U.S. Navy to Probe Lewd Videos Shown to Carrier Crew

[Gerald]

NORFOLK, Virginia – The Navy said Sunday it will investigate "clearly inappropriate" videos broadcast to the crew of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in which a top officer of the ship used gay slurs, mimicked masturbation and opened the shower curtain on women pretending to bathe together.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/02/navy-probe-lewd-videos-shown-carrier-crew/?test=latestnews


Note: Published January 02, 2011

[Oberon]

:hmmm: I'm no homophobe, but hasn't this sort of thing been done on naval ships of just about all nations before? Navy humour (heck, most military humour full stop, particularly at squaddie level) is traditionally ribald, and if you don't have a thick skin, well, surely you picked the wrong career?

Although, not actually been there myself in terms of military service, so I can't say anything for definite, so I'll leave the real talking to those who have and are.

[Takeda Shingen]

When I saw this story, I asked myself why it is that some people who are very successful would risk everything by not only doing something potentially damaging, but putting it on tape? Even if this was something that others around me were doing, I would never place my career in jeopardy by taking part in it, especially if others were complaining. The Navy may not have done anything about it by itself, but once leaked, you just knew that they would have to act, and having a recording of it is just a timebomb waiting to go off.

[Growler]

... a top officer of the ship used gay slurs, mimicked masturbation and opened the shower curtain on women pretending to bathe together.

I'd reckon that this is the part they're going to look at most closely - that a top officer was directly involved.

[Gerald]

I'd reckon that this is the part they're going to look at most closely - that a top officer was directly involved. If you do these things, and also is an officer who will lead the way for others with respect and mines, where he may stand his caste.

[August]

His career is over.

[Growler]

Oh, hell yes, his Naval career is toast. But he'll make a ton on rights to his side of the story.

[TLAM Strike]

ID posted the video that was leaked to the Virgina Pilot.

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/01/year-begins-with-movie-night.html

Personally I thought it was hilarious. :haha: I can't wait for the DVD Box Set!

[ETR3(SS)]

As much as I like an informed and educated American public, this is one of those things that they don't need to know about. If they would like to know then they can inform themselves by visiting their nearest navy recruiter and doing the job that sailors do on a daily basis. Try as the Navy might to rid itself of the stereotypical sailor image, we do swear, drink, smoke, and goof off in ways that the general public wouldn't find acceptable behavior.

Why the public cares about events that happened 3-4 years ago and are trying to do something about it now is beyond me. Personally I hope Capt. Honors career continues uninhibited.

[Feuer Frei!]

Try as the Navy might to rid itself of the stereotypical sailor image, we do swear, drink, smoke, and goof off in ways that the general public wouldn't find acceptable behavior.

That might well be true, solution? Keep 'it' (swearing, drinking, smoking, and goofing and slurs etc) on the inside, not release it via videos which the public will have, or can have, via leaks, access to.

Why the public cares about events that happened 3-4 years ago and are trying to do something about it now is beyond me. Personally I hope Capt. Honors career continues uninhibited.i think that the captain is short of a few brain cells to be honest, and surely the few that he has, must have advised him against such 'actions'?
Why should his career go uninhibited? The position he holds alone should be a reason why there should be some sort of 'accountability' for the, and let's be honest here, stupid actions.
Yea sure some people might find it funny or think the guy has a sense of humour, or even agree with his depictions of various acts and portrayals of certain aspects of life. However, that is really not the point here.
And of course a lot of us will use the old "so just because he is in a position of power and trust and responsibility, should he be held accountable for his actions"?
Errm yep, even moreso.
Sorry, but we are all responsible for our actions and if there is no accountability for stupid actions then does that really send out a positive message to others, either in positions of power, right down to us mere mortals who generally look up to these people in some sort of way of respect, trust and belief that these persons were chosen for their positions because they uphold a good sense of morals, respect and decency to our fellow members of society, certainly in public anyway.
Accountability, Accountability, Accountability, can't say it enough.

[MaddogK]

Umm, does anyone care that the video was made 4 years ago ? I thought it was funny as h*ll, and I have no doubt the Capt. is more than professional when appropriate, this is simply a little horseplay when the crewmen needed some morale boost. A NON-issue, and a reprimand at most.

[August]

Umm, does anyone care that the video was made 4 years ago ?


Nope. If it were made when he was a Lt-Jg it might be excused as a youthful indiscretion but he was a Commander at the time and has to adhere to a higher standard.

[Feuer Frei!]

Ok, so it was 3 to 4 years ago, it finally came to light and...we cba about it now, because no-one cares and let's just sweep it all under the carpet and forget about it and move on and send out the message that 'even though we finally found out what you did and 'had to' investigate because of the leak, we won't hold you accountable for your rather immature and irresponsible actions, because it's been 3 to 4 years' and it sends out a message stating exactly that to the wider public and indeed kids who look up to these sorts of people, is well, a bit wrong imho.

[Growler]

As much as I like an informed and educated American public, this is one of those things that they don't need to know about. If they would like to know then they can inform themselves by visiting their nearest navy recruiter and doing the job that sailors do on a daily basis. Try as the Navy might to rid itself of the stereotypical sailor image, we do swear, drink, smoke, and goof off in ways that the general public wouldn't find acceptable behavior.

Why the public cares about events that happened 3-4 years ago and are trying to do something about it now is beyond me. Personally I hope Capt. Honors career continues uninhibited.

What else is there to say but, sadly, political correctness trumps "tradition" in today's political and military climate. Look at the hubbub over the alleged USMC puppy video, and other footage out of the wars today. Did the American public think these guys just make this stuff up nowadays? Half these sheeple watching the "news" have never heard of a place called My Lai, I guess - you know, back in the "rough and tumble" 60's, when we weren't as civilized as we are now. :nope::damn:

[MaddogK]

Nope. If it were made when he was a Lt-Jg it might be excused as a youthful indiscretion but he was a Commander at the time and has to adhere to a higher standard.

He was a Cdr at the time the vid was made AND it was broadcast over the ships closed circuit TV system.

No problems back then, he was promoted to Capt. of the vessel.

Only NOW do some have issues with it. Sounds like a witchhunt based on the repeal of DADT.

[Takeda Shingen]

He was a Cdr at the time the vid was made AND it was broadcast over the ships closed circuit TV system.

No problems back then, he was promoted to Capt. of the vessel.

Only NOW do some have issues with it. Sounds like a witchhunt based on the repeal of DADT.

Doesn't sound like a witch hunt at all to me. It sounds like the man, in a position of authority, not only made inappropriate comments and gestures, but videotaped them and broadcast them over the ship's CC TV. The Navy looked the other way until someone, likely someone who was offended by the acts, procured a copy and leaked it to the press. Now the Navy is forced to do what it probably should have done a long time ago.

I'll never understand the 'boys will be boys' attitude that many people have towards the military; a rationale used to excuse all kinds of inappropriate behavior, from the blatent abuse of prisoners to the Tailhook scandal. Service to one's country goes not grant the right to act in these ways.

[Feuer Frei!]

Doesn't sound like a witch hunt at all to me. It sounds like the man, in a position of authority, not only made inappropriate comments and gestures, but videotaped them and broadcast them over the ship's CC TV. The Navy looked the other way until someone, likely someone who was offended by the acts, procured a copy and leaked it to the press. Now the Navy is forced to do what it probably should have done a long time ago.

I'll never understand the 'boys will be boys' attitude that many people have towards the military; a rationale used to excuse all kinds of inappropriate behavior, from the blatent abuse of prisoners to the Tailhook scandal. Service to one's country goes not grant the right to act in these ways.
Exactly my sentiments, well said :up:

[Sailor Steve]

I thought some of the comments on the video link were interesting. It really is a conundrum. On the one hand it isn't just political correctness - a senior officer really must be held to a higher standard. On the other, just who determines what that standard is a point in question. As mentioned there, CDR Honors apparently did much to boost the morale of his crew during a tough period, and morale is the XO's job. He also has an exemplary record of command, both at that time and since.

As always, I'm obviously of two minds on this, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Hakahura]

Doesn't sound like a witch hunt at all to me. It sounds like the man, in a position of authority, not only made inappropriate comments and gestures, but videotaped them and broadcast them over the ship's CC TV. The Navy looked the other way until someone, likely someone who was offended by the acts, procured a copy and leaked it to the press. Now the Navy is forced to do what it probably should have done a long time ago.

I'll never understand the 'boys will be boys' attitude that many people have towards the military; a rationale used to excuse all kinds of inappropriate behavior, from the blatent abuse of prisoners to the Tailhook scandal. Service to one's country goes not grant the right to act in these ways.


This is hardly prisoner abuse or "Tailhook".
"I'll never understand", easy answer to that is to serve for a few years in any service for pretty much any nation.

Speaking as a serviceman this is just part of the life.
Relax, chill out, the military is different to civilian life.
We do have different standards and values.

To my eyes this video is a bunch of shipmates having a laugh entertaining their shipmates.

Unfortuantly this officer will probably end up in alot of trouble, IMO thats a shame because a sense of humour is one of the prime requirements of any serviceman. If you can't have a laugh or shrug of something that offends you, how on earth would you cope on operations?

Really who do you want to defend you? A collection of PC touchy feely hug the world types.

