In a quarter century of naval service I’ve never known anyone who was court martialed. Never have I been called to serve on one. In command, I never felt the need to convene a court martial, although such was in my power – all the sundry offenses brought before me were in the nature of military-style misdemeanors, and courts martial are generally reserved for very grievous offenses, felony equivalents that for whatever reason were not referred to civilian jurisdiction.
We do not do courts martial so very often in the US military.
Which might be a mistake.
Our predecessor service will court martial an officer pretty much at the drop of a hat. Run your ship aground? Court martial. Crash a jet? See you in the dock. Wasn’t your fault? Good – It will all be there in the legal record, for all the world to see. You will have clearly delineated rights: You may question your accuser, assail his (or her) motives, and independently examine evidence. There are due process protections, and evidentiary custody rules. You’ll have a fully empowered attorney by your side. There will be a formal review process, to ensure your rights were protected. The UCMJ is a branch of federal law, and court martial decisions may be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. Which is maybe why we so rarely convene them.
.
No, we over here are much more likely to take a disciplinary problem to non-judicial punishment, NJP – much lower on the scale of military justice than any of the various courts martial. The accused has rights, but not so very many. Once he has been read his rights, such as they are, and has agreed to participate in the process – at sea he does not even have the privilege of refusal – he is committed to the end result, whatever that might be. There are no rules of evidence. Witnesses may not be questioned or impeached. No one stands by the side of the accused, and is on his side – his division officer and his chief will be there to speak either for him or against him as his performance has merited, but ultimately these individuals work for the commanding officer himself, the man convening what we in the Navy call Captain’s Mast, and in the Marine Corps is referred to as Office Hours.
.
This CO that convened the Mast will be the same man will decide upon the guilt or innocence of the accused, and is the same man who will decide upon his punishment. Having been found guilty, the accused will have the right to appeal to higher authority, but such appeals are almost inevitably fruitless. It is an administrative, rather than judicial process, and as such the penalties are less severe, although in my service a man can still be sentenced to three days bread and water in the brig, demotion, extra duties, “extra military instruction,” loss of pay and restriction of liberty.
Which is why I think that so much of the criticsm of the Black/Whisenant issue is so misguided. Because the Academy has another tacit mission apart from that explicitly quoted in the linked post – Survival: In order to continue “preparing midshipmen morally, mentally and physically,” the Academy must itself continue unhampered and unhindered. The institution believes in itself.
Letting an issue such as LT Black’s boorishness – never mind the institutional response to his boorishness – become the topic of Congressional conversation is strategically unwise. Even if that conversation does not actually threaten the institution’s survival – and let us be clear, the enemies of the several service academies and their theoretical “elitism” and “miltarism” are both powerful and numerous – it will at least make it difficult to complete the assigned mission.
LT Black made an egregious error in judgement, but that error is his alone – he owns it. On the other hand, a decision to “let bygones be bygones” would take the ownership of his malfeasance and transfer it to the Academy. This would allow his behavior to be imputed to the institution and, by extension, the officer corps and naval service in its entirety. That decision might be critically examined by forces inimicable to the institution’s survival, not to mention those unsupportive of the naval mission.
A lesser UCMJ process such as NJP would manage the not inconsiderable tasks of being both more dangerous to LT Black’s prospects while also opening up the motivation of all participants – Black, Whisenant, the Admiral, the officer corps, the Navy – to unwelcome, even tendentious scrutiny. No matter what is decided, partisans on every side will have the grass with which to make their sectarian hay.
Black’s misdeeds, as trivial as they might seem are now a matter of open discourse, but very little else is besides – everywhere is whisper and unhealthy innuendo. Let us have our court martial, let us swear in all witnesses, question their motives and examine all evidence.
Let us shine the light.
The light will be good. Mrs. Salamander (Esq) reminded me the other day the old legal saw, “Tough Cases Make Bad Law.”
Will the light shine? Or will an aggressive defense attorney hijack the proceedings? The latter seems more likely if recent cases are a guide………
Lex,
You and I are on the same page on this one.
Sometimes the billet occupied requires that greater attention be paid to infractions of the rules.
Let everyone have their day(s) in court.
Shipmates,
I am not opposed in any way to a Courts-martial for Lt Black. My sole concern is that the actions of others may be overlooked or set aside during the proceedings, leaving the LT to take the fall. Yes, he crossed way over the line of acceptable behaviour, but if he is to be punished as an example of conduct unbecoming, then I certainly hope that similar attentions are vested upon the good LCDR as well.
