• 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

Regardless....if taking out the trash and ridding the military of leaders with this type of poor judgement is a result of the repeal of DADT....then the repeal is already achieving good results.
 
disneydude said:
Regardless....if taking out the trash and ridding the military of leaders with this type of poor judgement is a result of the repeal of DADT....then the repeal is already achieving good results.
Click to expand...

i hadn't thought of it that way. good point.
 
Gibberish said:
I have trouble providing the label of "good commander" to someone that not only willing participates in bigotry and alienation of military personnel but orchestrates the production and mass distribution of video's promoting said bigotry.
Click to expand...


I have made my position clear. I believe he violated article 133 of the UCMJ however I watched some of the video and I didn't see anything that was bigoted. Could you elaborate on what you consider bigotry.
 
disneydude said:
Regardless....if taking out the trash and ridding the military of leaders with this type of poor judgement is a result of the repeal of DADT....then the repeal is already achieving good results.
Click to expand...

Does that include Dan Choi? He violated the hell out of the regulations.
 
Redress said:
He is not in the service.
Click to expand...

He was in the service when he was in the service and as far as I know, he's currently in the service, or he's looking to return to the service.

Are you suggesting that there's no place in the service for this soldier?
 
apdst said:
He was in the service when he was in the service and as far as I know, he's currently in the service, or he's looking to return to the service.

Are you suggesting that there's no place in the service for this soldier?
Click to expand...

He is not in the service currently. He is looking to return to service. Whether he can or cannot will depend in his re-enlistment code and type of discharge I believe. Whether he would be a good soldier or not...damned if I know.
 
Redress said:
He is not in the service currently. He is looking to return to service. Whether he can or cannot will depend in his re-enlistment code and type of discharge I believe. Whether he would be a good soldier or not...damned if I know.
Click to expand...


So, yes or no, should he be allowed to return to the service, considering that he knowingly violated the regulations?

Anyone else, that feels like answering this question, please, don't hesitate.
 
apdst said:
Does that include Dan Choi? He violated the hell out of the regulations.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with his case and what regulations he violated.

Was he in a supervisory position where judgement plays a key role?

What are the sanctions for the regulations he violated?

If the sanction is expulsion and the violations were serious...then yes, it would include him. I just don't know enough about him to answer your inquiry. Sorry.
 
disneydude said:
I'm not familiar with his case and what regulations he violated.

Was he in a supervisory position where judgement plays a key role?

What are the sanctions for the regulations he violated?

If the sanction is expulsion and the violations were serious...then yes, it would include him. I just don't know enough about him to answer your inquiry. Sorry.
Click to expand...

He was an officer. He violated regulations. What more is there to know?

If we can't expect a commissioned officer to follow the simple regulations to the letter, how can we expect that same officer to follow the more difficult regulations, to the letter?

Isn't that the argument? Officer showing poor judgement in the face of their command?
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
He was an officer. He violated regulations. What more is there to know?
Click to expand...

Is expulsion the required sanction for violating a regulation? or does it depend on the egrigiousness of the violation.

I also think it makes a difference if you are in a supervisory position. Was the guy you are talking about?
 
disneydude said:
Is expulsion the required sanction for violating a regulation? or does it depend on the egrigiousness of the violation.

I also think it makes a difference if you are in a supervisory position. Was the guy you are talking about?
Click to expand...

Ohhhhhh, so that now we're talking about a gay soldier--a more PC situation--it suddenly comes with conditions.
 
Sidgaf said:
Navy opens investigation into raunchy videos - CNN.com

I think this is the video Yes it is NSFW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WopAHvbg9LU

some people need to get a life. I didn't see nothing that you wouldn't see on a college campus / dorm rooms
Click to expand...

The United States Navy is not a frat nor a college.... If you want to have the country defended by frat boys, or you think a fleet with assets worth more than $1B capable of deploying nuclear weapons should be commanded by a Captain with the mentality of a college sophomore ..... well, God help us.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
So, yes or no, should he be allowed to return to the service, considering that he knowingly violated the regulations?

Anyone else, that feels like answering this question, please, don't hesitate.
Click to expand...

Knowingly violated what regulations? DADT? If that is the discharge, then it is always made under the assumption that if the rules change they could be reinstated, hence the type of discharge.
 
Redress said:
Knowingly violated what regulations? DADT? If that is the discharge, then it is always made under the assumption that if the rules change they could be reinstated, hence the type of discharge.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about DADT?

However, what I'm talking about is his violation of the regulations, by wearing his uniform to a political event. That's a violation of the regulations and officer don't get to pick and choose which regulations are important and which regulations aren't worth worrying about. Right?

