Humans are potentially flawed and mental instability is a danger. There needs to be a provision for the 2nd in command or 3rd in command to relieve a captain if he is considered a danger. In STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION the medical officer in medical situations (mental health counts as "medical" too in this) is allowed to give the captain an order.
Yes, but remember . . . Queeg's superior's thought he was wonderful . . .
shareYou are comparing a science fiction movie with what could have been a real Navy incident?
shareActually, that's what Article 184 is. It's an article in Navy Regulations that allows for the relief of a commanding officer by a subordinate, in extraordinary circumstances, without first obtaining authorization from a higher authority.
In the book, Greenwald notes to the Judge Advocate that charging Maryk with mutiny is absurd as he invoked the article and was very careful to stay on legal ground. (i.e. There was no hint of violence or even disrespect and he reported the incident to a higher authority at the first opportunity.) The Judge Advocate has already considered what Greenwald has just told him and in fact the charge Maryk faces is "Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline"; a serious charge, but FAR less serious than mutiny. (The maximum penalty if convicted is fifteen years imprisonment, plus dismissal. However, if convicted of mutiny, one could be hanged.) It's described as a catch-all charge for acts that fall between the legal cracks, such as what Maryk's case does.
In the book, the question in the trial was whether Maryk was legally justified in invoking Article 184. In other words, was Queeg's behaviour jeopardizing the ship to such an extent that the situation met the very strict criteria allowing for the unauthorized relief set forth in the article.
What's not mentioned in the film is Articles 185 and 186. They clarify more about Article 184. What they boil down to is that for anyone invoking Article 184 to relieve a superior, the onus is on them to prove that they were legally justified in doing so.
Yeah, but "The Caine Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline" just doesn't flow as a title.
shareI am confused and stymied by your references. The good news is that I am confused and stymied because the discussion caused me to listen harder to the dialogue in "The Caine Mutiny" and to start doing some searching on the internet. My failure to resolve issues that I found in the dialogue and in statements you make in your post is what has left me confused and stymied.
The United States Army has had for generations and continues to have "regulations." They are referred and, as far as I know always have been referred to as "Army Regulations." The United States Air Force is the same, except that we are much younger and recently (approximately 1995) changed our terminology from Air Force Regulations to Air Force Instructions. These regulations and instructions are directive and violating them may be found by a court martial to be a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). But the regulations are not "articles" and are never properly called "articles." This is because "articles" always refer to articles of the UCMJ. Prior to the existence of the UCMJ, which was created in 1950 and went into effect a year later, the navy and the army were legally restricted under the "Articles of War."
There are now 146 Articles of the UCMJ. They are numbered 1 through 146, though some of them have "sub Articles" listed by letter suffix. There have never been more than those 146. I can find no indication that there were ever any more than 101 Articles of War.
It appears that Article 184 is as much an invention of the author as the rest of the story. There is no reason to believe that the Caine Court Martial Board would refer to a U.S. Naval Regulation as an "Article." Nor does it appear that any article with the number "184" ever existed.
Still, I like the movie and the points that it makes.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
Nomenclature could have changed since the war.
After all, in World War II, it seemed that the members of the court at Maryk's trial acted as both judge and jury. They not only determined the verdict but also ruled on points the opposing councils made, despite none of them being lawyers. In the book, it's mentioned that Captain Blakely, the President of the Court, was a submariner who'd come up from the ranks prior to being beached for a heart condition. The other members of the Court were either doctors or line officers from either the Regular or Reserve Navy.
No, that terminology has not changed. Military records are thorough. Regulations were and are regulations and the Articles of War remained the Articles of War (mostly copied from the British) from 1780 until the Congress passed the UCMJ.
That's right, the members of the court are not normally lawyers. I have been on a court and I'm not a lawyer. That's because the members are the equivalent of a jury. A military court is unusual in that the members are allowed to question the witness.
The court is run by a judge advocate who ensures compliance with the Manual for Courts Martial and currently the UCMJ. But he (or she) does not vote. Another judge advocate serves the prosecution and a legally qualified person, a lawyer if you can get one, serves as the area defense counsel to speak for the defendant.
During war in a rear area you are likely to get staff officers for the court members. Operations officers are busy fighting the war.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
What' with the caps?
suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008
There needs to be a provision for the 2nd in command or 3rd in command to relieve a captain if he is considered a danger. In STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION the medical officer in medical situations (mental health counts as "medical" too in this) is allowed to give the captain an order.
Yeah, and in ST:TNG there's a bar on board the ship, crew and officers spend half their off-duty hours bed-hopping, the security chief has the face of a dog, and there's a snot-nosed underage brat at the helm. Should the US Navy put those things on its ships too?
Yeah, and in ST:TNG there's a bar on board the ship, crew and officers spend half their off-duty hours bed-hopping, the security chief has the face of a dog, and there's a snot-nosed underage brat at the helm. Should the US Navy put those things on its ships too?
On a large vessel -a battleship, carrier, cruiser, etc- there would be a doctor on board. A doctor would be able to give a professional judgement (even if not a psychiatrist, he'd be more qualified than an untrained individual) about the captain's fitness to command. On a smaller vessel like the Caine, they'd only have a Pharmacist's Mate. He'd be qualified to treat various injuries and ailments but would not at all be able to judge psychological health.
shareAside from whether or not a proper psychiatric diagnosis of Queeg's mental condition had been made beforehand, he completely froze during the typhoon and was unable to issue the proper orders. Somebody had to make a decision or the ship was going to founder very soon. As the most experienced man present, Maryk stepped in. He did the right thing.
shareNothing wrong with having a drink or sex.
share