[nikimcbee]

I remember the days when our armed forced had real problems to deal with.:shifty:

[MaddogK]

This is hardly prisoner abuse or "Tailhook".
"I'll never understand", easy answer to that is to serve for a few years in any service for pretty much any nation.

Speaking as a serviceman this is just part of the life.
Relax, chill out, the military is different to civilian life.
We do have different standards and values.

To my eyes this video is a bunch of shipmates having a laugh entertaining their shipmates.

Unfortuantly this officer will probably end up in alot of trouble, IMO thats a shame because a sense of humour is one of the prime requirements of any serviceman. If you can't have a laugh or shrug of something that offends you, how on earth would you cope on operations?

Really who do you want to defend you? A collection of PC touchy feely hug the world types.

+1
:up:

[Takeda Shingen]

This is hardly prisoner abuse or "Tailhook".
"I'll never understand", easy answer to that is to serve for a few years in any service for pretty much any nation.

Speaking as a serviceman this is just part of the life.
Relax, chill out, the military is different to civilian life.
We do have different standards and values.

To my eyes this video is a bunch of shipmates having a laugh entertaining their shipmates.

Unfortuantly this officer will probably end up in alot of trouble, IMO thats a shame because a sense of humour is one of the prime requirements of any serviceman. If you can't have a laugh or shrug of something that offends you, how on earth would you cope on operations?

Really who do you want to defend you? A collection of PC touchy feely hug the world types.

Yeah, see I don't buy the whole 'it's in the culture' argument. I also don't believe that requiring military personnel to excercise the discipline and forethought as to not engage in this type of behavior while on active duty makes them poor soldiers, or touchy feely hug the world types. Furthermore, since I do live in a western liberal democratic republic, where the military arm is answerable to the civilians, I see outrage over this behavior as perfectly normal, reasonable and acceptable.

[TarJak]

I remember the days when our armed forced had real problems to deal with.:shifty:
:up:

[August]

Only NOW do some have issues with it. Sounds like a witchhunt based on the repeal of DADT.

You may be right but he had to know when he was making the video that it might come back to haunt him some day and now it has.

[Jimbuna]

Sounds to me like he has either upset somebody or there is somebody waiting to be slotted in.

I do recognise the fact that officers in senior positions must lead by example but that video was probably no more offensive than the one made at the last SS Meet :DL

[Hakahura]

You're right Takeda, in a western liberal democracy the military is answerable to the people and they do have the right to be outraged.

But as I said before there is a different culture in the military. Pity people can't understand that. This really is not unusual humour in any service.From operating along side numerous other nations and various services including USAF and USN I have seen first hand that it is much the same world wide.

I would be interested to hear what other serving and ex military think about this.


Food for thought,

The Three Detatchment Rules

1: No cameras
2: No drinking and dialing
3: Always have the party in someone else's room.

[nikimcbee]

I didn't see anything wrong with the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw

[MaddogK]

Maybe someone's offended the Cdr. only gave the 2 boys in the shower 5 minutes, and said nothing to the guy/girl in the shower.

...Maybe it was 'little XO'

:oops:

[August]

Sounds to me like he has either upset somebody or there is somebody waiting to be slotted in.

I do recognise the fact that officers in senior positions must lead by example but that video was probably no more offensive than the one made at the last SS Meet :DL

What video? We didn't make a video at the last SS meet... :hmmm:

[nikimcbee]

What video? We didn't make a video at the last SS meet... :hmmm:


...and that's why I locked the door at my cabin.:haha:

[Neptunus Rex]

Career over? Releaved of Command? Don't think so unless they releave his superiors (at the time) too! He was the XO at the time, which means the C.O. did know of it, particularly if the video was broadcast over the ships TV system. He can't be brought up on charges unless his direct superiors at time decide to do so.

And besides, SO WHAT!

Let those "offended" put on a uniform, pick up a weapon, and man a post!

Otherwise, STFU!

[Bubblehead Nuke]

You know, the people being critical of the video's have never been to sea for weeks on end doing a job for 20+ hours straight each and every day without a break. They do not know what it is like to not have time off except for that 20 minutes before they pass out asleep before getting up and doing it again.

They have no idea that things like this keep people sane. That the XO, by being PART of the community, would get more respect from his people because they see him as one of them.

There is a hierachy at sea. The CO is GOD. Period. You live and DIE by that mans sufferance and command. The CO is EXPECTED to be above it all and lord over his command with a firm hand and a steely eye. He is the rock that the command is anchored to.

The XO, he is the mouth of god. He brings down the commands and demands of the man in charge. He is the man who tells the CO what the crew is up to. He tells the CO that all is well and that his command can do its job.

He can only find that out by wallowing in the muck with the wardroom and the enlisted guys. Otherwise all he is getting is the BS smiley face that ANY enlisted man can put up when a officer walks in the room. Believe me, we LOVED to gaslight a officer. Particularly one who was displaying a false sense of "give a sh**" to us.

I have seen the videos. There is NOTHING to see. Geesh, the guy made it INTERESTING. Was he colorful? Yes, but he had the crew WAITING for the next time he came on the CCTV. If he had something to put out, he KNEW that the line of communication was open and being listened to.

They should give the man a commendation for maintaining moral and let him do his job. You know, like making sure his command is ready to KILL people and lay waste to an enemy at the pleasure of the US goverment.

This whole thing just upsets me.. damn airchair warriors who have never had to do the job telling people how they should act. I have a son (a Marine) who just got back from Afganistan and when he told me the ROG that he had to deal with, I am suprised that we do not have MORE dead people over there.

Let the military do its JOB. We were not there to be politically correct or host a international tea party. We were there to KILL people should they decide to threaten our country or people.

We need a real damn war. One that gets rid of the 'me too's' and the resume writers. One were people did the job and that job was to kill the other SOB. Real fast they would realize what was important and what was not. Yes, I would loose a child or two, but then my other children would be in a world that is concerned with what is importand and relevant.

Sorry for the rant.. long day and too many customer at work who want to be critical of the whole situation....

[MaddogK]

ack, just heard on the news- temporarily relieved of command.
:down:
friggin BS from the PC crowd.

Hi,

I wanted to draw your attention to this important petition that I recently signed:

"Let the Enterprise to keep her captain!"
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/honors/

I really think this is an important cause, and I'd like to encourage you to add your signature, too. It's free and takes just a few seconds of your time.

Thanks!

[Feuer Frei!]

And besides, SO WHAT!
So what? Yea, who cares if someone in command does something like this, behave like a child...who cares about upholding leadership qualities, and leading by example.

Let those "offended" put on a uniform, pick up a weapon, and man a post!Offended? Far from it, is this really the point of this thread? Well, if it is then that's a bit off-key then, i thought that the point of this is that people are accountable for their actions, and thus should be aware that consequences will happen and do happen with EVERYTHING that we do.
And what does putting on a uniform, picking up a weapon and manning a post have to do with not acting like a imbecile and being severly mentally challenged, thinking that there would never be any possible consequences out of his actions.
I have served in the defense forces here in Australia, did my 4 years, manned my post, picked up numerous weapons, and donned a uniform. So?

Otherwise, STFU!That's a bit harsh, sir! We are all entitled to our opinions.

You know, the people being critical of the video's have never been to sea for weeks on end doing a job for 20+ hours straight each and every day without a break. They do not know what it is like to not have time off except for that 20 minutes before they pass out asleep before getting up and doing it again.
They have no idea that things like this keep people sane.
Your arguement there is pretty bad, sure, i have never been to sea, nor have i been kept 'sane' by acting like a goose. You have missed the real point of all of this, that is that a person of high standing and in command of men and power has to face the consequences of his actions. Not because it's what 'boys' do to relieve some pressures of the job, and to keep them sane. I agree, entertainment should be high on the priority of crew serving anywhere, be it at sea or on land, or indeed under it. However, there are lines that shouldn't be crossed, not by front line soldiers, and certainly not by commanding officers. Even worse.





They should give the man a commendation for maintaining moral and let him do his job. Yea a medal for being pretty ignorant and a bad selection of the entertainment content, and even worse, filming it.


Let the military do its JOB. We were not there to be politically correct or host a international tea party. We were there to KILL people should they decide to threaten our country or people.Oh but we do let the forces do their jobs. I don't understand your last part though, you have mentioned that twice now, about the killing of people if they threaten our/your/anyone's country. What does that have to do with all of this?


Sorry for the rant.. long day and too many customer at work who want to be critical of the whole situation....I'm not openly attacking you, we've all had those sorts of days, hell, i manage restaurants, dealing with ignaramouses i do every day. :haha:

[PeriscopeDepth]

I can understand why it was done, I'd be hard pressed to entertain myself serving at sea for so long. I've heard similar/worse humor from bosses I've worked with.

But none of them were foolish enough to record themselves doing it, broadcast it to thousands of coworkers, and think there would be no consequences. And if they can't figure that out, should they really be commanding a CVN?

PD

[Gerald]

WASHINGTON—The Navy will likely remove the commander of the USS Enterprise from his post after bawdy videos in which he denigrated gays and made other vulgar references became public, a defense official said.The Navy announced it was investigating Capt. Owen Honors, the Enterprise commander, after a newspaper published excerpts of videos he recorded in 2006 and 2007. In the videos, which were broadcast over the ship's television system, he simulates masturbation, jokes about women taking showers and uses offensive terms for gays.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/04/navy-likely-commander-lewd-videos/


Note: Update record, Published January 04, 2011

[UnderseaLcpl]

I have to say, what is most surprising to me about this whole debate is the nature of the debate itself. Obviously, the man is guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer, as is any officer who takes any non-combat action that paints the military in a negative light. I don't agree with that stance, per se, but that's how it is.

