N A V Y - a global force of entertainment

[theohall]

Perception is reality, theo. It doesn't matter to the public what the context is when you're a government employee.

Which is the entire problem. While the public is busy blasting the guy, almost everyone who has worked for him is really ticked off - at the public.

[Odin]

Perception is reality, theo. It doesn't matter to the public what the context is when you're a government employee.

Which is the entire problem. While the public is busy blasting the guy, almost everyone who has worked for him is really ticked off - at the public.

We should probably be glad then that big chunks of the country are nowhere near the sea.

[theohall]

Perception is reality, theo. It doesn't matter to the public what the context is when you're a government employee.

Which is the entire problem. While the public is busy blasting the guy, almost everyone who has worked for him is really ticked off - at the public.

We should probably be glad then that big chunks of the country are nowhere near the sea.

Live on a carrier for six months to get a better understanding. This is part of the problem.

[Rip]

I decided to get out at soon as they did away with beards. As PC as they are now I would never suggest anyone join our military again. They will soon be just as wimpy as our politicians.

i thought they did away with beards because the woman sailors couldn't grow them soit was unfair of the men to........

I know you are being sarcastic, but the real reason for doing away with beards is gas masks. Facial hair prevents getting a good seal on a gas mask which means you are screwed if hit with a chemical/biological weapon because your mask will fail if you have a beard.

That was their excuse, but I had no problem with mine.

[Rip]

I find myself wondering what would they have said if he was like sleeping with an intern or something. Good enough for the Commander-and-thief but not for the guys actually in it for something other than money/power. Too bad it couldn't have been a video of him having a gay encounter with the ships Weapons Officer or something.

So given the apparent temperament they would in warship COs now I would suggest we start painting them pink.

Rip

[Isgrimnur]

Yeah, I mean it's not like the CinC was impeached or anything for attempting to cover it up. So I take issue with your "good enough" statement.

[Combustible Lemur]

I find myself wondering what would they have said if he was like sleeping with an intern or something. Good enough for the Commander-and-thief but not for the guys actually in it for something other than money/power. Too bad it couldn't have been a video of him having a gay encounter with the ships Weapons Officer or something.

So given the apparent temperament they would in warship COs now I would suggest we start painting them pink.

Rip

I can't really take this post seriously. Clinton was impeached in relation to his infidelity. This officer did somethin silly and innappropriate and was not allowed to continue commanding one of the most powerful weapons system in the world. Sure it's being overblown. But it also demonstrates a lack of judgment in a hugely responsible position.

would you accept that behavior from your child's principal if it improved teat scores?

We're he still an xo I don't even know if it would be news, if it were an ifantry platoon or regiment it probly wouldn't either. But the commander of an aircraft carrier, is that really the judgment we want?

[Rip]

Yeah, I mean it's not like the CinC was impeached or anything for attempting to cover it up. So I take issue with your "good enough" statement.

One lost his job, his boss didn't.

While I think the video was a very bad decision it doesn't compare with things like not running the ship into things and operating a VERY dangerous weapon effectively and safely. The kind of guys who do that are going to become harder to find in those that stay. I expect to end up with more PC correct guys that fold when the chips are down in combat.

An example to this can be found in how our submarines had to adapt at the start of WW2. They had older cautious good peacetime skippers and when the war started suffered. When they were replaced with younger more aggressive and risk taking captains results turned the tide and in the opinion of many won us the war.

[Isgrimnur]

Yeah, I mean it's not like the CinC was impeached or anything for attempting to cover it up. So I take issue with your "good enough" statement.

One lost his job, his boss didn't.

Yes, but that's what impeachment is about, whether or not to remove someone from their job, and just like in this case, it came down to politics. It might not be politics involving animals, but it's still politics.

While I think the video was a very bad decision it doesn't compare with things like not running the ship into things and operating a VERY dangerous weapon effectively and safely. The kind of guys who do that are going to become harder to find in those that stay. I expect to end up with more PC correct guys that fold when the chips are down in combat.

An example to this can be found in how our submarines had to adapt at the start of WW2. They had older cautious good peacetime skippers and when the war started suffered. When they were replaced with younger more aggressive and risk taking captains results turned the tide and in the opinion of many won us the war.

To me, something like this goes to the core of his decision-making abilities. This man was the XO of the entire ship during wartime and on station at times in a war footing. And this was the best use of his time? As there was an A/V group on the ship to produce these videos, I have to assume that there are officers tasked with improving morale. If it were the head of the A/V group, I doubt we ever hear about it. But it's the guy that's second in command of the entire ship. I want that man to make good decisions that don't involve racy and offensive videos deliberately foisted onto his own chain of command.

[The Meal]

I expect to end up with more PC correct guys that fold when the chips are down in combat.

An example to this can be found in how our submarines had to adapt at the start of WW2. They had older cautious good peacetime skippers and when the war started suffered. When they were replaced with younger more aggressive and risk taking captains results turned the tide and in the opinion of many won us the war.

Can you give more details about how the more-aggressive guys hated teh gayz while the cautious folks were actually pinko commies? I missed that during your storytime.

[silverjon]

Hmm... I think I take exception to equivalating not being deliberately offensive with cowardice.

[El Guapo]

What really persuades me is the use of "Commander-and-Thief". Now I totally agree that the guy should not have been fired! Because Clinton was Commander in Chief, but he slept with an intern and, I guess, stole from her? Now that that has been wittily pointed out through a sly play on words, I see how the failure of the Senate to ratify impeachment charges over a decade ago means that this guy should remain in charge of an aircraft carrier.

[LawBeefaroni]

Clinton was impeached for perjury. This guy isn't accused of perjury. Apples and oranges.



As for the Naval officer, honestly I think it's sophomoric and in poor taste but I'm not going to tell someone how to run an aircraft carrier. The decision should be left to his bosses, with input from his crew. If there's a record of complaints, fine. If not, well I've come to learn that some workplaces are different than others.

[Rip]

Clinton was impeached for perjury. This guy isn't accused of perjury. Apples and oranges.



As for the Naval officer, honestly I think it's sophomoric and in poor taste but I'm not going to tell someone how to run an aircraft carrier. The decision should be left to his bosses, with input from his crew. If there's a record of complaints, fine. If not, well I've come to learn that some workplaces are different than others.

and his bosses made decisions and were through with it. The years later it comes to public light and the politicians force the military commanders to do what public opinion says is right. So like when the next Patton slaps a soldier he will be gone and we will have military leaders who a excellent at political correctness but that also typically means they will be cautious and adverse to risk taking.

IMHO the best military people are risk takers who do what they think is right and seek the living on an edge lifestyle. This trait is often inversely proportional to the cautious politically correct type. It seems to me instead of doing away with the admirals and generals and having the politicians run the military we are doing almost the same thing by turning the military commanders into politicians. Maybe we should go ahead and start budgeting for Public Relations and Legal Counsel budgets for them.

I will make a prediction though. We are about to see a rash of videos and such from the earlier days of many of our military commanders showing them saying or doing things that very politically incorrect. Now that we have set the line any military leader who has done something like this or worse is just counting his days.

Now our fighting men and women can look forward to the same type of leadership we get from our politicians. Lying, condescending, self serving crap. The days of real personal interaction and letting the hair down between a commander and his men is over. Thank god we have such an military advantage over much of the world. If we had to fight a fair or outnumbered fight again like ww2 we would be doomed.

[El Guapo]

I dunno, it might be a *teeny* bit of speculative exaggeration to say that this incident means that we would lose World War II.

[Rip]

I dunno, it might be a *teeny* bit of speculative exaggeration to say that this incident means that we would lose World War II.

With the way China is catching up you might live to find out.

[noxiousdog]

Out of curiosity, are there any military vets in this thread that think he should have been fired?

[raydude]

I dunno, it might be a *teeny* bit of speculative exaggeration to say that this incident means that we would lose World War II.

Wait, I thought we won that one? Or did I do a "Final Countdown" and I'm now aboard the Nimitz?

[El Guapo]

I dunno, it might be a *teeny* bit of speculative exaggeration to say that this incident means that we would lose World War II.

Wait, I thought we won that one? Or did I do a "Final Countdown" and I'm now aboard the Nimitz?

We did. However, had we fired one aircraft carrier commander for making morale videos considered in poor taste at the time, we would have lost.

[Tareeq]

The person who wrote this is a Navy veteran:

The XO of a US aircraft carrier needs to be more than a sphynx, he must be an absolute, unquestionable authority at all times. The XO is going to be the guy who gives the order to seal the hatch on flooding compartment which will guarantee your buddies on the other side will die. Such an order must be followed immediately and without hesitation for the survivability of the ship; you do not want sailors doubting the seriousness of anything coming from the CO or XO at any time, ever. There are crucial moments on these ships, and the Big E has had many sailors die, but when lives were on the line (she has had several deadly accidents and fires) the chain of command is inviolate due to the unwavering respect for the senior officers. The Enterprise carries nuclear-capable aircraft and nuclear weapons. The orders to release nuclear weapons must come from both CO and XO, so neither one of those guys should ever be seen as a friend you can joke around with and have a drink or two.

I do not see any issue with the content of the videos. It was a fucking joke, for fuck sakes. However, those are jokes that cannot be told by the XO whose voice follows the Captain for the release of nuclear weapons or who may legitimately order sailors to sacrifice their lives or the lives of their shipmates to save their ship. Captain Honors exhibited poor judgment that could harm the unquestionable respect for the chain of command.

I believe his dismissal is the appropriate remedy. I also believe criticism of the content of the video to be whiny petty ass bullshit.

http://randazza.wordpress.com/2011/01/0 ... rs-update/" target="_blank

[Rip]

So was this.

Here's the issue in a nutshell, as spelled out by CDR Salamander, a well-read but anonymous blogger who served more than 20 years as a Navy officer. In a column on the independent U.S. Naval Institute's website, he says that Honors' superiors had three choices in dealing with the media firestorm that the raunchy videos triggered. They could say they didn't know about them beforehand, say they knew about them and didn't care, or say they knew about them and told him not to do it any more.
Initially, the Navy chose that third option, telling the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot -- before the ship hit the fan:
"The videos created onboard USS Enterprise in 2006-2007 were not created with the intent to offend anyone," the statement said. "The videos were intended to be humorous skits focusing the crew's attention on specific issues such as port visits, traffic safety, water conservation, ship cleanliness, etc." The statement said that when leaders with the carrier strike group became aware of the inappropriate content in early 2007, production of the videos ended.
At least two admirals commanding Honors knew of the videos, levied some degree of counseling -- "Stop this before it ends up on TV!" or somesuch -- and let Honors' career continue its ascent. "Again – just to be clear – nothing on these videos were unknown to the STRIKE GROUP Commander (embarked ENTERPRISE) or the Commanding Officer," CDR Salamander notes. "I make a declarative statement such as that because I have been deployed on Carriers and I can also declare that water is wet."

But once the videos went viral, response No. 3 -- that the Navy was aware of the videos and had already dealt with the issue -- no longer seemed viable. Or as CDR Salamander puts it:
...we have malice and betrayal by an officer's Chain of Command. It is the height of moral corruption to tell someone what they are doing is OK one day, and then the next –- to protect yourself -- act as if it were horrible. It is just as morally corrupt to reprimand a person, provide corrective action, accept remediation – and then at a later date punish him again for the same act only harder; submit that person to double jeopardy for your own self-preservation.
It happened at the notorious Tailhook convention 20 years ago this September, when senior officers punished younger ones for antics and assaults that had been tolerated in Navy circles until they became public. It's happening again.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/01 ... s-history/

[Isgrimnur]

Yes, but the point of oversight is to ensure not only that your people are doing their jobs, but that their supervisors are responding appropriately to any errors in judgment. Just because it was addressed by his immediate superior does not immediately let him off the hook if the higher-ups feel that the response was not appropriate.

[Tareeq]

So it sounds Rip, if I'm reading you correctly, as though the Navy has a history and practice of tolerating bullshit from officers until it becomes public. Sounds like a Mickey Mouse organization. Sounds like a bunch of cops, to be honest.

A corporation where this sort of malarkey went on would be sued out of existence, and Honors would be bankrupted in the process. But thanks to the Feres doctrine, all that will happen to Honors is that he'll get to retire with a fat pension and benefits?

And yet you're complaining about the harsh treatment. How utterly Mickey Mouse of you.

[Rip]

I found another well thought out piece on the situation that I agree with for the most part.

Should Honors have been reprimanded for his bad judgment? Yes. Years ago. Maybe he shouldn’t have even been promoted to captain of the Enterprise last May. But should he have been permanently relieved of his command - essentially fired - and relegated to an administrative function simply because the public has gotten wind of the videos? Absolutely not.

Here are four reasons why I think Capt. Honors is getting a raw deal in this scandal:

1. He was doing his job and he excelled at it
2. Navy officials, including the ship’s captain and fleet admiral, had known about the videos for years
3. Capt. Honors is a highly decorated officer who has flawlessly and selflessly served the Navy and America for decades
4. Capt. Honors was a consummate professional who knew the difference between conducting business and boosting morale and took both seriously

He elaborates on these four points in the article.

http://www.bnet.com/blog/ceo/should-nav ... fired/6402


I wonder what would have happened if instead of this stuff it had been videos of him criticizing DADT saying that it was ignorant and that he was gay but don't tell anyone off the ship cause it would get him canned?

Short answer his bosses would have canned him when they first found out about it.

[Tareeq]

Capt. Honors was a consummate professional

Making "fag" videos with simulated sex is consummately professional?

who knew the difference between conducting business and boosting morale and took both seriously

Obviously.

[Rip]

So it sounds Rip, if I'm reading you correctly, as though the Navy has a history and practice of tolerating bullshit from officers until it becomes public. Sounds like a Mickey Mouse organization. Sounds like a bunch of cops, to be honest.

A corporation where this sort of malarkey went on would be sued out of existence, and Honors would be bankrupted in the process. But thanks to the Feres doctrine, all that will happen to Honors is that he'll get to retire with a fat pension and benefits?

And yet you're complaining about the harsh treatment. How utterly Mickey Mouse of you.

That is why we don't have corporations running our military....yet.

That kind of malarkey is what makes patriotic men great fighters. Do you think a typical corporations employees will take a bullet for their CO? Of course not. The type of thing that leads men to follow a leader into fire is a personal connection that creates that locker room mentality. I know I would much prefer to server under a Patton or McArthur than say Omar Bradley.

We could see if your way works better. just fire all the military officers and let the CEOs take over. Of course you would probably have to catch them attempting to sneak into Canada.

This makes me think of a story if you will indulge me.

It late 1942 one of the new Gato class fleet boats rolled out. USS Wahoo. She sailed on her first war patrol with Lieutenant Commander Marvin G. "Pinky" Kennedy in command.

He was a conservative guy and stay submerged all day and despite urgings from his aggressive and often in trouble for speaking his mind XO Richard O'Kane (who would later command USS Tang with distinction) to be more aggressive. When O'Kane once suggested attacking a contact on the surface Kennedy exclaimed that would be suicide (This became common later in the war). Anyway they didn't do much. O'kane later wrote about poor morale on the boat was bad. Anyway second patrol a PCO or Prospective Commanding Officer was embarked. Lieutenant Commander Dudley Walker "Mush" Morton. After this patrol was unsuccessful Kennedy was relieved and Morton got command of Wahoo.

Now Morton was a different kind of guy. Like O'kane not particularly well liked among superiors but aggressive beyond belief. He also took to wandering the submarine and actually meeting EVERYONE. He posted signs that simply stated "Kill the sons-a-bitches" and would wander the boat in his boxer shorts and do laundry. Not to mention sew on ratings badges for the crew, darn socks you name it.

Another thing that I thought was noteworthy the previous CO didn't allow a ceremony for crossing the equator, you know shellback and all. So there were mostly pollywogs on Wahoo. Including Morton. Morton handed command temporarily and submitted to King Neptune. Of course as did all the pollywogs, how could they not. Probably bitching all the way but loving every second of it.

Have any off you become a shellback? How could you enjoys such a hazing? I probably tell stories about that as much as any of my sea stories. How can something so bad be remembered so fondly? These are the type things that will disappear in the new navy, I say for the worst. Oh sure they will have some half assed joke of a thing and hand everyone a certificate but we all know what a real shellback ceremony is like.

Well anyway O'kane noted an immediate change in moral, and of course they started sinking the crap out of stuff. highlighted early on by shooting torpedos down the throat at a charging destroyer. Yet you would have never talked any of his crew into a transfer. they loved him because they knew he loved them. Of course it cost them their lives since Wahoo was lost on her seventh patrol.

But the point is the were a family of sorts for good or bad. they had their drunken romps and positive events as well as bad. But the point is the military unit commander must be close to his men not some CEO like guy in an office on the top floor. Once you go to the Pentagon or something then yea, you really are just a political lapdog anyways. But the guy in the face of action who decides your fate and is in the crap with you needs to have your heart and I doubt any CEO could earn that.

Well at least that is how good fighting men ride. Sure you can man your ships and armies with anyone, but the ones that will overcome odds against them and show an unwillingness to fail. The ones who eat fear for breakfast also drink too much into the late night and frequently get into trouble with authority.

Jack Nicholson hit it closer than we like to think. The best people to guard our fences aren't necessarily the best at social interaction and they have ways and methods we don't really care for. But they are effective and when our lives are at stake we turn to them.

[Rip]

I wish just reading a story indicating that this crap may cost people even higher up their jobs and I had a funny thought. What if somehow Obama knew about it. maybe it came up in a brief when deciding about DADT.....and he didn't say anything. OMG we better fire him!!!


Well anyway it made me chuckle.

[LawBeefaroni]

A corporation where this sort of malarkey went on would be sued out of existence

Like HP and their current $5B market cap?

and Honors would be bankrupted in the process.

Like Mark Hurd and his subsequent presidency and board seat at Oracle?

But thanks to the Feres doctrine, all that will happen to Honors is that he'll get to retire with a fat pension and benefits?

Unlike Mark Hurd and his piddly $40M severance and compensation upon departure.


Way off topic, I'm sorry, but let's not hold up corporations as bastions of ethical conduct devoid of malarkey. If Honors deserves to be shitcanned, so be it but not because of some kind of imagined corporate standard we should hold armed forces to. If anything it's because they should be held to a higher standard than corporations.

[Fretmute]

That kind of malarkey is what makes patriotic men great fighters.

So . . . the most effective possible naval command would be Captain Zekester aboard the USS Machismo.

[Isgrimnur]

That kind of malarkey is what makes patriotic men great fighters.

So . . . the most effective possible naval command would be Captain Zekester aboard the USS Machismo.

[pr0ner]

That kind of malarkey is what makes patriotic men great fighters.

So . . . the most effective possible naval command would be Captain Zekester aboard the USS Machismo.

[Rip]

That kind of malarkey is what makes patriotic men great fighters.

So . . . the most effective possible naval command would be Captain Zekester aboard the USS Machismo.

Where do I sign up?

[Odin]

Way off topic, I'm sorry, but let's not hold up corporations as bastions of ethical conduct devoid of malarkey. If Honors deserves to be shitcanned, so be it but not because of some kind of imagined corporate standard we should hold armed forces to. If anything it's because they should be held to a higher standard than corporations.

Which was exactly the point I made later. If I'd behaved as he did, as a corporate exec, I'd have been made to deeply regret it. I expect someone in such as position as Honors to be held to a standard at least that rigorous, preferably more.

[Jaddison]

Retired submariner here.

To those of you who want to compare a combat deployment to a corporation I think you are making a very poor comparison.

Capt Honors perhaps displayed poor judgment. It certainly was poor judgment to tell complainers to hug themselves but then again aviators as whole sometimes far exceed a balls to brains ration of 2:1.

I would not ever tell anyone that has not done a deployment some of the things that went on onboard the submarines I deployed on. Thank goodness there was no video/taping equipment, a small crew and no women because that greatly decreases the likelihood that anything bad would get out. That said, few if any of you would now how and when porn got banned from being played on any submarine.

A submarine was getting ready of deployment and on the night before the left the duty section, who would not see their dependents again for a long while, wanted to show some porn for the nightly movie. One sailor, who was very religious, objected. The crew came up with a compromise. They would show a regular movie, he could leave and then they would show some porn. This "sailor" watched his movie and as it turned out went off to pen a letter to his congressman. This resulted in a witch hunt that ended in an edict that banned the showing of porn, even softcore, on submarines.

My point is that until you have walked a mile in my shoes or the shoes of those who go off to deploy away from home for months, who stand watch night and day with no break in the pressure, get little sleep for months and in the case of the enlisted not only have to to do their jobs for low pay but also must ceaselessly keep their ships clean, don't even presume to try and tell us what should or should not be the standard of our behavior. Unless it is criminal or can be proven to be detrimental to the good of the ship, you who have never been there have no credibility and should have no voice in what should happen to in cases like Capt Honors.

For those of you who would have him stripped of retirement and , again, try to compare this to the corporate world I say you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Honors spent over 20 years in the Navy, He sacrificed his safety and his time to do a job that few choose to do. He took an oath that said he would lay down his life to protect the Constitution and this country and as far as anyone can tell fulfilled his duties and kept his oath. Making some questionable videos that can be perceived as being in poor taste is not a criminal act and other than trying to construe it as "Conduct unbecoming" which I think is a stretch I can't see where he came close to violating the UCMJ. To think he should be denied his retirement after all he has done and all he has sacrificed because of some schoolboy humor and off color jokes is unthinkable. There is no proper way to compare his career to some corporate CEO.