During my years in the fleet, I was a party to three seperate Courts-Martial proceedings, and numerous masts. It’s part of being an LPO. What I expereinced through those affairs was a revelation as to the differences between the Military and Civilian legal worlds. Given the choice between Military or Civilian trials, I’ll take the Courts-Martial every time.
The difference between the two boils down to this: Whereas the civilian lawyers are trying to win their respective arguments, the JAG types were also interested in discovering the truth of the matter. Truth and Justice were not words on a scroll in those Courts-Martials. They were on display by the conduct of BOTH sides and the questioning of the President and members of the Court empaneled to hear the case.
I was duly impressed. I felt that in each case I was involved with, that the conduct of all involved was above board and quite transparant.
Anyway, that’s my 2-cent’s worth. Mr. Black may well deserve whatever he gets for his actions, but he’s not alone in the area of questionable conduct and actions. Those within and without the academy will be watching to see what message is sent by those in charge of the forthcoming proceedings. The message that is sent mill have a very large impact on folk’s conduct for some time to come.
Respects,
Tim AW1(former)
Lock the doors on the place already. We can get engineering graduates from Carnegie-Mellon or any number of major universities.
When the Academies trained warriors they had a purpose. They have, finally, become nothing more than the labs in which Milkulski and her ilk test how far they can push the system over to their agenda.
As for the LCDR, I’ve met way too many just like her. GenURLs who know very little about how the fleet works and could care less. Most of them spend the majority of their careers in the Beltway doing their best to emasculate their male cohorts.
Close them down and let’s get on with business.
All the training I’ve received on sexual harassment says that navy policy is to handle these things at the lowest level possible. I’m no expert, but I imagine there are several levels between an O-3 and Admiral’s Mast (which is what VADM Rempt wanted, LT Black exercised his right to have a Court Martial instead). Indeed, the ideal situation is for the offended party to inform the offender and receive an apology, which is what happened.
This is the thing that frustrates me the most about the service. The tendency of senior leadership to overreact to small transgressions (and it doesn’t get much smaller than a tasteless joke) just so there’s an appearance of “doing something”. When a person acts like this it’s called panic. What do we call it when it becomes institutional?
MMDeuce: We call it surviving.
It’s unfortunate. But it is what it is.
Speaking as what appears to be the only civilian on this post (so far), I’d like to say this: I wish I’d had the Navy’s brand of justice at my disposal several years ago, when a disgusting piece of filth – not unlike LT Black – was sexually harrassing me on a daily basis. We’re not talking just dirty talk here though there was that. We’re talking touching, pants dropping, threatening harrassment. More than what LT Black is accused of? Yes. But does that make what LT Black did more acceptable? No, absolutely not. His victim is fortunate in that she received an apology – but who knows how many other victims he’s had in the past who never asked for or received that apology. In my case, being in corporate america, I was paid a paltry 4-figures to keep quiet so a $100 million buyout of the company could go forth without incident (my harrasser was the #3 man in the company – wonder what the Naval equivalent to that is and would it change the situation at hand). He got away with a $250,000 bonus when the company was sold, and a partnership in a new venture. No justice for me, except 3 years of therapy. Yes my situation was more extreme but the true point is – a sexual harrasser gets his/her start somewhere and my guess this wasn’t the first time for LT Black. So does the Navy take that risk and just accept the apology, hoping it doesn’t happen again?
Block 35- OFFICER FITNESS REPOT
Military Bearing/CHARACTER
– Appearance, CONDUCT, Physical Fitmess, ADHERENCE TO NAVY CORE VALUES
(Caps my emphasis)
This is where LT Black should be “corrected”. Plain and simple. I have been using the word stunt to ascribe recent actions taken by Navy leadership; this fit that criterion. Tell the folks what would happen to LT Black if a “C” was entered on a regular fitrep.
Lex- light and disinfectant are necessary where the virusinfestation requires it. I think a proportional response would be more appropriate. If that block above was filled out properly from day 1, on all, fairly, “we” (I still feel part of it) wouldn’t have this problem would we?
b2
Lex, let it shine, let it shine…
MCPO: “shake and bake” versions are acceptable substitutes for most purposes, but “out sourcing” the production of warriors should not be the answer.