What is surprising is the apparent lack of interest in the real questions; "How did this man become an officer?" "Why would he be encouraged to behave in this way?" "Why do we care about his command style if it works?" "Why is this an issue?" The real problem, and the real answers, can be found in the nature of the military itself.

Consider the nature of our military. It is, by necessity, bound to politics. That's how generals and admirals get their shinies, you know. As we are all aware here, the vicissitudes of battle and politics do not mix well. By that I do not mean that representatives and the represented should not be concerned with what the military does, far from it, but there is a point at which the mission must come before considerations of political correctness and the well-intentioned but ultimately foolish and completely unecessary desire for equality for all in the military.

Allow me to clarify. Generally speaking, I am a very socially liberal person. I'm all for equal everything for everyone, as far as opportunity is concerned, but I draw the line when it comes to combat efficacy. I spent years as a fire-team leader and then a squad leader and even a de facto platoon commander on occassion. I do not want women in my unit. They are generally smaller and weaker than their male counterparts, and prone to both emotional outbreaks and the attention of comrades whose attention needs to be pragmatically focused on the situation at hand. Throwing a young female into the midst of a bunch of male twenty-somethings is not what I would call a recipe for battlefield success. I am aware that females have served alongside males with varying degrees of success in the past, but as an NCO I would prefer sticking with whatI know will work in a situation where fractions of a second mean the difference between a successful mission and a lot of dead Marines and a lifetime of regret.

Similarly, I do not want homosexuals of either gender in my unit. I don't even want a man who seems overly effeminate in my unit. It's a big problem when it comes to unit cohesion. I have no problem with them personally, so long as they fight well, show initiative, and handle orders well, but consider who the military is comprised of. We have not made so much progress since the Crimean War as The Charge of the Light Brigade might give us hope for. Amazingly enough, when you draw a fighting force from people who are largely stupid enough to believe that every war you are fighting in is a war for freedom, or that the enemy is always some kind of vile fiend, and then pay them very poorly, you are inevitably going to end up with a lot of narrow-minded people due to ignorance or idealism. I would hate to fight alongside a group of men whose survival depends upon each other if they don't trust one of their number. Perhaps this means nothing to most of you, but for those who have been in urban combat, you know how much of a difference a split-second glance at the guy you don't think is covering his sector can make, and how devestating to morale an unknown watching your back or flank can be. I imagine the situation is the same when you are a captain with a crew of thousands depending upon your leadership.

And then, of course, there is the matter of unit honor, which is crucial to morale, and I stress the word unit. Very few of the people ignorant or noble enough to volunteer for front-line combat are very inclined to be associated with any kind of perceived weakness. In fact, they are often quite resentful of anyone who does not "pull their weight" so to speak. This is true whether in combat or in garrison. Nobody wants to be a member of the platoon with the faggot(s).

I speak harshly, for which those mentioned have my apologies, but I also speak truthfully. This whole conundrum is part of the reason why I favor Private Military Companies over a state military. Unlike state militaries, PMCs are not bound to political whims (or at least, they shouldn't be), and will rapidly seek out not only the best soldiers, but also the best organizational structure. They must do so in order to turn a profit, and their soldiers must be well-paid and professional enough so as not to invite public scorn, which as of late has been far more accurately and less-forgivingly directed than it has towards the state military, which has done far worse. Is not a willing soldier who is paid to be a paragon of professionalism better than an uneducated youth who is decieved by false promises of glory and righteousness as conceived by politicians, of all people!? Is there a uniform approach to the formation of an effective and proper soldiery? So much so that we would put it in the hands of politicians, whose whims we have already seen to cause great and spurious wars? Is it not better to select from a variety of private companies, whose reasons for willingness to fight may or may not coincide with popular desire, than to rely upon one entity that relies upon propaganda, promise, and coercion to get people sucsceptible to such things to fight in the name of a cause they don't even understand? How many times must we see this before we realize what is going on?

In any case, I do not disapprove of Cpt. Honors' actions. In all likleyhood, he was simply accepting the command posture that was most acceptable to his crew. I don't need to read anything further to know that his stance was popular, otherwise he would have been removed from command earlier, and there would be for charges against him. The fact that this is unacceptable is a reflection upon the all-encompassing and seriously skewed viewpoint of the state, rather than his competence or merit as an officer.

[Feuer Frei!]

There is a difference between frivolous complaints by over-sensitive individuals and legitimate concerns about the professional conduct of an O-6 commander. What's in question here is the latter.

It's a shame all this has been taken out of context, and the real 'crux' of the matter blurred, even waved away.

[Molon Labe]

I was really hoping they'd just let this one slide. Such BS.
I guess the Navy is supposed to be all zampolits and no warfighters.


Now this political correctness/
Must come to an end/
We're in the business of killing/
Who gives a F--k who we offend/
So I can mow them down by the thousands/
But I can't say a dirty word?/
Now that's the dumbest f-ing thing that I have ever heard!

(Why do I have to include Dos Gringos in all my posts lately?)

[Takeda Shingen]

Sure, you can say plenty of dirty words. Where the line is crossed is when a man in a position of authority creates a video using offensive themes and proceeds to broadcast it to the entire crew. It would appear that not everyone on that ship appreciated it, and he is being called to task on it.

And, Neputus Rex, I will not shut the f--- up. I pay their salaries. I pay for their weapons. I pay for that post that they're manning. I get a say.

[Skybird]

Sure, you can say plenty of dirty words. Where the line is crossed is when a man in a position of authority creates a video using offensive themes and proceeds to broadcast it to the entire crew. It would appear that not everyone on that ship appreciated it, and he is being called to task on it.


^ this :yeah:

The man in a way is a foolish idiot. Recording himself while doing this crap - an idiot he is, no doubt, not to mention the questionable quality of his ideas and "humour". To imagine he had commanding influence over a warship with such a firepower, is a frightening thought.

UnderseaLcpl asks the right question: how could this carricature of an officer have become an officer in the first...? German newspapers, refercening to the NYTimes, report that he has been fired for sure. He never should have become an officer. Somehow the system has failed here. Examination is needed.

[razark]

Where the line is crossed is when a man in a position of authority creates a video using offensive themes and proceeds to broadcast it to the entire crew.
It's not just that he made a video with offensive themes. One can do that without causing this sort of uproar.

It's the fact that he made the video, using those themes, with the stated intent of being offensive to certain groups of people. That's where I feel he crossed the line.

[Molon Labe]

Yeah, he did cross some lines, but the problem is that the navy thinks those are the lines that are important. As if a CO/XO's judgment of political correctness is more important than his/her ability to keep a team of 5,000+ people and a 50-year-old 8-reactor ship ready for combat. The bottom line is they're about to remove someone who is very good at his job and replace him with someone less qualified, in the name of Political Correctness instead of Combat Readiness.

[Takeda Shingen]

Yeah, he did cross some lines, but the problem is that the navy thinks those are the lines that are important. As if a CO/XO's judgment of political correctness is more important than his/her ability to keep a team of 5,000+ people and a 50-year-old 8-reactor ship ready for combat. The bottom line is they're about to remove someone who is very good at his job and replace him with someone less qualified, in the name of Political Correctness instead of Combat Readiness.

It is clear from the leak of the video that there were people onboard who took offense to it. People are going to have disagreements with each other, and many will not get along without the pot being stirred by, of all people, a commanding or executive officer. What do those actions do in terms of crew division and readiness for combat?

[Gerald]

Somewhere it must draw the line, and he bungled, and he should now pay the price, anyway there are well-qualified officers, equivalent to the person in question, as now surely get a good buck when he sells his biography on the event course.

[RickC Sniper]

I just don't understand the debate. I knew his career was over the minute I saw the video.

You guys moaning about this being caused by the political correctness crowd are WAY out of line.

[Tribesman]

It's the fact that he made the video, using those themes, with the stated intent of being offensive to certain groups of people. That's where I feel he crossed the line.
Where he went way over the line was to state his intent to repeat being offensive and complain that people had complained through channels about being offended.
That shows he was really really dumb.

Let those "offended" put on a uniform, pick up a weapon, and man a post!
Errrrr...the complaints from the offended came from people in uniform who were doing their job in their posts:doh:
STFU!
:rotfl2:Thats from the land of the free with freedom of speech isn't it, how enterprising

[Molon Labe]

It is clear from the leak of the video that there were people onboard who took offense to it. People are going to have disagreements with each other, and many will not get along without the pot being stirred by, of all people, a commanding or executive officer. What do those actions do in terms of crew division and readiness for combat?


Answer:

CDR Honors became XO while Enterprise was at Northrop Grumman Newport News Shipyard for a scheduled Extended Selected Restricted Availability (ESRA). On October 13, 2005 USS Enterprise (CVN 65) departed Northrop Grumman Newport News, Va., for the first time since Sept. 2004 to conduct sea trials and flight deck certification in the Atlantic Ocean. The carrier completed Flight Deck Certification on Oct. 19. The carrier began Tailored Ships Training Assessment (TSTA) at the end of October 2005, and around the same time was offshore participating in exercises that gave us these kind of amazing photographs (http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=29596). After less than six weeks, it was reported on November 19, 2005 the Enterprise successfully concluded its Tailored Ship’s Training Availability period and Final Evaluation Phase (FEP).

Training continued in late February 2006 until COMPTUEX was completed in mid-March 2006, with the carrier returning home on March 31st. The deployment in which the videos were created was between May 2, 2006 and on November 18, 2006 USS Enterprise returned to homeport after steaming nearly 60,000 miles. During their deployment, CVW-1 aircraft delivered 65,000 pounds of ordnance, including 137 precision weapons, to provide unprecedented support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom. They completed more than 8,300 sorties, of which 2,186 were combat missions, while flying more than 22,500 hours and making 6,916 day and night arrested landings.

[Takeda Shingen]

Really. You are insinuating that this type of behavior is beneficial to combat readiness. Very well, I will concede the point. In fact, I will go a step further in suggesting that combat readiness could be increased by the regular distribution of liquor and permissibility of personal firearms onboard. I will have none of this sissy pseudo-machismo. I want the wild west on the seas; booze, gunfights, gambling, spitoons, whorehouses.

[MaddogK]

Really. You are insinuating that this type of behavior is beneficial to combat readiness. Very well, I will concede the point. In fact, I will go a step further in suggesting that combat readiness could be increased by the regular distribution of liquor and permissibility of personal firearms onboard. I will have none of this sissy pseudo-machismo. I want the wild west on the seas; booze, gunfights, gambling, spitoons, whorehouses.

Actually they do allow a bit of alcohol if the ship has been out of port for an extended period. You're not allowed a personal stash, but I remember 2 cans of 3.2 beer after we we're out of Olongapo for 90 days (which knocked me flat on my butt).

I believe it's in the regs.

[Takeda Shingen]

Actually they do allow a bit of alcohol if the ship has been out of port for an extended period. You're not allowed a personal stash, but I remember 2 cans of 3.2 beer after we we're out of Olongapo for 90 days (which knocked me flat on my butt).

I believe it's in the regs.

Hmph. Navy bowing to PC pressure again.

[August]

Really. You are insinuating that this type of behavior is beneficial to combat readiness.

Actually I thought he was just answering your own insinuation that it was detrimental to combat readiness. If so then from where I sit you've done a much poorer job of proving your insinuation than he has in proving his. Wild west indeed.

[Takeda Shingen]

Actually I thought he was just answering your own insinuation that it was detrimental to combat readiness. If so then from where I sit you've done a much poorer job of proving your insinuation than he has in proving his. Wild west indeed.

Thank you August. Wild west for sure. Established that my views are of no value or relevance, I remove myself in hopes of no further putrifying the thread. I leave further discourse to the enlightened.

I suppose that I simply must learn to acquiesce to relative standards.

[MaddogK]

Hmph. Navy bowing to PC pressure again.

Na, I believe it was a carryover from pre-colonial days where each sailor was guaranteed a certain amount of rum rationed. I did keep us from becoming one-can-commando's when we returned to port.

[Takeda Shingen]

Na, I believe it was a carryover from pre-colonial days where each sailor was guaranteed a certain amount of rum rationed. I did keep us from becoming one-can-commando's when we returned to port.

Actually, the rum and grog standards are derived from the fact that there was limited fresh water available on long journeys. As each would keep for a longer while, and the dehydrating effects of alcohol were not understood, they frequently stood in place for water rations.

[August]

Thank you August. Wild west for sure. Established that my views are of no value or relevance, I remove myself in hopes of no further putrifying the thread. I leave further discourse to the enlightened.

Takeda please, such theatrics don't become you.

Molon Labe backed up his position in the form of a proven track record of success. You posted something about gun fights, whorehouses and spittoons. You don't get to play the insulted card now.

Now I happen to agree with the Captains removal from command for this incident. I question the timing of it, why it's just coming up now, years later, but regardless, while I don't think it really affected combat readiness one way or the other it is still not conduct becoming a senior officer.

[Takeda Shingen]

Takeda please, such theatrics don't become you.

Molon Labe backed up his position in the form of a proven track record of success. You posted something about gun fights, whorehouses and spittoons. You don't get to play the insulted card now.

Now I happen to agree with the Captains removal from command for this incident. I question the timing of it, why it's just coming up now, years later, but regardless, while I don't think it really affected combat readiness one way or the other it is still not conduct becoming a senior officer.

Evitently the truth that sarcasm, particularly the self-depricating variety, does not lend itself to text is, for lack of a less redundant term, true.

[August]

Evitently the truth that sarcasm, particularly the self-depricating variety, does not lend itself to text is, for lack of a less redundant term, true.


I hear ya. I really have to cut back on the commas! :DL

[Takeda Shingen]

I really have to cut back on the commas! :DL

That should have been my New Year's resolution. My sentences are frequently too long; too verbose.

[MaddogK]

I wish you could've been onboard when we went thru shellback initiation. The depravity of that ordeal makes Cdr Honors video look like a sunday church brunch.

A time honored navy tradition still practiced (FAR away from limp-wristed PC eyes).

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2142/2228320653_02369f5056.jpg?v=0
http://u1.ipernity.com/12/31/61/6223161.2b1dda7d.560.jpg
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/1360/26462590.jpg
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/Piggy111/NavyShenannigans2.jpg?t=1293988953
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/Piggy111/NavyShenannigans.jpg?t=1293988674
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/Piggy111/Shellback.jpg?t=1293989396

[Skybird]

his/her ability to keep a team of 5,000+ people and a 50-year-old 8-reactor ship ready for combat. The bottom line is they're about to remove someone who is very good at his job


Is that so?

The atmosphere amongst the crew, its unity, effects combat efficiency, here and in any other case where people lead other people in critical, dangerous contexts. And if these leaders let down part of their subordinates in the way it has been done here, then you cannot claim they are keeping team cohesion and combat efficiency.

This guy did exactly the opposite.

If you give up parts of your team that you are leading, then the team gives up on you.

[Takeda Shingen]

I wish you could've been onboard when we went thru shellback initiation. The depravity of that ordeal makes Cdr Honors video look like a sunday church brunch.

A time honored navy tradition still practiced (FAR away from limp-wristed PC eyes).

Well, then you probably won't want to make videotapes of it. That way, there is no chance of it being publicized and having me and the rest of the limp-wristed PCers getting upset about them.

[August]

I wish you could've been onboard when we went thru shellback initiation. The depravity of that ordeal makes Cdr Honors video look like a sunday church brunch.

A time honored navy tradition still practiced (FAR away from limp-wristed PC eyes).

Far away no more Maddog. I think the power of modern media technology will change the military far more than most folks now realize.

[Takeda Shingen]

Far away no more Maddog. I think the power of modern media technology will change the military far more than most folks now realize.

Oh, no doubt. Just as it has with the rest of society. I am very happy that I was through my 'youthful indiscretion' phase before digital photography, YouTube and Facebook came into their own.

[TLAM Strike]

I just wonder what our enemies put in their morale boosting videos...

>>Insert image of 12 year old kid beheading a man<<

...oh right...

:nope:

[Skybird]

In how far are the videos shot onboard the Enterprise "moral boosting" films, TLAM?

Sexism against female crew members, and offending people for their sexuality and exposing them to public mockery, is no moral-boosting - it undermines moral integrity.

[TLAM Strike]

In how far are the videos shot onboard the Enterprise "moral boosting" films, TLAM?

Sexism against female crew members, and offending people for their sexuality and exposing them to public mockery, is no moral-boosting - it undermines moral integrity.

Its called sarcasm Skybird. You take a situation and make it absurd to cause a reaction of humor in the viewer.

Take the part where people are showing together, you have the two girls in the shower saying they should get six minutes of water instead of three. He wasn't making some kind of sexiest lets have all the women shower together and watch statement, he was poking fun at the water rationing aboard ship in a way that people would remember to limit their showers.

Ok this is not high class humor, its South Park level humor. But people are looking way too much in to this and analyzing it too much.

[razark]

Now I happen to agree with the Captains removal from command for this incident. I question the timing of it, why it's just coming up now, years later...
It's coming up now because the media just found out about it, and the Navy realized they need to take some sort of real action or appear to condone this type of activity.

[Aramike]

Just my opinion here, but during my time in service, I saw many, many examples of such behavior which were clearly of humorous intentions, albeit never from someone of such high position. That being said, it almost never occurred to me that there was anything deeper involved than cheap attempts at laughter. Furthermore, anyone who's been under the pressure of active duty can understand the need for such releases.

Then again, this individual was in quite a lofty position - and he evidently executed his duties fairly well. From personal experience, I've found that being in positions of authority sometimes renders your perception as inaccessible to the rank and file, and that humor can lower some barriers. So I can understand his efforts, especially as XO.

Let me just finalize with this: doesn't anyone else see it as odd that this comes out right on the heels of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell?

[Skybird]

Its called sarcasm Skybird. You take a situation and make it absurd to cause a reaction of humor in the viewer.



Sarcasm is one thing. Derogatory "jokes" are something different. Good humour does not hurt anyone, and even can get the "victim" laughing. "Humour" that means tghurt, does - and beside it'S destructive intention tries to get away by claiming it is just "humour". If the victim at whose cost this "joke" is running, complains - it gets accused of not understanding humour, and being oversensitive. Where in fact it is the attacker showing lack of sensitivity, because he is just a club of woods.

[Aramike]

Sarcasm is one thing. Derogatory "jokes" are something different. Good humour does not hurt anyone, and even can get the "victim" laughing. "Humour" that means tghurt, does - and beside it'S destructive intention tries to get away by claiming it is just "humour". If the victim at whose cost this "joke" is running, complains - it gets accused of not understanding humour, and being oversensitive. Where in fact it is the attacker showing lack of sensitivity, because he is just a club of woods.I would agree with you perhaps ... if the circumstance was directed at someone in particular. To be honest, I haven't seen the entirety of the videos ... is that the case?

[Blood_splat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL-OtsN9VdM :O:

[TLAM Strike]

I would agree with you perhaps ... if the circumstance was directed at someone in particular. To be honest, I haven't seen the entirety of the videos ... is that the case?

I didn't see anything directed at any one person in particular in the three videos I watched.

Most of the jokes were either crude slapstick, jokes at Cdr Honors' own expense (dancing with the ship's mascot parrot, liaisons with a goat in his cabin), sexual innuendo, or Cdr Honors' alter egos (a Aviator and a SWO) insulting each other.

...Nothing worse than what we say about Jim...

[Molon Labe]

Next time I see that dark blue working uniform the first thing that'll come to my mind is "SWOveralls," lol.

[mookiemookie]

As a bleeding heart leftie, Marxist, socialist, dadgum liberal....

I really was pretty entertained by the video. I thought it was funny and pretty harmless. But I do see the point that if you're going to do this kind of sophomoric crap, for God's sake, don't film it! Lest the PC brigade eat you for lunch. Which is going to happen here. Looks like the XO was going out of his way to relate to the crew, which is commendable, but the way he was going about it wasn't.

Ah well.

[Sailor Steve]

In how far are the videos shot onboard the Enterprise "moral boosting" films, TLAM?

Sexism against female crew members, and offending people for their sexuality and exposing them to public mockery, is no moral-boosting - it undermines moral integrity.
So explain why a majority of the crew of Enterprise has started a petition practically begging for his reinstatement. In this case your opinion of "morale-boosting" seems to be far off the mark.

[Bubblehead Nuke]

Your arguement there is pretty bad, sure, i have never been to sea, nor have i been kept 'sane' by acting like a goose. You have missed the real point of all of this, that is that a person of high standing and in command of men and power has to face the consequences of his actions. Not because it's what 'boys' do to relieve some pressures of the job, and to keep them sane. I agree, entertainment should be high on the priority of crew serving anywhere, be it at sea or on land, or indeed under it. However, there are lines that shouldn't be crossed, not by front line soldiers, and certainly not by commanding officers. Even worse.


If you have never been to sea then you have ZERO frame of reference, It would be like explaining color to a blind man. My fellow sailors know what I am talking about.

I would have NO problem with someone telling to me to 'blow them' and making obscene gestures while I was underway. Does it make me or them gay? no.. it breaks up the dreary days. It puts some color and humor into what would be 'yet another day'. They would have no problem with me saying the same to them.

I have looked my old XO in the eyes and asked him 'What are you doing here you wop.' Yes, he was a big italian man and PROUD of his heritage. I once asked him to go see the doc about his case of rectumitis. Was I being disrespectful? Technically yes, but at the same time it was done in a situation where he understoood the humor and laughed about it. I respected than man then and I still do now. He also knew, and I mean KNEW, that I would do anything if told to without question.

The WOMEN I worked with were rauncher than the guys. They considered themselves one of the guys (and accepted as an equal) when you could make an off color sexual joke around them without worrying about the consequenses.

Yea a medal for being pretty ignorant and a bad selection of the entertainment content, and even worse, filming it.

They have been recording these things since BEFORE nuclear power. Go into the archives and you could say the same things about EVERY officer EVER commissioned. I guarentee it. Go ahead, pick your branch of service. Pick your country. This happens EVERY DAY somewhere. It happened yesterday and it will happen tommorrow.


Oh but we do let the forces do their jobs. I don't understand your last part though, you have mentioned that twice now, about the killing of people if they threaten our/your/anyone's country. What does that have to do with all of this?

What does this have to do with anything? Umm.. ulitmately it is his JOB. His job is to command people in the systematic efficient dealing of death. He is not a movie producer. He is not a elected offical. He is there to kill other people on command. Everything else is a collateral duty that supports his primary function. So he has a poor sense of humor and is a lousy writer. Are these reasons to remove him from command? They have NOTHING to do with his primary job.

So, if the CO's command is ready to carry out its duty then the man has DONE HIS JOB. Everything else is paperwork.

[Aramike]

I didn't see anything directed at any one person in particular in the three videos I watched.

Most of the jokes were either crude slapstick, jokes at Cdr Honors' own expense (dancing with the ship's mascot parrot, liaisons with a goat in his cabin), sexual innuendo, or Cdr Honors' alter egos (a Aviator and a SWO) insulting each other.

...Nothing worse than what we say about Jim...:D

Again, does anyone see the connection between the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

[Aramike]

So explain why a majority of the crew of Enterprise has started a petition practically begging for his reinstatement. In this case your opinion of "morale-boosting" seems to be far off the mark.I'd have to say I agree whole-heartedly.

[Skybird]

So explain why a majority of the crew of Enterprise has started a petition practically begging for his reinstatement. In this case your opinion of "morale-boosting" seems to be far off the mark.
Group confomrity, which traditionally is extremely strong in the military. And he would not have made these "jokes" if he wouldn'T have gained some laughter. But that does not contradict my assessment that he made these jokes at the cost of parts of the crew, which before also have had a "petition" thing: they complained.

It might be interesting to see who is NOT signing in to that petition they have now.

[Skybird]

:D

Again, does anyone see the connection between the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell?´

Maybe yes.

[Gerald]

It was a bad year for commanding officers in 2010. The Navy Times reported that 17 COs were fired last year for conduct unbecoming of an officer -- the second highest number of firings in a decade.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/04/aircraft-carrier-commander-relieved-duty-airing-explicit-videos/

[Tribesman]

So explain why a majority of the crew of Enterprise has started a petition practically begging for his reinstatement. In this case your opinion of "morale-boosting" seems to be far off the mark.
One thing there Steve, no it isn't about the importance of catering for the minorities and not simply caving in to a majority. Its about the morale boosting and the nature of the crew. The crew is a team which has to work together and like a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, it could be said that though the aim was to strengthen the chain the XO was actively seeking to weaken several parts of the chain.

Though the most damning thing in this is that he continued in the same vein after complaining that people were complaining through channels about him, which suggests he was unable to appraise the situation for himself and his crew which is a failure of leadership.

The WOMEN I worked with were rauncher than the guys. They considered themselves one of the guys (and accepted as an equal) when you could make an off color sexual joke around them without worrying about the consequenses.
Ah of course Tailhook....conduct unbecoming of an officer and failure of leadership:up:

[mookiemookie]

If you have never been to sea then you have ZERO frame of reference, It would be like explaining color to a blind man. My fellow sailors know what I am talking about.

I would have NO problem with someone telling to me to 'blow them' and making obscene gestures while I was underway. Does it make me or them gay? no.. it breaks up the dreary days. It puts some color and humor into what would be 'yet another day'. They would have no problem with me saying the same to them.

I have looked my old XO in the eyes and asked him 'What are you doing here you wop.' Yes, he was a big italian man and PROUD of his heritage. I once asked him to go see the doc about his case of rectumitis. Was I being disrespectful? Technically yes, but at the same time it was done in a situation where he understoood the humor and laughed about it. I respected than man then and I still do now. He also knew, and I mean KNEW, that I would do anything if told to without question.

The WOMEN I worked with were rauncher than the guys. They considered themselves one of the guys (and accepted as an equal) when you could make an off color sexual joke around them without worrying about the consequenses.



They have been recording these things since BEFORE nuclear power. Go into the archives and you could say the same things about EVERY officer EVER commissioned. I guarentee it. Go ahead, pick your branch of service. Pick your country. This happens EVERY DAY somewhere. It happened yesterday and it will happen tommorrow.



What does this have to do with anything? Umm.. ulitmately it is his JOB. His job is to command people in the systematic efficient dealing of death. He is not a movie producer. He is not a elected offical. He is there to kill other people on command. Everything else is a collateral duty that supports his primary function. So he has a poor sense of humor and is a lousy writer. Are these reasons to remove him from command? They have NOTHING to do with his primary job.

So, if the CO's command is ready to carry out its duty then the man has DONE HIS JOB. Everything else is paperwork.

I understand what you're saying, but I haven't been to sea so forgive my uninformed opinion.

I think any time you get a group of guys together, they're going to rib each other using all kinds of offensive crap and slurs. We do it at work all the time. I don't think anyone would begrudge anyone doing that sort of thing with your buddies. But do you think it's a good idea to commit that stuff to film and distribute it across the ship to people you know and people you don't know? There's stuff I'd say to some of the guys at work that I wouldn't dream of saying to other guys I work with. By broadcasting the film shipwide, you're essentially saying this stuff to everyone.

And an officer committing it to film gives it a sort of institutionalized stamp of approval which doesn't really happen if he's doing it in a one-on-one situation with guys he knows.