[Odin]

My point is that until you have walked a mile in my shoes or the shoes of those who go off to deploy away from home for months, who stand watch night and day with no break in the pressure, get little sleep for months and in the case of the enlisted not only have to to do their jobs for low pay but also must ceaselessly keep their ships clean, don't even presume to try and tell us what should or should not be the standard of our behavior. Unless it is criminal or can be proven to be detrimental to the good of the ship, you who have never been there have no credibility and should have no voice in what should happen to in cases like Capt Honors.

That's very much how it works. In a military dictatorship. Here in the US, our citizen-soldiers work for our citizens and and we have every right to expect certain levels of behaviour and decorum from seniormost officers.

Thank you for your service, but I disagree with your position. Also, it's worth noting, that senior military officers - not civilians - by and large wrote the military code of conduct that Honors should have held himself to.

[Mr. Fed]

Here's the thing: I don't think the question is whether he's a bad person. I think the question is whether the Navy is unreasonable (1) to conclude, based on this incident, that he has flaws in judgment [whether or not those flaws were known by others previously and not acted upon], and (2) to conclude that, on balance, they didn't want someone with such flaws in judgment in command of a carrier group.

My point is that until you have walked a mile in my shoes or the shoes of those who go off to deploy away from home for months, who stand watch night and day with no break in the pressure, get little sleep for months and in the case of the enlisted not only have to to do their jobs for low pay but also must ceaselessly keep their ships clean, don't even presume to try and tell us what should or should not be the standard of our behavior. Unless it is criminal or can be proven to be detrimental to the good of the ship, you who have never been there have no credibility and should have no voice in what should happen to in cases like Capt Honors.

I presume because I am a free man of the United States of America, not the subject of a military dictatorship.

My judgment is obviously subject to criticism on the grounds that I don't have the experience you speak of. But the notion that I should shut up about the operation of a military operated in my country's name, under the command of leaders I help elect, with my tax dollars, is unacceptable. Don't like it? Don't listen, or voice disagreement.

I don't take that line of argument when cops use it after shooting or tasing someone, either.

[GreenGoo]

I think Tareeq's comments were specific to harrassment lawsuits or similar. I seriously doubt he's suggesting that corporate leadership be held up as some sort of ideal that the military would do well to attempt to achieve.

Clearly, the military have their own laws that don't always overlap with civilian life. In any case, this doesn't seem to be a question of military law, just a judgement call by Honors' boss(es), be it politically motivated or other.

And while I'm slightly sympathetic to Rip and the whole mindset of "it's different in the trenches", I'm not convinced that the guys working on the factory floor are the best qualified to decide who the CEO should be, if you'll excuse another reference to the private sector.

And I completely disagree with RIP that the Boss should be someone you'd feel comfortable having a beer with. Particularly in a military situation. Having officers and non-coms be chummy when death is on the line just doesn't seem like a good idea.

As the quote that Tareeq posted mentions, absolute loyalty and obedience in the line of duty must be the rule. I just don't see that sort of relationship being aided by some sort of quasi-equal footing relationship off duty (or whatever).

[Jaddison]

Apparently my remarks were not clear.

I do not believe civilians have a right to be apart of something that is not criminal. It's got nothing to do with a military dictatorship that is a wayyyy over the top interpretation of what I wrote.

If it isn't criminal, and what Honor's did isn't, then what exact role do you all think civilians have in this situation? He had a skit about the word fuck, had a simulated, no actual, skit about "chicks in a shower", and had a skit about masturbation. He called his SWO alter ego "fag boy". Poor taste, yes. But where in all that is there cause to even think about denying this guy his retirement? Where in all this is there anything that is the public's business? This isn't Tailhook where there was actual criminal behavior, this isn't abuse of power or corruption, this isn't Abu Ghraib or PAt Tillman's death and cover up . If I said those were none of the public's business then i could understand the "dictatorship" remarks but what Honor's did is nowhere even on the same planet as that.

Military dictatorship? Right.

[Odin]

I do not believe civilians have a right to be apart of something that is not criminal.

You're entitled to your belief. Thank you for defending my right to disagree with you.

[GreenGoo]

I'm not really seeing any reason for a dishonorable discharge or the removal of his pension either.

Whether he's the right guy to be in charge of a carrier group is another.