He has a professional responsibility to set an example for his enlisted soldiers. Does he not? Setting a bad example for his junior enlisted men is unbecoming of a officer. Is it not? Isn't it that officer's duty to be the adult supervison that informs the soldiers under his charge that the moment, "when they have to be [serious]", is upon them? How can an officer, who violated the most simple of regulations, be expected to provide that level of adult supervison for his soldiers?

Or, is does this just boil down to what's PC and what isn't and has nothing to do with the actual regulations and good order of our armed services?
 
Navy Pride said:
Kelzie said:
All of which don't mean a thing if he's so unproffesional that he'd send a video like this out to the nearly 6000 service members on his ship.[/QUOTE]

And no one cared for years until DADT repeal came along.......You think they should keelhaul the guy?
Click to expand...

I don't think that this had so much to do with the DADT repeal as it did with him being reassigned to the ship as her CO. There were probably at least a couple of people still aboard that ship that were there when he was XO and making those videos, plus the videos were still available to be seen on at least one of the ship's computers. If there were people on board who had seen these videos (either while he was XO or after his time aboard) and they were offended, then they may very well have not wanted to serve under this guy being CO. From the videos, it may appear that this guy wouldn't seriously look into charges of sexual harassment or discrimination (even if this wasn't true, the videos still could be perceived to look this way). It would only take one person who was afraid of this scenario to turn these videos into the media if it didn't appear that the Navy was going to do anything about it.

It is even possible that someone higher up, not even in the chain of command of the carrier turned the videos into the press.

Either way, it is the perception that matters, not how the guy actually acts. And this is especially true for officers in command. There can be no perception that they are not going to seriously observe the rules of the Navy.
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
Who said anything about DADT?

However, what I'm talking about is his violation of the regulations, by wearing his uniform to a political event. That's a violation of the regulations and officer don't get to pick and choose which regulations are important and which regulations aren't worth worrying about. Right?

He has a professional responsibility to set an example for his enlisted soldiers. Does he not? Setting a bad example for his junior enlisted men is unbecoming of a officer. Is it not? Isn't it that officer's duty to be the adult supervison that informs the soldiers under his charge that the moment, "when they have to be [serious]", is upon them? How can an officer, who violated the most simple of regulations, be expected to provide that level of adult supervison for his soldiers?

Or, is does this just boil down to what's PC and what isn't and has nothing to do with the actual regulations and good order of our armed services?
Click to expand...

He did that after his discharge.
 
Redress said:
He did that after his discharge.
Click to expand...

Well, I think he was still in the service when he did all that and if he wasn't he's guilty of impersonating a United States military officer.

Either way, he broke the rules, he's unproffessional, he sets a bad example for his soldiers and he doesn't deserve to wear the uniform. That's what this whole discussion is about.

I'm starting to think that Dan Choi is being held to a different standard, because he's gay.
 
apdst said:
Well, I think he was still in the service when he did all that and if he wasn't he's guilty of impersonating a United States military officer.

Either way, he broke the rules, he's unproffessional, he sets a bad example for his soldiers and he doesn't deserve to wear the uniform. That's what this whole discussion is about.

I'm starting to think that Dan Choi is being held to a different standard, because he's gay.
Click to expand...

We can hardly discharge him, and then say that he is not, post discharge, obeying the rules pf the military.

You are welcome to think what you want. I think you are just using him to flog an issue you don't like. The reality is that if his discharge and re-enlistment code is what will determine whether he can re-enlist(holy double standard!), and the reality also is that I was one who stated that in the case this thread was about I felt the military over-reacted. Now please show me the different standards I am using...
 
I don't believe that Dan Choi should be allowed to return to service as an officer. I respect him personally, and I commend him for his willingness to sacrifice his career in order to change this policy, but I don't believe that his actions, since leaving the service, have been in accordance with returning to serve as an officer.

Chaining himself to the White House fence, in uniform, was over the line. He's made himself into a political polarizing figure, and officers can't do that. They have to be above/outside of politics to a large degree, in order to lead effectively.

That's just my take.

And, I think that I formed that opinion while working for the past 11 years for a retired Army colonel. Everything I know about military officers and who/what they should be, I've learned from my boss and my boyfriend. They're true credits to their respective services.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
We can hardly discharge him, and then say that he is not, post discharge, obeying the rules pf the military.
Click to expand...

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.

You are welcome to think what you want. I think you are just using him to flog an issue you don't like. The reality is that if his discharge and re-enlistment code is what will determine whether he can re-enlist(holy double standard!), and the reality also is that I was one who stated that in the case this thread was about I felt the military over-reacted. Now please show me the different standards I am using...
Click to expand...


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.
 
Whovian said:
This is not the time or place for Naval recruitment videos. :ninja:
Click to expand...

This is Navy recruiting......

navygirl.jpg


Navy-Pinup-Girl-4.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom