. The court's four liberal justices wouldn't have allowed construction to start.

The justices' decision to lift the freeze on the money allows President Donald Trump to make progress on a major 2016 campaign promise heading into his race for a second term. Trump tweeted after the announcement: "Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!"

The Supreme Court's action reverses the decision of a trial court, which initially froze the funds in May, and an appeals court, which kept that freeze in place earlier this month. The freeze had prevented the government from tapping approximately $2.5 billion in Defense Department money to replace existing sections of barrier in Arizona, California and New Mexico with more robust fencing.

The case the Supreme Court ruled in began after the 35-day partial government shutdown that started in December of last year. Trump ended the shutdown in February after Congress gave him approximately $1.4 billion in border wall funding. But the amount was far less than the $5.7 billion he was seeking, and Trump then declared a national emergency to take cash from other government accounts to use to construct sections of wall.

The money Trump identified includes $3.6 billion from military construction funds, $2.5 billion in Defense Department money and $600 million from the Treasury Department's asset forfeiture fund.

The case before the Supreme Court involved just the $2.5 billion in Defense Department funds, which the administration says will be used to construct more than 100 miles of fencing. One project would replace 46 miles of barrier in New Mexico for $789 million. Another would replace 63 miles in Arizona for $646 million. The other two projects in California and Arizona are smaller.

The other funds were not at issue in the case. The Treasury Department funds have so far survived legal challenges, and Customs and Border Protection has earmarked the money for work in Texas' Rio Grande Valley but has not yet awarded contracts. Transfer of the $3.6 billion in military construction funds is awaiting approval from the defense secretary.

The lawsuit at the Supreme Court was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition. The justices who lifted the freeze on the money did not give a lengthy explanation for their decision. But they said among the reasons they were doing so was that the government had made a "sufficient showing at this stage" that those bringing the lawsuit don't have a right to challenge the decision to use the money.

Alexei Woltornist, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said in a statement, "We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that the lower courts should not have halted construction of walls on the southern border. We will continue to vigorously defend the Administration's efforts to protect our Nation."

ACLU lawyer Dror Ladin said after the court's announcement that the fight "is not over." The case will continue, but the Supreme Court's decision suggests an ultimate victory for the ACLU is unlikely. Even if the ACLU were to win, fencing will have already been built.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement Friday night accusing Trump of trying to "undermine our military readiness and steal from our men and women in uniform to waste billions on a wasteful, ineffective wall that Congress on a bipartisan basis has repeatedly refused to fund." She said the Supreme Court's decision "undermines the Constitution and the law."

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York called the decision "deeply regrettable and nonsensical."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan would not have allowed construction to begin. Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have allowed the government to finalize the contracts for the segments but not begin construction while the lawsuit proceeded. The administration had argued that if it wasn't able to finalize the contracts by Sept. 30, then it would lose the ability to use the funds. The administration had asked for a decision quickly.

The Supreme Court is on break for the summer but does act on certain pressing items.
 

Jura

General

The Blue Ridge-class command and control ship USS Mount Whitney (LCC 20) is underway in the Baltic Sea in support of exercise Baltic Operations (BALTOPS) 2019 on June 18, 2019. US Navy photo.
I had wished they would've let me on board and I could've sit in an admiral's chair, LOL!
 

Jura

General
May 16, 2019
Nov 23, 2018
...
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Navy is adding more ships as quickly as possible, even as it grapples with how it's going to pay the costs to keep them afloat once it gets them, a top officer said.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
plus inside
Gilday Acknowledges Ship Maintenance Challenges, Vows to Study Barriers to Readiness
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

"SASC ranking member Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said it appeared that the Navy couldn’t even maintain a force of 290 ships, let alone the 355 ships the Navy is aiming to field in the coming years. He asked Gilday if he thought the Navy had the repair capacity to keep up with a larger fleet.

“I think, based on what we see today, one would be inclined to say we don’t. But I don’t think we can say that with a high degree of accuracy yet,” Gilday replied."
 

Jura

General
I've recently noticed SEAL stories at NavyTimes (I recall according to one of those stories the members referred to the drug test with "a joke"), now
‘We Have a Problem’: Letter from Naval Special Warfare Command CO to Force
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and
Exclusive: Top US Navy SEAL tells commanders in letter: 'We have a problem'
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Top