Search Results: should i move on

"The suicide bomber made his away across Bagram air base in Afghanistan in 2016, heading toward a Veterans Day 5-K race featuring hundreds of U. S. soldiers. As U. S. Army Spec. Winston T. Hencely moved to grab the man, the bomber detonated an explosive-laden vest that left Hencely with severe injuries and killed six.

Hencely was credited with saving lives, and the military later concluded that a contractor, Fluor Corp., which employed the suicide bomber, had failed to properly supervise the man before the attack.

Under federal law, Hencely cannot sue the military for his injuries. And when he sued Fluor for negligence, courts dismissed his case, saying federal law preempted it as well.

On Monday, the Supreme Court grappled with Hencely’s last-ditch appeal to revive his lawsuit. The case will determine what recourse soldiers hurt in combat zones might have if they allege that contractors — a fast-growing part of military operations — are responsible for their injuries.

The case revolves around the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which in some instances waives the sovereign immunity the government typically enjoys against lawsuits. The law sets up some clear barriers to suits, including those related to “combatant activities” during “time of war.”

In 1988 SCOTUS held that the tort law barred suits against military contractors when the claims involve a “uniquely federal interest.”.

Mark Mosier, an attorney for Fluor, told the justices the readiness of the U. S. military to fight a war could be undermined by suits like Hencely’s because trust between the military and contractors is paramount.

“The purpose of tort law is to discourage risk-taking, but waging war often requires contractors to take risks, putting their lives and the lives of others in danger,” Mosier said. “Petitioner’s claims also weaken the military’s control over combat operations. Contractors are part of the total force, and the military cannot successfully wage war without them.”

My take: If you can get FOX & MSNBC to agree in solidarity, then you MUST be wrong Pete.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has imposed new restrictive conditions on media access to the Pentagon, requiring reporters to commit to not acquiring or using any unauthorized information, whether classified or unclassified. Journalists must sign an agreement to this effect or risk losing their press credentials and physical access to the Pentagon. This policy also restricts reporters' movements within the Pentagon, banning access to large areas without official escorts and relocating dedicated workspace for news organizations to undisclosed locations, making it harder for reporters to interact with military personnel. Hegseth's policy demands that any information reported must be preauthorized for release by Pentagon officials, effectively granting the Pentagon editorial control over what journalists can publish. This move has been widely criticized by the Pentagon Press Association and major news outlets—including ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, Fox News, The New York Times, and many others—who see it as a violation of First Amendment rights and an unprecedented attack on press freedom. Almost all media organizations have refused to sign the new rules, and many reporters have turned in their Pentagon press passes in protest.Hegseth defends the restrictions as common-sense measures to safeguard classified information and maintain order, but critics argue this escalates censorship and stifles transparency regarding military affairs. The policy also moves the Pentagon press corps toward an unprecedented absence of mainstream news coverage inside the Pentagon, breaking a tradition that had lasted since the Eisenhower era. Only one right-wing outlet, One America News, has agreed to the new conditions, while nearly all others stand in solidarity against them