MMDeuce: this is one of those “hi optics” topics, and the manner in which this is handled sets the proper standard for all things great and small.
the LT shall have his day, and that day shall be handled according to the rule of law… what more can we ask?
FITREPs don’t cut an issue like this, not any more. Certainly after USAFA had to be led by the hand to understand about assaults and gettin’ right with God on government time. Fourth law of thermo, and it isn’t just about LT Black any more.
After all, LT FITREPS aren’t until January and are in any case subject to Privacy Act restrictions, as are other letters you’d maybe prefer not receive for your permanent record.
Is it CYA? Maybe. But the question that the Supe had to ask (I’m guessing) is whether it would (in a PR-08 environment) be worth taking a minimalist approach for the sake of a guy who clearly just doesn’t get it.
re- “FITREPs don?ɬ
re- “FITREPs don’t cut an issue like this, not any more.”
That’s OK Lex I’ll buy your explanation. They pay you the big TAX-exempt bucks to administer and lead the system. I’m just a dadgum ,gadfly dinosaur.
I known that it ain’t about LT Black anymore but did anyone think about putting a fatal special fitrep in on him?
B2
Well, I bet that would have come with the Admiral’s Mast, had he acceeded to one. Apparently he decided that a CM, with all of it’s protections (and elevated punishment risks) better fit his busy schedule.
Skippy-san has a point: If some smart defense attorney can twist this into a “PC gone amok” drill, we may have an unpredictable result. Especially perilous for those that are cast in the role of, you know: Inspector Javert
the young buck has opted for the high stakes version of playing craps…
ya rolls the dice, and ya takes yer chances…
The right FITREP would be more than an acceptable way to deal with this issue. As for LT Black refusing MAST, its probably a good call. He has plenty of arguements about command influence, he can discredit witnesses and his attorney can turn this into a public spanking for the Academy. Which is what they deserve.
Lt Black may not be the smartest tool in the shed, but the USNA will regret this action in the long term. Serves them right for frittering away a great heritage in the name of political correctness.
If the CM exposes the kinds of sensitivity based witch-hunting and politically correct right-speak that some people believe exists at the service academies, or for that matter in the services, I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing, nor do I presume it’s antithetical to the administration’s goals.If on the other hand the process – which all I think will agree tends to be about the fairest in the land – exposes no such thing at all, why then: That would be useful to know as well.
MajMike – My point remains. In an environment where placating a Senator with a leftwing agenda is of more import than sound leadership, that environment ceases to be one that trains warriors.
Academy survival is not as important as the quality of the officers than lead the fleet. If that leadership training is better conducted in a NROTC unit at Penn State, so be it.
Must say, that when I was a legal O in the squadron – guilt or innocence was not an outcome of NJP. As an administrative proceeding with much lower standards of evidence, that determination was not made. Don’t think this has changed. That said, any graduate should willingly admit, USNA ain’t the fleet. The fleet isn’t the rest of the world, by a long shot. That’s the deal.
MCPO: agree, there is positively a need for both flavors of commissioning… but i think Lex’s point in a later comment of his is also germane.
let the light shine in on the whole situation. if the light exposes it all for a witch hunt, then proceed accordingly. if the light exposes a knuckle-headed cad who was running his yap to no good end, then proceed individually (and accordingly so).
but re-read the mission statement Lex has thoughtfully provided… that is the “why” behind the existence of the place…
(completely off topic, but suggested by your note: that was my alternative choice. NROTC at Penn State on the Marine option… instead, Hudson High for me!)
The problem isn’t with what the CM will find, it’s with the CM itself. VADM Rempt has apparently decided that the navy’s stated policy for dealing with sexual harassment doesn’t apply.
These things are supposed to be resolved at the lowest level possible. Ideally the offended party confronts the offender and receives an apology. For some reason that scenario sounds familiar.
It is absolutely vital that these policies are enforced. Sexual harassment at this level is totally subjective. If I know I run the risk of going to mast because of a joke some female finds offensive I’m just not going to tell jokes around women. Which means I’m going to treat women differently than men. So we’ve eliminated sexual harassment and replaced it with sexism. Good trade there.
Unless there is a history of LT Black causing similar complaints and ignoring counseling there shouldn’t be a mast. And regardless it shouldn’t be public. The USNA superintendent is an example of leadership for every midshipman and faculty member at the academy. They have now all been exposed to the idea that it’s OK to humiliate a subordinate to save your career.
We are never going to be rid of these harpies until we confront them. This would have been the perfect case to do so. How are we supposed to intimidate China, North Korea, and Iran when we can’t even stand up to the junior senator from Maryland?
MM2- There IS a history of LT Black using inappropriate commentary and ignoring his counseling. There is open source material in the Annapolis Capital and other publications that speak of this problem. THAT is why this is happening. It’s the collective body of his poor behavior and lack of professionalism that led to the 133 charge. As for being public, there’s very few instances where a punitive action (mast or any variety of CM) can not be made public (see recent Art 32 hearing in Naples and subsequent action by the GCMCA following the closure of the hearing). Have you ever had a CO that held a public mast? I’ve seen it multiple times, but it is usually done when the proceedings are done for the “encouragement” of the masses, just like this situation.
This case really goes far beyond just sexual harrassment. That is only 1 component of this clown’d inappropriate behavior. Just b/c someone isn’t offended by a dialogue, doesn’t make it correct and acceptable. Collectively, his actions were not acceptable for an officer, much less one of his experience, and were sufficiently egregious to warrant a punitive action. The adverse FITREP with today’s date is just the icing on the cake to ensure that he’ll be forced into another line of work, assuming that there’s an HR department that will sanction his hiring considering his publicly acknowledged actions (can we say sexual harrassment lawsuit waiting to happen?).
MCPO Airdale,
Just curious. How is Sen Troll involved in this issue? Just the thing for her to get involved in but I must have missed it.
B2
—————-
Skippy-
An “RGT” left a note at the prior thread of Lex’s 1st entry regarding this issue and strongly supporting CM, directed back to those of us who find the CM of LT Black, well…, less than the optimum situation. His note has the zeal of an insider who has drunk a whole pitcher of koolaid..Oh yeah, he did highlight your mysoginistic tendencies but that alone doesn’t disqualify your argument. At least by itself, by me.
But, you know, something just dawned on me Skip. Maybe you have to drink that pitcher, to lead in this man’s & woman’s Navy. Maybe that is what Lex is saying, too.
B2
BB- I’m the furthest thing from a kool-aid drinker or brewer (I’m actually rather anti-authority). In fact, you’ll probably find that I side with many of the issues you’ve commented on….except for this one. I believe in second chances, but not third ones for the same type of misstep where the accused abuses the rank of his office and when it involves someone that’s in a directly subordinate position. Personally, I support an NPLOC, DFC and adverse FITREP, however I won’t argue with the Sup’s decision to convene Admiral’s Mast. The SPCM is supported entirely by the accused, which is his right while attached to a shore command. The 2 sides are playing a bit of a game of chicken; the accused knows of the higher standard of proof required in a SPCM/GCM and banks that his actions aren’t of a court-martial level offense. The administration is compelled to do SOMETHING and can’t very well back down following the request for trial by courts-martial. Hence, our situation as we sit it today. Considering that none of us know the evidence, read the IO’s report, nor were on the YP, I find it hard for anyone to say that the investigation was improperly conducted and the LCDR was horribly out of line. If that’s what the SPCM reveals, then so be it, I’ll eat crow. But I’m not willing to so quickly condemn another officer for doing what they believe to be the right thing to do. Further, all of us are compelled to look into or report suspected wrong-doing or violations of the UCMJ. Let the proceedings play themselves out, then see where the pieces fall on the table. I’m not sure what “fleet” many of you are referring to, but this hasn’t even hit on the radar screen of a whole lot of folks. Those that it has are highly unlikely to make similar comments to what the accused has admitted to doing, so the negative effect of this is likely to be slim to none. If nothing else, it shows that stupidity has a price.
I will NEVER EVER drink the koolaid when it comes to my specific opinions regarding gender integration etc. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion about such things and the Navy would be a hell of a lot better off it heard these opinions instead of the current rot about “diversity”. Only my departure from this world will silence the passion of my belief.
Now that said by this proud old dinosaur, there is such a thing as knowing your target environment, and as Lex would say minimizing your exposure in the threat envelope. Taking proper defensinve measures ( watching what you say and keeping conversations to work and nothing but work), having an good egress plan ( smiling and gritting your teeth and keeping your mouth shut when every bone in your body is crying out scream out at the top of your lungs, “BITCH!”), and keeping you eye out on your fuel state (where you are in the food chain and how close to getting back home safe you are).
Life is about compromises is it not? I can’t believe some of the things I have to say in the course of being professional at work. Yet, you do your best, try to always tell the truth or learn to keep silent and learn to live with the fact the world is not as we would wish it.
The difference between the Navy and the corporate world though is that the members of the opposite sex go home at the end of the day. and away from you. Also I have never believed that you can be just friends with a woman. Perhaps there are those who can, I’m not one of them. Sex always gets in the way, just as noted in when Harry met Sally.
There are a lot of guys like me, a lot more than people realize………
Skippy- I just knew you would light off at that one. Although I still don’t agree with a lot of what you say I’m glad to see you haven’t drunk any yet (Koolaid that is. Beer-yes).
I respect Lex’s level-headed approach but that approach seems more damage control for this situation vice the right thing to do, but I guess that is the nature of leadership in this gray area military with all those red-green-yellow lights going on/off.
RPT- You really seem like you know more than all the rest of us about this case and I respect your strong argument for CM and all the other admin bad stuff, but we are talking about a LT, albeit in a direct officer training situation, saying he was “moved with much hyperbole” when he viewed ships of the line.
Do you have a personal stake in this?Is what he said worth taking away a man’s (or anybody for that matter) livelihood today or in the future? That’s serious business in or out of the military.
re- “..hasn?ɬ
Skippy- I just knew you would light off at that one. Although I still don’t agree with a lot of what you say I’m glad to see you haven’t drunk any yet (Koolaid that is. Beer-yes).
I respect Lex’s level-headed approach but that approach seems more damage control for this situation vice the right thing to do, but I guess that is the nature of leadership in this gray area military with all those red-green-yellow lights going on/off.
RPT- You really seem like you know more than all the rest of us about this case and I respect your strong argument for CM and all the other admin bad stuff, but we are talking about a LT, albeit in a direct officer training situation, saying he was “moved with much hyperbole” when he viewed ships of the line.
Do you have a personal stake in this?Is what he said worth taking away a man’s (or anybody for that matter) livelihood today or in the future? That’s serious business in or out of the military.
re- “..hasn’t even hit on the radar screen of a whole lot of folks”
It’s embarrassing for all of us is why, active, vet or retired..although with a CM pending I’m sure the agendists (is that a word?) at the Navy Times are going to eat it up and that ain’t good- for anybody.
B2
BB- I have no stake and I’m not at USNA. I’m not making an argument for SPCM….LT Black did that himself. I was at USNA (as a mid) when they sent the dregs of the fleet to be instructors/company officers. I can’t begin to describe what a negative effect that poor officers have on the school and the future officers that are being trained. It took me a couple of years out of there before I really got my head screwed on right and understood that not all LT’s and LCDR’s were total losers and deserving of nothing but contempt (although I still harbor a lot of contempt for those types of people that I encountered on staff). Accordingly, I take a very strong stand about bad examples being allowed to continue at that place (or anywhere in the Navy). I graduated in the wake of the EE cheating scandal when they decided to institute a “quality cut” for officers heading there to be on staff. 1 bad officer in that place can contaminate a lot of young minds….and when an officer that has fleet time and has been promoted twice doesn’t seem to get “it”, I’m 100% in favor of showing him the door. If he took Admiral’s Mast, this wouldn’t have hit anywhere. He probably would be looking for a new line of work, but with little stigma attached to it. Anyway you cut it, he’s done in this Navy…..and with the publicity that the case has received (newspapers around the country have carried this), I’m quite certain that not too many folks in the private sector will be asking this guy to come work for them. They need to protect their company’s reputation, financial health and future…..and Black’s admitted history isn’t too conducive to that. HR departments are getting very careful about hiring practices and really checking out potential employees (to the point of credit, criminal and other background checks). So….nobody’s ruining this guy’s future but himself. He may possibly win the battle, but he’s long since lost the war. Even if he’s aquitted, I hope he enjoys his Pyrrhic victory.
Re-raking the worn out soil of military gender integration will maybe make profitable reading for later generations of historians, but it does little to illuminate the current leadership and management challenges of the force we have – a force that would inarguably be less potent than it is right now if female sailors and officers were suddenly spirited out of the workplace.
From there it’s no great stretch of leadership insight to understand that permitting one class (and the dominant one by weight) of servicemembers to harass and demoralize the minority class is not conducive to either good order and discipline or warfighting effectiveness. Where to draw the line between adult interaction and sexual harrassment is one that the Navy has struggled over at least since I was a division officer – by now, I think we’ve got it about right.
The policy is clear, it is boldly ennunciated and LT Black had to know that he was on the wrong side of the line. Apparently he had spent a goodly amount of time on that wrong side of the line, which mitigates against the “solve at lowest possible level” thing. He really didn’t get it – it’s not OK to make sexually suggestive or otherwise offensive remarks to subordinates.
And to whom it may concern, the use of gender-specific slurs in order to advance the cause of a heterodox opinion, no matter how passionately felt does not, by itself, lend logical strength to the argument nor by any stretch immunize the user from charges of misogyny.
it all goes to this: his apparent lack of judgement.
simple idiocy can be simple idiocy, but when he displays that kind of lack of judgement (knowing full well the current operating climate), you gotta wonder how he just doesn’t get it…
“a force that would inarguably be less potent than it is right now if female sailors and officers were suddenly spirited out of the workplace.”
Wrong wrong wrong…….over the long term the force would be stronger if held common values and did not have to worry about who was sleeping with who……….
That’s the real Navy these days. Re-raking the arguments about gender integration is needed, but will not happen because of the political climate.
I wish I could have heard EXACTLY what LT Black said, I suspect the conversation has been distorted. Calling your ex wife a c**t is not sexual harrassment, 9 times out of 10 its the truth, heightened by America’s unenlightend divorce laws that assume that if you are male it’s all your fault. That’s a sentiment I can understand.
The women get away with things worse than the LT said, but that does not matter. There is a double standard, that has been reinforced by the mistakes the Navy has made in gender integration, most of which I have been personal witness too.
When I get back to my computer and not this heavily censored USAF computer, I’ll have a post on the subject, Thanks for getting me fired up and giving me some passion on the subject.
” Jane you ignorant slut”……..
Skip, I don’t know what time of day it is over there, or whether or not you’ve been drinking, but I’ve had enough of this. Asterisked or not, your language is deeply offensive to your host, so I cordially invite you to shit in your own bed if you must, but not over here.
And you should consider seeing someone about these issues of yours. I’m serious.
Most of what you write is vitriol and therefore unworthy of debate. There’s a substantive rebuttal to the very little bit of unsubstantiated assertation you just made, but I’m too cross-eyed now to bother with it, or you.
Noted. However I have never needed counseling. Just a better settlement.
May I point out that an investigator, a Marine Maj, also an experienced JAG and an instructor at the USNA was appointed by the Superintendent. He recommended that ONLY an NPLOC and counseling was warrented in this case. Later at the hearing, he testified the atmosphere at the Academy was not a fair environment and that the Lt. could not receive a fair trial there. He also stated the LCDR had an intense personal dislike of the Lt. The female Midshipman testified that she was told by the LCDR if she signed a statement against the Lt. it would result in nothing but a letter in his file. Could the LCDR have had an ulterior motive in lying to the midshipman after she had accepted the Lt’s apology? Could it be that RGT’s theory re: the Lt’s history is nothing more than an attempt by the USNA to assassinate the Lt’s character because of a weak case? All are thoughts to ponder.
Mary- I don’t believe for one second that he’s a victim of character assassination. This guy is a first class dirtbag that needs a one-way ticket to CIVLANT. Everyone can armchair quarterback this to death, but fact of the matter is that neither you, I, Skippy, Lex, Salamander or anyone else knows anything more than is available through open source publications. We don’t have the IO’s report and don’t know the full extent of his history. What I find appalling is that people are missing out on the fact that the LT REQUESTED the CM and this extends beyond a singular comment. Bad officers are bad officers. By the time you have 5 or 6 YCS, you don’t get do-overs when it comes to conversations of a sexual nature with subordinates. This is a guy that slipped through the cracks in the commissioning process and should have instead been working anywhere but the Navy.
Further, the IO NEVER said that he couldn’t get a fair trial, but rather that the NJP proceedings wouldn’t be “fair” (is NJP ever fair and without a pre-ordained outcome?). Guess what, if I worked with this guy, I’d probably have a strong dislike for him too. I generally have strong feelings of hatred for substandard officers that can’t properly discharge their duties and maintain respect for the office that they hold. Excellent performance is the minimum standard; average performance is substandard; substandard performance engenders contempt and dislike. This guy has obviously stooped to the level of substandard performance.