[Skybird]

I understand what you're saying, but I haven't been to sea so forgive my uninformed opinion.

I think any time you get a group of guys together, they're going to rib each other using all kinds of offensive crap and slurs. We do it at work all the time. I don't think anyone would begrudge anyone doing that sort of thing with your buddies. But do you think it's a good idea to commit that stuff to film and distribute it across the ship to people you know and people you don't know? There's stuff I'd say to some of the guys at work that I wouldn't dream of saying to other guys I work with. By broadcasting the film shipwide, you're essentially saying this stuff to everyone.

And an officer committing it to film gives it a sort of institutionalized stamp of approval which doesn't really happen if he's doing it in a one-on-one situation with guys he knows.
^this :up:

The way to talk in private talk with your buddies, is one thing. But loose talking being used in that context, better is not used facing strangers, or anonymous groups of people, it easily becomes offensive, at least unpolite. Like for forums like this one: you better do not write the way you talk to close friends, this is also true when writing letters - if you write as loose and harsworded as you may use your tongue when being with your friends, you easily give the impression to be a stupid prolet showing off that way. If you risk your career over doing so, then your situation assessment works highly erratic. And if you even record it on video and distribute it to 5-6 thousand people, and record the evidence on tape or TV, and ignore complaints and warnings, then you really have lost your marbles, completely.

[Sailor Steve]

One thing there Steve, no it isn't about the importance of catering for the minorities and not simply caving in to a majority. Its about the morale boosting and the nature of the crew. The crew is a team which has to work together and like a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, it could be said that though the aim was to strengthen the chain the XO was actively seeking to weaken several parts of the chain.
A good point, though I don't see it quite that way. I don't think he was seeking to weaken anybody.

Though the most damning thing in this is that he continued in the same vein after complaining that people were complaining through channels about him, which suggests he was unable to appraise the situation for himself and his crew which is a failure of leadership.
And that's where you probably have me. In a world where being rammed by another ship at 0200 hours while you're asleep in your rack is grounds for dismissal, the Navy is probably taking the appropriate action in this case, even if I don't believe it's the right one.

[Lord Justice]

And that's where you probably have me. I would have you in the brig, bound in irons, and perhaps flogged. Good to see that you are still about sir! :03: :cool:

[goldorak]

^this :up:

The way to talk in private talk with your buddies, is one thing. But loose talking being used in that context, better is not used facing strangers, or anonymous groups of people, it easily becomes offensive, at least unpolite. Like for forums like this one: you better do not write the way you talk to close friends, this is also true when writing letters - if you write as loose and harsworded as you may use your tongue when being with your friends, you easily give the impression to be a stupid prolet showing off that way. If you risk your career over doing so, then your situation assessment works highly erratic. And if you even record it on video and distribute it to 5-6 thousand people, and record the evidence on tape or TV, and ignore complaints and warnings, then you really have lost your marbles, completely.


Spot on. When you're a public figure, or a figure of authority you have to be politically savvy. It comes with the territory wether you like it or not. And its more important the higher up you go.

As to the whole concept of "traditions", well traditions change as society changes. 100 years ago the US Navy didn't have black officers. It was a tradition to not having women serve aboard. It was tradition to not having women being fighter pilots. It was tradition to not have women serve aboard submarines etc... Many things are traditions. But traditions are not immutable. You have to be intelligent enough to understand the social climate around you, and what would have been acceptable 20 years ago may not be acceptable now.

So yes Captain Honors demonstrated an "epic fail". What he did was plain stupid. Passable for a junior officer (maybe), completely out of the line for a commading officer. Thats the way it is, and he is paying a political price for his behaviour. He is not the first and certainly won't be the last.

[MaddogK]

He WAS a a junior officer 4 years ago when the videos were made AND they weren't a big issue back then because he WAS promoted to Captain. The issue today is WHY is it an issue NOW ?? Why is he being tried by the court of public opinion instead kept 'in house' ?

Yes, this screams of a DADT witch hunt.
The admirality is sacrificing this officer to cover their asses for promoting him.
:down:
Epic Fail for the Navy.

The Navy is quickly becoming a girl scout troup, NOT the brotherhood that I was once proud to be a member of.

[Takeda Shingen]

The Navy is quickly becoming a girl scout troup, NOT the brotherhood that I was once proud to be a member of.

I don't know; judging from the photos you posted, it looks like the Navy has a proud tradition of dressing and acting like a girl scout troop. :O:

[goldorak]

He WAS a a junior officer 4 years ago when the videos were made AND they weren't a big issue back then because he WAS promoted to Captain. The issue today is WHY is it an issue NOW ?? Why is he being tried by the court of public opinion instead kept 'in house' ?

Yes, this screams of a DADT witch hunt.
The admirality is sacrificing this officer to cover their asses for promoting him.
:down:
Epic Fail for the Navy.

The Navy is quickly becoming a girl scout troup, NOT the brotherhood that I was once proud to be a member of.

You're playing with semantics.
Being XO, that is second in command of a 5000 crew warship is a pretty high up position don't you think ? Now if he were in charge I don't know, of the cleaning of the toilets then maybe you'd have a point. As it is you don't.
I talked about rank or position of authority, you can't get a higher position of authority than being the executive officer abord an aircraft carrier (except for the captain of course).

[MaddogK]

I don't know; judging from the photos you posted, it looks like the Navy has a proud tradition of dressing and acting like a girl scout troop. :O:

Those were taken before peeps admitted that they were gay, and most were before women were allowed to serve alongside men on front line combat ships. Yes, we fantasized about women because sometimes it was months between actually seeing any, so it was a bit of a release. Sometimes you have to do weird things to keep your sanity when deployed, especially when the stress levels are high 24 hours a day for weeks at a time.

[MaddogK]

You're playing with semantics.
Being XO, that is second in command of a 5000 crew warship is a pretty high up position don't you think ? Now if he were in charge I don't know, of the cleaning of the toilets then maybe you'd have a point. As it is you don't.
I talked about rank or position of authority, you can't get a higher position of authority than being the executive officer abord an aircraft carrier (except for the captain of course).

Why is the toilet scene bothersome to you ?

Have you ever seen Caddyshack ? Remember the swimming pool scene ?

[Takeda Shingen]

Those were taken before peeps admitted that they were gay, and most were before women were allowed to serve alongside men on front line combat ships. Yes, we fantasized about women because sometimes it was months between actually seeing any, so it was a bit of a release. Sometimes you have to do weird things to keep your sanity when deployed, especially when the stress levels are high 24 hours a day for weeks at a time.

Absolutely, you are right. It is all sociology. In a prolonged same-sex environment, even heterosexuals are known to temporarily take on a more homosexual role. You see it a lot in closed micro-societies, such as prisons. I imagine that many of the same principles would apply to an extended tour at sea.

[goldorak]

Why is the toilet scene bothersome to you ?

Have you ever seen Caddyshack ? Remember the swimming pool scene ?

You misunderstood me. I was not refering to the actual contents of the video when talking about "cleaning toilets".
I wanted to highlight the fact that being XO is a much higher position of authority, in fact second only to the captain of the vessel, than someone having to take charge of the kitchens for instance. Can we at least agree on this ?

[MaddogK]

You misunderstood me. I was not refering to the actual contents of the video when talking about "cleaning toilets".
I wanted to highlight the fact that being XO is a much higher position of authority, in fact second only to the captain of the vessel, than someone having to take charge of the kitchens for instance. Can we at least agree on this ?
Yes, we agree that the XO is high position of authority. I missing the reason why it was bad for the XO to try to maintain the crews morale by making a couple of videos depicting the same behavior that some of the low ranking enlisted crewmen undoubtedly portray in the crews berths while off duty.

I would know when to take the XO's (or Capt's) words seriously, why do you think the crew onboard wouldn't ? I used to party with a few officers in our squadron when we were in port (Yes, I was enlisted), and I think I gained some respect for them because I could see that they weren't much different than me other than their rank, and when time came to go back to work I didn't let our off-time influence me, and they also acted professionally. Those videos were made to entertain the crew while they were off duty. I have no doubt that Capt. Honors is a completely different person while on-duty.

[Cohaagen]

What else is there to say but, sadly, political correctness trumps "tradition" in today's political and military climate. Look at the hubbub over the alleged USMC puppy video, and other footage out of the wars today. Did the American public think these guys just make this stuff up nowadays? etc etc

Yeah, damn those spoon-fed drones for being upset at a video of some white trash US Marine clearly throwing a puppy off a cliff. Political correctness is so crazy nowadays you can't even torture or kill small pets without some limp-wrist civilian complaining about it. I mean, don't they know about the golden thread of puppy-killing that runs through the Corps' history? Yes, clearly "tradition" trumped by political correctness yet again.

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/43462/9fb16ab3/us_soldaat_gooit_puppy.html

[TLAM Strike]

"We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write "****" on their airplanes because it's obscene!"

-Col. Walter E. Kurts

That nutcase was right... :hmmm:

... why is it always the insane who make the most sense... :06:

[Molon Labe]

Ready, Aim, Retire: 7 Top Officers’ Epic Implosions (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/gun-meet-foot-7-top-officers-epic-implosions/)


In the new issue of Proceedings, retired Capt. Kevin Eyer writes about the rise of a post-Cold War "zero-defects mentality (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2011-01/how-are-mighty-fallen)" that strips officers of their commands for infractions unrelated to the accomplishment of their missions. He's talking specifically about the Navy — which is more strict than other services about relieving officers — but that doesn't mean officers from the Army, Marines or Air Force are safe from the phenomenon. The important thing is not to sabotage yourself.
Lord knows lots of officers do. Here are seven of the stupidest, most boneheaded, most defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory unforced errors that have cost officers their jobs. No one's immune, least of all journalists, to counterproductive behavior. But remember: If you're going to get fired, make sure it's because you're actually bad at your job.


(rest of article at the link. Hat tip to Neptunus Lex)

[Tribesman]

I don't know; judging from the photos you posted, it looks like the Navy has a proud tradition of dressing and acting like a girl scout troop.
Maybe someone should make a song about it, I am sure the Village People must be able to throw together a little ditty about the wonders of maritime service

[Neptunus Rex]

Next we'll be hearing of officers being relieved for creating a hostile work environment that is inherently hostile (truly hostile, not "you hurt my feelings" hostile.)

Friggin mambe-pambe's!

[Aramike]

Next we'll be hearing of officers being relieved for creating a hostile work environment that is inherently hostile (truly hostile, not "you hurt my feelings" hostile.)

Friggin mambe-pambe's!Made me think of that Geico commerical with R. Lee Ermey in it ... I wonder his thoughts??? :cool:

[Tribesman]

Next we'll be hearing of officers being relieved for creating a hostile work environment that is inherently hostile (truly hostile, not "you hurt my feelings" hostile.)

Friggin mambe-pambe's!

If you look at that post of dismissals Molon put up you will notice one that was canned for creating an inherantly hostile work place.
Bad leadership skills apparently, a lot of it was only minor stuff of course, nasty words and making people feel small, even complaints about people making complaints through channels. Its funny if you look back to the topic that was here on this forum about that naval officer getting canned how many people expressed themselves in a rather differnet vein.

[Gerald]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/06/officials-probe-navy-videos-include-higher-ups/

Note: Update record,Published January 06, 2011

[Growler]

Yeah, damn those spoon-fed drones for being upset at a video of some white trash US Marine clearly throwing a puppy off a cliff. Political correctness is so crazy nowadays you can't even torture or kill small pets without some limp-wrist civilian complaining about it. I mean, don't they know about the golden thread of puppy-killing that runs through the Corps' history? Yes, clearly "tradition" trumped by political correctness yet again.

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/43462/9fb16ab3/us_soldaat_gooit_puppy.html

Right. So, instead, just to be safe, go ahead and treat everyone in uniform like they tossed a puppy. That way, we make sure we get all the puppy-throwers and don't miss any. Oh, and while we're at it, we'll make sure to call them all "baby-killers," too.

Meanwhile, to my point: The US military is clearly not exclusively angels in uniform, any more than devils in uniform. But you wouldn't know that from the attention the media gives the negative stuff, while completely ignoring the positive stuff. Tradition is referring to generations of military service members doing their jobs even in the presence of aberrant behavior in their ranks. Tradition being trumped is a daily ration of rum for men willing to fight for their country - but no, we can't have that - it's promoting alcoholism in the ranks!

And here's the result: The Highway of Death. Much of the Iraqi army escaped Kuwait in the '91 war, "Highway of Death" images notwithstanding. The Iraqi army that survived suppressed the Kurds after the Coalition pulled out.

And what did the press talk about after the war? "The Highway of Death" and the destruction of fleeing Iraqis there; fine, we'll just go ahead and let them go, then. They're nice people, they only looted and pillaged the people of Kuwait who deserved it.

The military exists to do the things civilians don't want to do. It's our job to KILL. It's our job to DESTROY. It's our job to be the exact opposite of what a civilized society accepts as necessary to operate. We have civil laws that provide strict punishment for stealing from or killing each other; we want soldiers to then do the things we told them were wrong all their lives. But the media will define the entire service by the actions of a few individuals caught on tape.

[Tribesman]

And here's the result: The Highway of Death. Much of the Iraqi army escaped Kuwait in the '91 war, "Highway of Death" images notwithstanding. The Iraqi army that survived suppressed the Kurds after the Coalition pulled out.

What on earth are you on about?

And what did the press talk about after the war? "The Highway of Death" and the destruction of fleeing Iraqis there; fine, we'll just go ahead and let them go, then.
Didn't they talk about the sillyness of killing defeated troops from units that had abandoned their positions and were largely made up of shia whose home provinces in the south were in open rebelion against Saddam.
Didn't they also talk how the leaders of the coilition felt it was important that the rebelion in the south failed as it was Iranian backed and they didn't want Saddam ousted and replaced by the supreme council for islamic revolution in iraq as iran was the regional threat not saddam (not to mention the Iranian backed Kurds in the north)

The military exists to do the things civilians don't want to do. It's our job to KILL. It's our job to DESTROY.
Perhaps you missed it, its also your job to save and your job to build.

It's our job to be the exact opposite of what a civilized society accepts as necessary to operate.
No its your job to do exactly what a civilised society accepts as necessary.

You seem to be getting most of your points completely backwards.

But the media will define the entire service by the actions of a few individuals caught on tape.
You really need a reality check, if that were the case then the media would describe every marine as a lying murdering child rapist wouldn't they instead of describing some individual marines as a disgrace to the corps the military and the nation.

[Armistead]

Sometimes I think it takes a tyrant like Saddam to keep all the crazy sects in line. Overall Iraq was a secular nation even under a dictator. Iraq invaded Kuwait and started a war, but Bush Sr. had enough sense to know how stupid it would be to overthrow the nation. He even stated it would take generations to bring all the sects together, costing trillions and better to leave the country intact with Sadaam. GW was either too dumb or mostly likely saw all the money to be made.

GW Bush, being a damned fool new the lies, like Hitler created a fevor of fake patriotism and destroyed several nation, we alreadly had surrounded and could cause us no harm. In the end, all his friends got rich off all the no bid contracts at the cost of possibly hundreds of thousands of lives and still we have people that get off on the thought...we put a boot in their arse.

During that time, the Taliban escaped with ol Bin and going stronger than ever. If we ever leave either country now, I bet in a matter of a few years back to the normal fubar, but I assume the people there would refer it.

Iraq war will go down as the biggest blunder in US history. Even if we make it a stable nation, in the end game it won't serve our interest any better for the money that was wasted.

[Molon Labe]

http://www.public.navy.mil/usff/Pages/usff_relieves_co_enterprise.aspx



NORFOLK, Va., January 4, 2011 – Adm. John C. Harvey Jr., Commander, United States Fleet Forces Command (USFFC), has permanently relieved Capt. Owen Honors of his duties as commanding officer of USS Enterprise (CVN 65) for demonstrating poor judgment while serving as executive officer of that ship.


“The responsibility of the Commanding Officer for his or her command is absolute. While Capt. Honors’ performance as commanding officer of USS Enterprise has been without incident, his profound lack of good judgment and professionalism while previously serving as executive officer on Enterprise calls into question his character and completely undermines his credibility to continue to serve effectively in command.

The foundation of our success in the Navy lies in our ability to gain and hold the trust of our Sailors, including through personal example. This responsibility is so important that it is written into Navy Regulations. When confidence and trust are lost in those who lead, we fail. After personally reviewing the videos created while serving as executive officer, I have lost confidence in Capt. Honors’ ability to lead effectively, and he is being held accountable for poor judgment and the inappropriate actions demonstrated in the videos that were created while he served as executive officer on Enterprise,” said Harvey.

“It is fact that as naval officers we are held to a higher standard. Those in command must exemplify the Navy’s core values of honor, courage and commitment which we expect our Sailors to follow. Our leaders must be above reproach and our Sailors deserve nothing less,” said Harvey. Capt. Dee Mewbourne will be permanently assigned as the commanding officer of Enterprise. Captain Mewbourne most recently commanded USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) and while in command he completed two successful combat deployments supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. Capt Mewbourne is currently serving as the Chief of Staff for Navy Cyber Forces and will assume command of USS Enterprise this afternoon.

“We will support and work with Capt. Mewbourne and the crew of Enterprise to keep them forward focused on their upcoming combat deployment. This is a difficult situation but the men and women of Enterprise are outstanding Sailors who have completed a very challenging and comprehensive predeployment work-up period in a thoroughly professional manner. They are well-trained and I have full confidence in their readiness to execute all missions during their deployment,” said Harvey.

The relief of Capt. Honors occurs as the investigation continues into the inappropriate videos that Honors made while serving as Enterprise's executive officer from 2006-2007. The investigation will continue to look at all aspects of the production of the videos, to include the actions of other senior officers who knew of the videos and the actions they took in response.

Capt. Honors has been reassigned to administrative duties at Commander, Naval Air Force Atlantic.

[Growler]

What on earth are you on about?
The fact that the media totally ignored the fact that the military were attempting to do their jobs by eliminating the enemy's ability to wage war, and were instead lambasted in the press, as you so clearly state below:


Didn't they talk about the sillyness of killing defeated troops from units that had abandoned their positions and were largely made up of shia whose home provinces in the south were in open rebelion against Saddam.
Didn't they also talk how the leaders of the coilition felt it was important that the rebelion in the south failed as it was Iranian backed and they didn't want Saddam ousted and replaced by the supreme council for islamic revolution in iraq as iran was the regional threat not saddam (not to mention the Iranian backed Kurds in the north)

And what are YOU on about? That's international politics dictating to an international military, not one nation's society. "Leaders of the coilition" [sic] would be political leaders from VARIOUS NATIONS. Again, politics deciding military action. Worked like a charm in Vietnam, by the way. Korea, too. Since, you know, the guys in the tanks and the aircraft always have the most current political picture foremost in their mind while they're busy operating expensive taxpayer equipment and trying not to die while they're at it.


Perhaps you missed it, its also your job to save and your job to build.

Uh, no. Pretty sure that there was no "Use your 25mm to build schools" program at Ft. Knox.

No its your job to do exactly what a civilised society accepts as necessary.

You seem to be getting most of your points completely backwards.

No. You don't call the military when you want civilized. Leave civilized to the politicians. After they realize that civilized words don't stop an invading army, they meet them with another army. Besides - your definition of civilized is likely different than someone else's; if you think differently, tell me how civilized Coventry or Dresden were after a couple minutes' work by the Luftwaffe and RAF/USAAF - both perfectly acceptable acts by the "civilized society" that sponsored them.

You really need a reality check, if that were the case then the media would describe every marine as a lying murdering child rapist wouldn't they instead of describing some individual marines as a disgrace to the corps the military and the nation.

What, you mean they aren't? [/sarcasm]

So what is it that immediately makes you take on a view different than yours as a justifiable means for a personal attack or two?

[Tribesman]

The fact that the media totally ignored the fact that the military were attempting to do their jobs by eliminating the enemy's ability to wage war, and were instead lambasted in the press, as you so clearly state below
Their job was very specific, they were to prevent Iraqi forces in Kuwait from invading Saudi and get Iraqi forces to leave Kuwait.
Did you miss the memo or did your comprehension problems translate that as KILL DESTROY?

That's international politics dictating to an international military, not one nation's society.
Because it was an international issue about international politics. If it was just one nations society then that would be known under the rather unusual term that is never heard which is "civil war".

Again, politics deciding military action.
Can you remind me who is in command of your military as you seem to have forgotten.


Since, you know, the guys in the tanks and the aircraft always have the most current political picture foremost in their mind while they're busy operating expensive taxpayer equipment and trying not to die while they're at it.


The guys in the tanks are just very small cogs in a very big machine, and I hate to break it to ya but they are disposable assets of the politicians

Uh, no. Pretty sure that there was no "Use your 25mm to build schools" program at Ft. Knox.


Are you just pretending to be dumb?

No. You don't call the military when you want civilized.
Yes you do, if you didn't want civilized you would just call on the cheapest available undiciplined disposable scum who would work for a pittance and wouldn't have civilised things like laws and regulations to follow.
I won't confuse you with things like Geneva or Hague as some of that foriegn stuff really is too much reading, but have you heard of this thing, its mentioned quite frequently by US servicemen and vets on this forum , its called the uniform code of military justice.
Amazingly it comes originally from this thing called congress which I hear is supposedly made up of the politician thingys which you think don't do military:rotfl2:

Besides - your definition of civilized is likely different than someone else's; if you think differently, tell me how civilized Coventry or Dresden were after a couple minutes' work by the Luftwaffe and RAF/USAAF - both perfectly acceptable acts by the "civilized society" that sponsored them.

Can you tell me what law they broke, after all if Coventry and Dresden were so nasty and uncivilised they must have been war crimes eh.:har:

So what is it that immediately makes you take on a view different than yours as a justifiable means for a personal attack or two?
Each of those things you quoted was dealing with what you wrote.
If you don't want your views attacked then try and make your views make more sense as currently you appear to be letting your emotions about the services get the better of your judgement on the issues.

[Growler]

My quote: So what is it that immediately makes you take on a view different than yours as a justifiable means for a personal attack or two?

Your responses:
Did you miss the memo or did your comprehension problems ...

... you seem to have forgotten.

Are you just pretending to be dumb?

I won't confuse you with things like Geneva or Hague as some of that foriegn stuff really is too much reading, but have you heard of this thing, its mentioned quite frequently by US servicemen and vets on this forum , its called the uniform code of military justice.
Amazingly it comes originally from this thing called congress which I hear is supposedly made up of the politician thingys which you think don't do military...

Each of those things you quoted was dealing with what you wrote.
If you don't want your views attacked then try and make your views make more sense as currently you appear to be letting your emotions about the services get the better of your judgement on the issues.

So far, what I see here are attacks on me, personally, not "my views." Until you are capable of discerning the difference, I choose not to be trolled any further, and this conversation is over.

[The Third Man]

Making a mountain out of a mole hill.

[Tribesman]

So far, what I see here are attacks on me, personally, not "my views."
Once again you have comments on what you wrote, so on that last lot you quoted.... its obviouisly a comprehension problem where you don't realise that the politicians call the shots and didn't comprehend the nature of the mission in the Gulf.
Seem to forget the chain of command and either deliberately aim to misunderstand or have a real problem with understanding the english language.
Military law, well thats civilised isn't it, you claimed the military don't do civilised:doh:

So far, what I see here are attacks on me, personally, not "my views."
So far what I see is a comprehension problem you have, and an emotional clouding which effects your views as evidenced by what you have written and your reaction to comments about what you have written.

So far most of what you have written is either simply false or rather detatched from reality.

Until you are capable of discerning the difference, I choose not to be trolled any further, and this conversation is over.
Such a pity, you really would have had to tie yourself in knots to try and make your comments about Coventry and Dresden make any sense simply because of what you wrote:haha:
It really was such a funny thing to follow up with after your strange take on the Gulf war

[Aramike]

I admit: I clicked "View Post" here...So far what I see is a comprehension problem you have, and an emotional clouding which effects your views as evidenced by what you have written and your reaction to comments about what you have written.Really?

Dude, is it too hard for you to consider the possibility that it is a communication problem on YOUR part? Or perhaps your not comprehending a point from a perspective OTHER than YOURS?

Or are *ALL* your debates destined to degenerate to such personal attacks, based upon your assumption that *YOUR* position is the default one, and therefore all arguments must pass such muster?

(By the way, before your rebuttal includes the standard berating that comes with your responses to someone using capitalization, look up the term "emphasis" in the dictionary.)

Really, perhaps you should consider the term "respect" just once. To be honest, to the vast majority of reasonable people on here your responses border on innane trash, relying merely on an attempt at the misconceived notion of "cunning wit" which you seem to fire off any time you can't persuade someone into giving you the last word. While we are all guilty of some form of this at some point, you seem to lean upon it.

Leave it alone, and try a mirror once in awhile. At least you seem to have retreated from your sophmoric attempts at validation through repeated laughing emoticons rather than simply letting your points rest upon their own merits.

[Tribesman]

Dude is it too hard for you to consider that his complaints about e possibility that it is a communication problem on YOUR part?
Dude is it too hard for you to consider that most of his complaints made no sense.
Especially concerning the media, politics, the command structure, history, the military and its nature.
Another way he showed his commprehension problem was in blindness to the word "also".
As in the military has a job that may involving killing and destroying but also involves saving and building.
Response.....military=KILL DESTROY thats what a 25mm is for



Or perhaps your not comprehending a point from a perspective OTHER than YOURS?

I understand his perspective, it is very warped.
Each of those points were dealt with in turn.
As it happens one piece he wrote is very illustrative of my point.
The fact that the media totally ignored the fact that the military were attempting to do their jobs by eliminating the enemy's ability to wage war, and were instead lambasted in the press, as you so clearly state below:

It demonstrates that his perception was way off as it was not a fact nor remotely refelected reality.
It also shows that he had a very narrow perception of the job the military were doing, so narrow in fact that its almost meaningless.
For good measure it fully demonstrates his comprehension problems with the English language as the bit he thinks "clearly states" one thing actually states the opposite which in turn comes back to his lack of perception.

Or are *ALL* your debates destined to degenerate to such personal attacks, based upon your assumption that *YOUR* position is the default one, and therefore all arguments must pass such muster?

Thats rather a silly assumption you make about my "assumption", my default position on nearly everything is "not sure at all" which switches on some things to "almost sure".

[August]

Why do you guys even bother with that troll?

[Feuer Frei!]

Why do you guys even bother with that troll?

I'm also wondering what post count this thread will end up with? Considering the outcome of the 'offending' Captain has come to a conclusion :hmmm:

[antikristuseke]

As much as I like an informed and educated American public, this is one of those things that they don't need to know about. If they would like to know then they can inform themselves by visiting their nearest navy recruiter and doing the job that sailors do on a daily basis. Try as the Navy might to rid itself of the stereotypical sailor image, we do swear, drink, smoke, and goof off in ways that the general public wouldn't find acceptable behavior.

Why the public cares about events that happened 3-4 years ago and are trying to do something about it now is beyond me. Personally I hope Capt. Honors career continues uninhibited.

That sort of behaviour is present in all armed forces, be they naval or ground based or even the chair force. But I suppose a sense of humour is forbidden.

[Tribesman]

Why do you guys even bother with that troll?
Don't be so cruel about Growler August, he is just very confused:O:
Though of course August if you was to post in relation to what was written for any purpose other than just being a troll a perhaps you could explain how Growler wasn't writing nonsense.
But I doubt you will as you only popped out from under your bridge to troll and added nothing in favour or against the topics in question between growler and myself.