October 12th, 2010
03:16 PM ET

Judge orders military to stop enforcing don't ask, don't tell

A federal judge ordered that the U.S. military stop enforcing the don't ask, don't tell policy on Tuesday.

Judge Virginia Phillips ordered the military "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"."

The judge had previously ruled that the policy regarding gays serving in the military violated service members Fifth Amendment rights but delayed issuing the injunction.

FULL STORY

Post by:
Filed under: Gay and lesbian • Military
soundoff (676 Responses)
  1. SawyersGlasses

    Federal Judge where? What District/Circuit? CNN I need more information than this!

    October 12, 2010 at 3:24 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Takara

      If you read it, you would know. They said the name of the judge in the article. It's called research.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • PARROT

      JUDGE VIRGINIA PHILLIPS

      October 12, 2010 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • SawyersGlasses

      Geez, sorry that my non-googling offends you

      October 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • Geno2010

      She serves in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • SawyersGlasses

      Thanks Geno!

      October 12, 2010 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Geno2010

      No problem. CNN is putting little effort into providing all the facts in their articles these days. Sloppy, sloppy work...

      October 12, 2010 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Trent

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_A._Phillips
      Virginia A. Phillips (born 1957) is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rachel Marsch

      Here is a web site link regarding the judge: http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Virginia_Phillips

      October 12, 2010 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joe

      @ KAPA: Gays do not have a right to serve and protect their country?? Really? So only straights have that right. What goes on in that empty cavernous skull of yours????

      October 12, 2010 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • varneyalex

      Click 'FULL STORY' then.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rob

      @takara – Uh hello, I should not *have* to do additional research AFTER reading a news article to just understand the basics of the story! Ever hear of the 5 W's? Obviously not so you might want to research that. I learned about the the 5 W's in 5th grade. It's a shame CNN can't do 5th grade level reporting and shame on you for defending this sloppy pathetic reporting. (Or do you just not know any better?)

      October 12, 2010 at 5:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • twilliam

      So what? We had a federal judge lift the offshore moratorium and the Obama regime just ignored it.

      October 12, 2010 at 5:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • DT Murray

      Active duty members are under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the 5th Amendment does not apply.

      October 12, 2010 at 6:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Elizabeth

      All you have to do is click "FULL STORY" that's underneath the last sentence.

      October 12, 2010 at 9:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Luke

      DT Murray:
      The 5th ammendment right to indightment by grand jury is excluded in cases arising out of the military service during a time of war. However, another 5th ammendment right, to due process, is not so excluded. The judge ruled, partially, on the grounds of the denial of due process, not the denial of grand jury indightment.

      October 13, 2010 at 4:58 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Luke

    Since when can a judge order the military to do anything. Isn't the President of the United States the commander in Chief?

    October 12, 2010 at 3:25 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Ed

      No silly, federal judges have all the power they need to make laws for US citizens, that would include the military.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike Martinea

      Wait are you supporting the President now? Wow, even the furthest right of you will do anything in the name of hate.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Todd

      Judges can order the president to do things as well.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Richard

      DADT is a law enacted by Congress, and therefore falls under scrutiny of the civilian Federal Courts.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • scott

      They can't, which is why the military will ignore this order just like previous orders. The federal judiciary has no standing here. The president leads the military based on the rules and funding ordered by congress. The two check and balance each other. The court has no jurisdiction; and obviously despises that fact and refuses to admit it has no jurisdiction.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Greg

      Its called the Branches of Power for a reason....

      October 12, 2010 at 3:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kyle

      Actually, DADT is not a law established by Congress...it was established by an executive order by then President Bill Clinton (Defense Directive 1304.26). Oddly enough, another excutive order from the President could abolish DADT and make it permissible for gay service members to servce openly...so why hasn't he done that already?