For those that think the LCDR lied, you have exactly zero clue how things work within the military justice system. All officers are obligated to investigate suspected violations of the UCMJ, or at least to report them to a competent higher authority. In this case, it appears that the LCDR investigated what she thought was probably a period of sustained poor performance and inappopriate conduct by LT Black. She forwarded the results of that investigation upon RTHP. She has no ability to dictate the future course of action…..so, was she lying? Nope. That’s just a BS crutch for all of the apologists out there. If I were in her shoes, knowing what she probably knew, I’d do the exact same thing, but it’d likely include a pretty strong one way conversation about what a dirtbag this officer really is. Black is a guy that doesn’t get “it”….sometimes it takes a Lousiville slugger to the forehead before someone gets it…..it looks like he’s getting that right now. So sorry, tough luck , dirtbag.
Ouch. At the risk of further beatings, what role does she (the LCDR)have in this? e.g. if the chain of command had decided to handle this more appropriately, what would have been her recourse.
I’ll again remind you that requesting court martial is the RIGHT of every Sailor. Somewhere along the way some smart attorney advised him he could beat this with the right defense. Same advice O.J. got I think. And he won. LT Black did not stand a chance at Admirals mast, so I’m not sure his election of a CM is such a bad thing. Especially when he is paying almost $500 dollars an hour for the services of Charles Gittins. He’s the guy I would hire when you sue me for your quote unquote lack of decency…………..
I still think that he (Mr Gittins) will destroy the Academy’s case. One of the things they teach CO’s in legal school is don’t start down that road unless you think you can win.
And the LCDR is still not right with the world; can’t say more for fear of being pummeled. But been there done that, got the T-shirt, seen her kind. Such is the world we live in……
Skippy- If you’re going to open to door, walk through it. Tell us all about her kind and how she isn’t right with the world. Do you know her? Are you familiar with her professional reputation? Have you served with her? Newsflash pal….CO’s make the decision on what approach to take, but the SJA decides if the investigation supports the elements of the offense in order to be judged guilty; based on that opinion, the CO will make his decision. Sometimes, CM’s are not used due to the time/financial effort of doing so and instead resort to an admin sep to flush the miscreant. Other times, the CM is needed to send a clear message. Your opinion of women in the service is seriously clouding what should be sound judgement. We’ll see who’s right, but I’m fairly certain that he’ll be found guilty of Art 133, considering what his attorney has admitted that he said.
As for the LCDR’s role if this was handled differently….what are you even talking about? She made a decision at the time in the absence of other higher authority to carry out the investigation and reported her results upon RTHP. Anything done after that was purely at the discretion of the Sup. She had ZERO role at this point nor any recourse….so, what are you even carrying on about? Your arguments and defenses grow more ludicrous by the post. Lets just all agree that you’re a woman hater and will use any possible platform to buttress that opinion.
Answer me for the third time….what if she were a male Tomcat pilot. Would you be saying the same thing? You also never answered the endorsement issue and how it has any relevance or bearing on this whatsoever….if you want to debate this and show us that she’s so wrong, speak your mind. We already know you’re a mysoginist and someone that can’t seem to function well in the world as it is today, so why not lay all of it out and not hide behind this facade of “I won’t say any more on this issue”. You want to say it, so go ahead and do it.
Got the t-shirt, huh? Have you stood in front of the Man for something similar to LT Black?
I’m fully aware of the accused’s rights and that’s the point I push when everyone complains about the academy pushing this to a SPCM….they didn’t do it, he did. His desire to seek a forum with more objectivity and a higher standard of proof is certainly in his favor, with the added “benefit” of more publicity and committing career/future-civilian-career suicide (see my comments re: HR departments for private sector employment).
Bottom line is a lot of people opposing the academy can’t see the forest through the trees.
Enough all, let it go. The points are made, the argument solidified and onlookers are free to choose which side of the tale suits them best.
Any more of this approaches an online mugging. Point/counter-point, fact/counter-fact, these are all in the spirit of healthy debate. Ad hominem attacks and the casting of motivational aspersions take us someplace I would rather not go.
And it is my house.