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

[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.

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!]

Originally Posted by Neptunus Rex

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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...r-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]

Originally Posted by 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.

^ this

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]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.