      October 12, 2010 at 3:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • YAOMK

      Wow so you admit that a black man named Barack Husein Obama is your Commander in Chief? Now that is progress.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lowell

      The judicial branch doesn't make laws, the legislative does, silly.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      Don't Ask Don't Tell is a law passed by congress and as such comes under judicial review. As for the military just 'ignoring' this ruling I'll remind you that the military exists to serve the needs of the State and the Nation. If the military decided to ignore a legal judgment it would be tantamount to treason.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • jdoggers

      Yeah, there is absolutely no qualifications needed to be a federal judge. They were appointed to their position politically. No wonder why they don't know the law.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • bob2561

      sorry Ed.judge do not have power to make laws. judges interpret law; our lazy do nothing congress lets them get away with it.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Matt in Chicago

      DADT was codified in 1993. It originally was an executive order, but today it is a federal law. The Judge can strike down the law, but she cannot direct the military to do anything... she does not have that authority. In other words, the military can go right on enforcing the policy of DADT even if the law is unenforceable because the policy is based on the authority of the executive branch (or at least it was until it was codified)

      If you want to strike down the executive order (which is all that remains now assuming that this decision is upheld on appeal), you would have to sue the President in his capacity as Commander in Chief.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Gpenn

      Our country will not fall, because of Republicans or Democrats. No it will fall, because our education system has become so lousy. Our education system is responsible for people like Luke and anyone else who thinks the Federal Courts have no standing in this case. You people have zero clue how the government works and you need to go back to school and learn it, before you run your mouth about it.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Margot707

      This ruling was in response to a lawsuit. However brief this article is, that much was said. You may also want to "google" "Log Cabin Republicans."

      October 12, 2010 at 4:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • wwwgator

      When you take the oath of service to join the military, you are giving up certain rights (including the 1st....remember Gen. Franks?) so why does this goofball judge seem to think she can give rights to people who surrendered them?
      When you take take the oath, you become the property of the US Government. You follow the UCMJ and they will control you....can't even get sunburned without consequences.
      The military isn't a platform for political drama, to promote an agenda one way or the other. All the service people I ever spoke with, when asked they are THE US ARMY, AIR FORCE, MARINES, NAVY period.not the gay army or gay navy, why do you need to define yourself as anything other than a US Soldier. Don't like the policy, don't join or don't parade yourself as something that is of no business to anybody but yourself.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Go back to your civic class

      Federal judge can't tell the president squat. Our powers of govt are separate for checks and balance. One can't tell the other much. And whom will federal judge call to invoke her ruling??? So stupid! Go back and brush up on your American history and civics...

      October 12, 2010 at 11:29 pm | Report abuse |
  3. lindy235

    This what happens with activists judges on the bench.

    October 12, 2010 at 3:25 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Ed

      Like Clarence Thomas and Scalia?

      October 12, 2010 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lindsay

      What, justice? Oh man, I can see how that would be an issue for bigots who believe their values are more important than law.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • heybroh

      If we're talking about activist judges, how about the 5 judges on SCOTUS that voted on the Citizens United case that now allows anonymous campaign ad donations by any corporation, anywhere? In terms of how either of these cases negatively impacts our country and our culture, Citizens United is the worst SCOTUS decision in decades. DODT is a hateful, discriminatory practice that should have been gone years ago, when our country reached the age of reason.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • dave

      Exactly! Women end up voting, black people end up marrying white people, gay people end up defending the country, and bigots end up upset. Too bad so sad. The above decisions are exactly why this is not done by a vote by the general public. Most of it is stupid.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Marco

      Good things, apparently...

      October 12, 2010 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Howard

      "Activist judges"? Do you say that only because the decision may go against your personal moral compass? I'm assuming if this was a conservative decision that would be acceptable and play to your ideologies? Judges just need to apply the law and leave their religion and ideologies at home, thank you. We desperately need center-thinking judges; still stacked to high on the right, but this was a good decision.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bill Bobaggins

      Ah...I see...so as soon as a judge orders something you don't agree with, they are an "activist" judge? I really don't see what the problem is allowing gay people to serve openly in the military. What someone does in their own home is none of my business, but as long as they follow the orders of their commanders on the field, I have no problem with them, no matter what their orientation is.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave C

      The term 'activist judge' is only conveniently used when there's a ruling you don't like.

      Come up with an original thought or argument... Let us know when you do.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Van

      "What, justice? Oh man, I can see how that would be an issue for bigots who believe their values are more important than law." says Lindsey

      The Nazi's thought their laws were more important than values. Let that be an examples of what a society looks like without values/morals.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      You get rid of another loathsome "separate but equal" policy. You stop allowing religious fear to trample civil rights. You let a group of people who want to fight for their country do so. If this is activist judging...then score on for activist judging. On the other hand...I would counter that only a close-minded fool would consider this activist judging. This is a judge who realizes its her job to judge the legality of this policy...a policy that is clearly in violation of basic civil rights. This is the right decision...as any sane, freedom-loving American would tell you.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bradley

      "Activist judges", oh yes, the latest catchphrase to downplay the importance and responsibility of the judicial branch of our government. How sad for you to have slept through 5th grade social studies. How much you missed about how a system of checks and balances works. The judiciary is doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. Now go back to watching cable TV, where some talking head will give you your latest catchphrase cribsheet.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • courtiebabe

      Activist judges? Right on Dave! The general population, if given the chance to vote on the issue would not have let black people marry white people! Get your head out of your bottom Lindy.

      October 12, 2010 at 5:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Go back to your civic class

      She need to be impeached...

      October 12, 2010 at 11:32 pm | Report abuse |
  4. YAOMK

    I look forward to the White House Response, lets see if they stand for equality or not.

    October 12, 2010 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • jdoggers

      Yeah I do too. If they turn out to be pro-gay, then I will not vote for him in 2012.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nick

      @ Jdoggers...Your pathetic.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dusty Bottoms

      Nick: It's "you're"

      October 12, 2010 at 4:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • jdoggers

      Nick...haha if you cannot even spell simple words it just shows your lack of intelligence and logic. No wonder why nobody agrees with you.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • CivilRights

      jdoggers: Are you even registered to vote?

      October 12, 2010 at 4:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joe

      He spelled pathetic right which is exactly what you are, jdoggers.

      October 12, 2010 at 5:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • Go back to your civic class

      You can pick the bo-bo all you want the only thing you going to do is make it bleed. The only powers directing military is congress and president...and congress powers must be majority. Everybody's powers has limits...federal judge should have wrote it on tissue paper.

      October 12, 2010 at 11:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ex-cuuuuse me!

      @yako the whitehouse is not compelled to respond to her ruling. As we speak the oval office has probally directed ole Gibbs to back-hand slap her ruling with white gloves.

      October 13, 2010 at 2:23 am | Report abuse |
  5. DC

    Finally some sanity!

    October 12, 2010 at 3:27 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  6. John

    Does she even have the authority?

    October 12, 2010 at 3:27 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • PARROT

      I DON'T THINK SO, SHE IS NOT A MILITARY JUDGE

      October 12, 2010 at 3:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ed

      Yes she does, federal law covers all jurisdictions including the military.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • iowaguy

      YES!

      October 12, 2010 at 3:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • grace

      Doesn't matter if she has the authority or not...people aren't listening to the Generals that see what goes on in the military to know that this will only start problems. Just wait and see.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Frank

      Clearly a federal judge does NOT have jurisdiction over the military or one could order the president to return the troops home. And they can't. Military life is governed by the UCMJ and DADT is part of that.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • jdoggers

      of course she doesn't have the authority. This will be overturned at appeals court.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • bob2561

      short answer John: no.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • The real answere

      Ive done a meta-analysis of the responses to jon in hopes to better answere the question "Does she even have the authority?". The results: Maybe?

      Im sorry but my N value was too low for this to reach statistical significance.

      October 13, 2010 at 9:42 am | Report abuse |
  7. Ron

    So the log cabin Republicans are the ones behind the law suit to stop the horrendous discrimination policies put in place by the people they help elect. I applaud the judge for stopping DADT but I would like ask the LCRs what they are smoking?

    October 12, 2010 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Michelle

      Clinton put the policy in place. Clinton is a Democrat.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ron

      Michelle, there is a reason they call "liberals" like me the "elite" because you and people like you just cant keep up. Before DADT a gay person could be searched out and kicked out by a military witch hunt. DADT was the best the Democrats could do at the time against the Republicans that were 100% against it. And BTW, I have served 12 years in the US Army.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Robert

      The Judge didn't stop anything. She has no authority over the military.

      October 12, 2010 at 6:07 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Tony

    This judge has no legal grounds. The military law falls under the Uniform code of Military Justice, not the federal courts.

    October 12, 2010 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • PARROT

      I AGREE 100%

      October 12, 2010 at 3:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      Wrong

      October 12, 2010 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Adam

      DADT is a law established by Congress and is subject to judicial review. Period.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ronald Raygun

      apparently not.....

      October 12, 2010 at 3:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • sabs

      except that Don't ask Don't Tell isn't a military law.
      it's a law passed by Congress in the early 90's

      October 12, 2010 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ed

      Wrong

      October 12, 2010 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • heybroh

      The law also effects citizens serving in the military whose rights are being challenged.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Josh

      UCMJ is for prosecution of crimes in the military. Not for administrative issues. Because the military falls under the federal government, it is legally bound by federal court rulings.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • YAOMK

      Wrong, civil rights are violated by military procedure, not the other way around. The judge has jurisdiction.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      "Don't ask, don't tell" is a federal law passed by Congress and is therefore open to judicial review in federal courts. Anyone who supports DADT is clearly just a bigot, and sadly they are probably proud of their bigotry.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • iowaguy

      Check your facts, Tony. You are incorrect.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kyle

      Actually, DADT is not a law established by Congress...it was established by an executive order by then President Bill Clinton (Defense Directive 1304.26). Oddly enough, another excutive order from the President could abolish DADT and make it permissible for gay service members to servce openly...so why hasn't he done that already?

      October 12, 2010 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ron

      Poor Tony, I bet you get tired of being wrong.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • jdoggers

      I find it funny how gay people will overlook the law just because they are for gay rights. The truth is that this judge completely overstepped her jurisdiction and this issue, if any court was to decide it, should only be decided by the supreme court if any.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • LtCol Donna K Buechler retired

      The Uniform Code of Military Justice determines how the individual military person behaves, not the laws that the military lives under.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • jh

      Yes the judge can enforce it, the military is federal. and all I can say is it is about damn time. there is nothing wrong with gays serving in the military and I can tell you all you have been serving next to them in every aspect of your military careers, you just didn't know it, will it really affect you if you did no?? Nope not at all, a very good friend of mine was gay and served with me in iraq.....he saved my life and several other soldiers and I can tell you not a damn person cared that he was gay while he was saving them.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ex-cuuuuse me!

      What part of this you people don't understand: judicial powers cannot compel executive powers...

      October 13, 2010 at 2:31 am | Report abuse |
    • JJ

      i would never make a claim to fully understand the processes of decisions like these. or the powers of the individuals involved. but i can say, as an "alternative joe" that even if her decision isn't enforced and has no bearing legally.... the non-sensical meaning of being stood up for, and some semblance of progression on this matter is a slight relief, even a light at the end of this tunnel.

      October 13, 2010 at 11:53 am | Report abuse |
    • So what really jj

      is to pass gas (gay agenda shi-ee-it) first and then solicit all offended parties for Beano tm so as to minimize your incontinent gesture. @jj are you sure high society America would really appreciate the Bart Simpson prank?

      October 13, 2010 at 8:31 pm | Report abuse |
  9. TBates

    This judge is from UC Berkeley and sits on the liberal SF bench. .......No surprise here.

    October 12, 2010 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Ronald Raygun

      who cares those gay people are helping to protect you....

      October 12, 2010 at 3:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bob

      Actually, this judge is in Riverside, nowhere near SF. Very conservative area. She also attended UC – Riverside before going to Berkeley. Moreover, she was confirmed by a very Republican Congress during the last year of Clinton's presidency.

      Please check your facts, sir.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Paudanyce

      Rob...all you had to say was Berkley....Anywhere north of Santa Barbara and south of Sacramento is gay friendly.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Richard

    Ahhh, Fox News and the "right" are going to have a field day. Prepare for the onslaught.

    October 12, 2010 at 3:30 pm | Report abuse | Reply
  11. Leslie Curtice

    And so the crack in the wall of bigotry begins. Bigots have found themselves on the losing side of the anti-Irish, anti-black, anti-women laws in this country and this is just another example.

    October 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Andsoitgoes

      The military has historically been on the forefront of social issues. However, having a bunkmate in the barracks that openly finds you attractive is not the best situation for military order and bearing. Remember, you don't have a right to serve in the military, it is a selective service. DADT is not the best solution, I've no doubt there are many upstanding, patriotic gays serving our country. But forgive me for not wanting to share the same sleeping quarters with you.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      You already are sharing sleeping quarter and showers with them fella.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:53 pm | Report abuse |
  12. tommytanker

    Virginia A. Phillips (born 1957) is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California

    October 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • MadinMedia

      Funny how almost all these over-reaching, off the wall, liberal decisions are made by Clinton appointees, ain't it.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:42 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Howard

    A Republican gay rights group? Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Must be strange to be part of a party where the majority think you are immoral and not deserving of many rights, like serving in the military and getting married to name a couple.

    October 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Nick

      Republicans are not anti gay, social conservatives are anti gay. Social conservatives are a minority of the Republican party. However they are a very vocal minority.

      There will be no problems in the military for those who are allowed to serve and be openly gay. I am a Veteran and everyone knew who we served with and which ones were gay. It cause zero problems for any of us that I served with and this was before DADT when they asked if you were gay as part of the enlistment process. Those who answered no and were later found to be gay were thrown out of the military for lying under oath, although usually they found other reasons to discharge them to avoid legal harrassment.

      DADT was a stupid policy put into effect because the Democrats were afraid to fix the issue in the 90s because they did not want to be seen as anti military for re-election, and because the social conservative wing of the Republican party had gained way to much power in relation to their actual contribution to the party.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
  14. FRED

    I find it appalling that this makes breaking news with all the other real issues in this country. WHO CARES????!!!!!

    October 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • squealy

      Oh, Fred, you would be surprised. I, and many others, care very much about this issue. It is about time this finally happened.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • natalie

      I care!!!!

      October 12, 2010 at 3:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Marco

      I don't find it appalling by any length or stretch of the imagination.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Social Activist

      It may not be news to you because it doesn't effect you. An example for me would be that it's easy to say that something like the Chilean miners shouldn't be news either because it does not effect me. So, just because you don't think it's news doesn't mean no one else does.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • dumenuf

      So do we now have sleeping 4 sets of sleeping quarters, showers – for him him/her, her/him, and her?

      October 12, 2010 at 4:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jill American

      You should care Fred since hundreds of gays were discharged under the policy when Bush was in office, even those fluent in Arabic while AT WAR!

      October 12, 2010 at 4:28 pm | Report abuse |
  15. Andrew

    Im pretty sure you cant sue the military its like sueing the president or something, noone does it
    Dont know how this happened

    October 12, 2010 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse | Reply
    • Um

      Obviously.

      October 12, 2010 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • BaronBrian

      The point of our country and our laws is that no one should be above the law. Ever. The Declaration of Independence stated that one of the reasons that the colonists were rebelling was because King George was putting the military above civil law ("He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the Civil Power"). So yes, people can, should and do sue the military.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lynn

      Actually you can sue the military. I work in the OSJA (Army's JAG) and people sue all the time. The only Federal Law that prohibits suit is the Feres Decision which says active duty personnel are barred from suing for anything that happend to them during their service.

      October 12, 2010 at 4:15 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.