• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Navy opens investigation into raunchy videos

apdst said:
He committed those offenses while he wass still in the service. Even if he hadn't, he has an arrest record. He sets a bad example for his soldiers and should be held to same high standard that Honors is being held to.
Click to expand...

Did he? Seems like when I looked it up he had not, but to be honest I don't remember. Can you link to the offenses he committed while in service? The arrest record I had not thought of and might keep him out, and I have no problem with that. It's the rules.

I'm not doing any such thing. I'm pointing out that officers have a responsibility to conduct themselves in a certain manner and if they fail to meet that responsibility, they don't deserve to be officers. I've found common ground on that issue with my opposite numbers, like never before, on any issue. Now--since we're talking about a gay soldier--you're saying that rules should be applied differently.

Honors didn't violate any written rules. Dan Choi did. The same standard applies

I'll say it again, any officer that doesn't meet and maintain the standards is a piece of **** and doesn't deserve to wear the uniform.
Click to expand...

Honors in fact may have violated written rules. "Conduct unbecoming" could potentially be claimed with some justification. Missuse of government equipment could also be claimed. I also point out, again, that I stated in this very thread that I thought the military overreacted in his case.
 
apdst said:
Ohhhhhh, so that now we're talking about a gay soldier--a more PC situation--it suddenly comes with conditions.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I don't care if the person is gay/straight or whatever. If the level of judgement is so poor that it affects there ability or calls into question their ability to govern...then they should be canned regardless of their sexual orientation/gender/ethnicity...or whatever.

You are asking me to comment on a case that I am not familiar with the facts. If what the soldier you are talking about engaged in misconduct that was egrigious, then absolutely he should be canned as well.
I'm just not sure what "shall be punished as a court martial dictates" means. Does that mean that a court martial is appropriate in all cases? If so, then absolutely can him. If it means that it is subject to discretion, then I would have to know the circumstnaces and what the usual punishment is for that type of offense.
 
American, some recruiting posters for the navy seem almost aimed at gays:

InTheNavy.jpg


InTheNavy2.jpg


And then there is the marines:

Marine1.jpg
 
Redress said:
Did he? Seems like when I looked it up he had not, but to be honest I don't remember. Can you link to the offenses he committed while in service? The arrest record I had not thought of and might keep him out, and I have no problem with that. It's the rules.
Click to expand...

Choi was arrested in March of 2010, when he handcuffed himself to the White House fence, in uniform. He wasn't discharged until July of 2010.



Honors in fact may have violated written rules. "Conduct unbecoming" could potentially be claimed with some justification. Missuse of government equipment could also be claimed. I also point out, again, that I stated in this very thread that I thought the military overreacted in his case.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
disneydude said:
Not at all. I don't care if the person is gay/straight or whatever. If the level of judgement is so poor that it affects there ability or calls into question their ability to govern...then they should be canned regardless of their sexual orientation/gender/ethnicity...or whatever.

You are asking me to comment on a case that I am not familiar with the facts. If what the soldier you are talking about engaged in misconduct that was egrigious, then absolutely he should be canned as well.
I'm just not sure what "shall be punished as a court martial dictates" means. Does that mean that a court martial is appropriate in all cases? If so, then absolutely can him. If it means that it is subject to discretion, then I would have to know the circumstnaces and what the usual punishment is for that type of offense.
Click to expand...

In Dan Choi's case, all that applies.

I find it funny, now, that some of you are dead certain that Honors shouldn't be allowed to serve as an officer, but when it comes to Dan Choi, you all of sudden don't know.

I think that illustrates that the real outrage over Honors is because he picked on gays, not so much that he made an idiotic video and showed it to his crew.
 
apdst said:
In Dan Choi's case, all that applies.

I find it funny, now, that some of you are dead certain that Honors shouldn't be allowed to serve as an officer, but when it comes to Dan Choi, you all of sudden don't know.

I think that illustrates that the real outrage over Honors is because he picked on gays, not so much that he made an idiotic video and showed it to his crew.
Click to expand...

No, we didn't know all the facts. Now that you so kindly provided the actual dates, I can say with all certainty that if he hadn't beed discharged under DADT, he should have been discharged for his conduct. I have no doubt redress will agree.

Don't tell us our opinions so that you can feel self righteous.
 
Kelzie said:
No, we didn't know all the facts. Now that you so kindly provided the actual dates, I can say with all certainty that if he hadn't beed discharged under DADT, he should have been discharged for his conduct. I have no doubt redress will agree.

Don't tell us our opinions so that you can feel self righteous.
Click to expand...

You know me too well. Yes, getting arrested while in service is bad. Very bad. Being arrested while not in service can still affect your ability to enlist(or reenlist) as I already mentioned.
 
Redress said:
You know me too well. Yes, getting arrested while in service is bad. Very bad. Being arrested while not in service can still affect your ability to enlist(or reenlist) as I already mentioned.
Click to expand...

Kelzie said:
No, we didn't know all the facts. Now that you so kindly provided the actual dates, I can say with all certainty that if he hadn't beed discharged under DADT, he should have been discharged for his conduct. I have no doubt redress will agree.

Don't tell us our opinions so that you can feel self righteous.
Click to expand...

How could you not know any of this? I'm not totally convinced, but if you say you didn't, then you didn't.
 
apdst said:
In Dan Choi's case, all that applies.

I find it funny, now, that some of you are dead certain that Honors shouldn't be allowed to serve as an officer, but when it comes to Dan Choi, you all of sudden don't know.

I think that illustrates that the real outrage over Honors is because he picked on gays, not so much that he made an idiotic video and showed it to his crew.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the videos had many different lewd and immature references, not limited to gays.

Also, the information about Honors has been in the news and so it is something that I have read multiple accounts of, your references to Choi are the only thing I've read anything recently about. I do have a slight recollection of who you are talking about where someone wrote of chaining to the whitehouse, but other than that, I have no recollection of the offenses that you are referring to.
 
disneydude said:
My understanding is that the videos had many different lewd and immature references, not limited to gays.

Also, the information about Honors has been in the news and so it is something that I have read multiple accounts of, your references to Choi are the only thing I've read anything recently about. I do have a slight recollection of who you are talking about where someone wrote of chaining to the whitehouse, but other than that, I have no recollection of the offenses that you are referring to.
Click to expand...

That's because you knew everything about Choi that you wanted to know: he's gay, an Army officer and speaking out against DADT. The rest was irrelevant. The only reason that Honors even made the news, is because of the non-PC nature of his actions.
 
apdst said:
That's because you knew everything about Choi that you wanted to know: he's gay, an Army officer and speaking out against DADT. The rest was irrelevant. The only reason that Honors even made the news, is because of the non-PC nature of his actions.
Click to expand...


What Honors did was on a frat boy level what Choi did was to open political discussion.
 
winston53660 said:
What Honors did was on a frat boy level what Choi did was to open political discussion.
Click to expand...

Both were violations of the regulations and conduct standards. Neither is better/worse than the other.

In the military, a serviceman doesn't get to pick and choose which regulations to follow and which ones to ignore.

If Choi can't be trusted to do something as simple as taking off his uniform, before attending a political event, or staying out of the jailhouse, then how can we trust him to lead soldiers on the battlefield?
 
winston53660 said:
One is frat boy antics the other is a political statement. They are different.
Click to expand...

The military prohibits participating in political events, while in uniform. There is also a prohibition to participating in a political event that could be a violation of the law.

It's hypocritical to say that Choi isn't subject to the regulations and Honors is, just because you agree with Choi's motivation.
 
apdst said:
The military prohibits participating in political events, while in uniform. There is also a prohibition to participating in a political event that could be a violation of the law.

It's hypocritical to say that Choi isn't subject to the regulations and Honors is, just because you agree with Choi's motivation.
Click to expand...


Where did I ever say that?
 
winston53660 said:
Where did I ever say that?
Click to expand...

What did you mean when you said, "they're different"? They're different in the same way that murder and robbery are different, but both are violations of the regulations.
 
apdst said:
What did you mean when you said, "they're different"? They're different in the same way that murder and robbery are different, but both are violations of the regulations.
Click to expand...


I mean they are different, one is derogatory frat boy antics while the other is a political statement.
 
winston53660 said:
I mean they are different, one is derogatory frat boy antics while the other is a political statement.
Click to expand...

And, both are violations of the regulations. In that regard, they're the same.
 
apdst said:
And, both are violations of the regulations. In that regard, they're the same.
Click to expand...


Yep according to the book they are both violations even though the ideas being communicated are miles apart.
 
apdst said:
Both were violations of the regulations and conduct standards. Neither is better/worse than the other.

In the military, a serviceman doesn't get to pick and choose which regulations to follow and which ones to ignore.

If Choi can't be trusted to do something as simple as taking off his uniform, before attending a political event, or staying out of the jailhouse, then how can we trust him to lead soldiers on the battlefield?
Click to expand...

You still haven't answered the question. Is dismissal the only sanction available under the Court Martial or does it depend on the circumstances?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom