Video: Navy relieves commander over “raunchy videos”

posted at 12:15 pm on January 4, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

The Navy has decided to relieve Commander Owen Honors of his command of the USS Enterprise as a result of the “raunchy videos” shot as a gag when Honors was the executive officer of the carrier in 2006 and 2007. Honors, a former Top Gun pilot and captain of the ship since 2009, will remain in the Navy but will be replaced immediately in order to keep the Enterprise on schedule for its deployment this month to the Middle East in support of the war in Afghanistan. CNN reports that the Pentagon is concerned over the “command climate” on the Enterprise, as well as other ships, and will probe why none of the senior officers brought this to anyone’s attention:

“Over the years I’ve gotten several complaints about inappropriate material during these videos, never to me personally but, gutlessly, through other channels,” Capt Honors says in the introduction to one video.

In the film the officer introduces a scene where two female sailors pretend to bathe together, saying “chicks in the shower” is his “favourite topic”.

In another scene, male sailors dressed in drag mimic masturbation. Other clips in the video show a man in drag and a mock rectal examination.

Navy Cmdr Chris Sims was quoted by the Associated Press as saying that the videos “were not acceptable then and are not acceptable in today’s Navy”.

I suspect that we’ll hear defenses of Honors relying on warrior mentality and the need to bond with the crew, but this goes far enough beyond the boundaries of taste that a “you need me on that wall” moment won’t have much impact. Besides, a claim that the rigors of war requires a burlesque show might have a bit of a credibility issue.  Obviously the Navy isn’t interested in defending this; they could have easily claimed that a relief of command would have unnecessarily delayed a wartime deployment. Instead, they appear to have practically broken a leg finding a replacement for Honors.

Let’s wish the new captain the best of luck in his new command, and hope he doesn’t need to cross the Equator on his first deployment.

Update: Many of the former shipmates of Honors are rallying to his defense.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

That is way tasteless but I still want to know why it came out now and would it still be a huge deal if it was done in the civilian world?

mizflame98 on January 4, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Odd. Gays “get in your face” and it’s “bigotry” to complain. Honors “gets in your face” from a different direction and suddenly it’s a hanging offense.

GarandFan on January 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Shameful.

No, not the Captain of the USS Enterprise.

The one who made the decision to temporarily relieve him.

TimBuk3 on January 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM

CNN reports that the Pentagon is concerned over the “command climate” on the Enterprise, as well as other ships, and will probe why none of the senior officers brought this to anyone’s attention:

The CO knew about it. To what other “anyone” should they have brought this? Jumping chain of command is a grave decision, and no senior officer would do such a thing lightly.

DrMagnolias on January 4, 2011 at 12:22 PM

I wonder who pushed for this to be hyped to the press at THIS particular time? And when will they be wearing stars?

The bravo sierra runs deep in this story.

fiatboomer on January 4, 2011 at 12:23 PM

Besides, a claim that the rigors of war requires a burlesque show might have a bit of a credibility issue.

Whenever I read about this case I am reminded of the Beastie Boyz, “you gotta fight for your right to party.”

That is way tasteless but I still want to know why it came out now and would it still be a huge deal if it was done in the civilian world?

mizflame98 on January 4, 2011

Yes, it would.

My husband has had to fire consultants over less than this and put warnings in peoples’ files over much much less.

Y-not on January 4, 2011 at 12:23 PM

What would Palin do?

faraway on January 4, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Nice analysis Ed. I’ve had my say in the Headlines thread.

and hope he doesn’t need to cross the Equator on his first deployment.

My hubby just did that and I have pictures! (no, I will not share them.) I could smell the stench half-way around the world—it’s a smelly, disgusting ritual, but a neat one. He has his Shellback confirmation card to prove it. :-)

conservative pilgrim on January 4, 2011 at 12:24 PM

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with DADT since we were told repeal of DADT would have no negative effect on the military.

angryed on January 4, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Oh No! Salty video and language on a Navy ship. Ed Rendell is right…

A nation of wussies.

freedomplow on January 4, 2011 at 12:27 PM

What, no court martial? No firing squad? /s

Shooting a flea with an elephant gun, I’d say. Let’s have a look at who’s responsible for his sentencing.

petefrt on January 4, 2011 at 12:27 PM

That is way tasteless but I still want to know why it came out now and would it still be a huge deal if it was done in the civilian world?

As an attorney who handles employment litigation in California, I can say, yes, it would definitely be a huge deal if a disgruntled employee decided to hire a lawyer.

Cicero43 on January 4, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Wonder if they still do the “real” shellback ceremonies, like I had the honor to go through, or has that been wussified even further over the years?

JamesLee on January 4, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Navy Cmdr Chris Sims was quoted by the Associated Press as saying that the videos “were not acceptable then and are not acceptable in today’s Navy”.

You know, the Village People weren’t “acceptable”, and yet loved by everyone who wasn’t in Command “In the Navy“! People do stupid things to relieve stress…. relieving this commander for a old video this late in the game is freaking stupid.

upinak on January 4, 2011 at 12:28 PM

I’m sure any commander that relieves him has already gone over the equator, and is old enough to have gone through an old school “crossing the equator” ceremony.

They’ve got tons of command qualified officers in staff duty, it wouldn’t take them more then 2 or 3 minutes to identify who is “up” for it temporarily, till they work up a more permanent relief.

Personally, I would have watched this and laughed while deployed. There honestly is not much to do on 6-9 month cruises floating in the middle of the water. If someone didn’t want to watch it or was offended, they didn’t have to watch it. To ruin a persons career over this is horrible.

cfooteman on January 4, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Thank God Patton didn’t have a video camera.

angryed on January 4, 2011 at 12:29 PM

BOGUS – everyone knows the 1-800 FWA line. Apparently no one called. So in tomorrows Navy, two guys can take a shower and it be protected…but in todays Navy, making fun of two guys in a shower gets you sacked.

Waaaaaaahhhhhhhhh

USN – Ret

Larr on January 4, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Ed, please do a little bit more reading about this before you parrot the MSM.

Sheesh.

OhioCoastie on January 4, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Tisk, Tisk,

You wouldn’t want to have insensitive warriors would you?

Someone needs to be fired over this, but they have Pentagon jobs, not ship commands.

CrazyGene on January 4, 2011 at 12:31 PM

I question the timing.

Knucklehead on January 4, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Another one of my classmates bites the dust.

WordsMatter on January 4, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Weren’t those sailors his subordinates? I’m assuming so, since he was second in command. Totally inappropriate. Even if the women/men involved were willing participants (which it appears they were) it creates an unhealthy work environment for others less inclined to be videotaped in the shower.

And yes, mizflame98, it would be a huge deal in the civilian world. A huge, messy, expensive lawsuit, to be exact.

vermillionsky on January 4, 2011 at 12:32 PM

I found this interesting…

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20110104.aspx

After nearly two decades of effort to ban sex in the combat zone, an American commander has admitted defeat and issued orders de-criminalizing fornication in Afghanistan.

ninjapirate on January 4, 2011 at 12:32 PM

It’s a little rich for the news media to be characterizing those videos as “racy” and “raunchy” when they would gladly show the equivalent or worse any day of the week to boost their ratings.

TexasDan on January 4, 2011 at 12:33 PM

So Ed, I assume his boss, the then current Captain of the Big E has equally been relived?

After all the Navy hold every ship’s captain responsible for everything that happens on the ship regardless if he/she knew about it.

I’m sorry Ed, but people like us tend to like raunchy humor, don’t get your knickers in a twist

This is a PC ass-covering move by senior Naval command terrified of another “Tail Hook” witch hunt.

I despise wusses.

E9RET on January 4, 2011 at 12:35 PM

They’ve got tons of command qualified officers in staff duty, it wouldn’t take them more then 2 or 3 minutes to identify who is “up” for it temporarily, till they work up a more permanent relief.

cfooteman on January 4, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Wrong. The USS Enterprise is a very special case. There aren’t exactly s***loads of qualified replacements waiting in the wings. To wit:

One of the hardest jobs in the Navy right now is the Commanding Officer of the Big E. This floating museum built by the same people who build ships in WWII and pushes itself around with eight museum quality A2W reactors. Much of the equipment is tagged out because they stopped being usable decades ago due to their archaic nature. Four generations of some families have been on this ship.

She was an old beat-up girl when I was on her over a decade ago. To keep her up and doing the taxpayer’s business is something only the best can do. The best can be quirky. The best warfighters even more so. Shouldn’t we give some a little running room?

OhioCoastie on January 4, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Well, as long as homosexuals can do what they want…

catmman on January 4, 2011 at 12:38 PM

What cracks me up about this whole stupid affair is that people are just shocked, shocked, that this happens on a carrier. Please, if you know anything about the Navy, this is such a non-story.

However, an XO should not have been participating. Most (including COs) just willfully ignore these kinds of shenanigans, and perhaps get a chuckle out of them later.

The severity of the blacklash from the Navy, and the timing of the release, is odd, though. As many have already pointed out, it likely has something to do with the repeal of DADT. The Navy–and the other branches for that matter–now have to show they are “sensitive” to gay-bashing. There will probably be more stories like this in the coming months/years. Way to throw the military into that much more turmoil.

KellyBomelly on January 4, 2011 at 12:38 PM

The CO knew about it. To what other “anyone” should they have brought this? Jumping chain of command is a grave decision, and no senior officer would do such a thing lightly.

DrMagnolias on January 4, 2011 at 12:22 PM

.
You have the IG, you have the JAG, you have the Chaplains, you have open door policies and lastly any service member can contact their Congressman. If a Service Member has a real problem there are plenty of ways to report it, and get it fixed.

LincolntheHun on January 4, 2011 at 12:39 PM

Weren’t those sailors his subordinates? I’m assuming so, since he was second in command. Totally inappropriate. Even if the women/men involved were willing participants (which it appears they were) it creates an unhealthy work environment for others less inclined to be videotaped in the shower.

vermillionsky on January 4, 2011 at 12:32 PM

“Unhealthy work environment”, eh? You sound like an expert. Aboard which ships/cutters did you gain this knowledge and experience?

OhioCoastie on January 4, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Ed, please do a little bit more reading about this before you parrot the MSM.

Sheesh.

OhioCoastie on January 4, 2011 at 12:30 PM

+100

Thanks for bringing more light than heat OhioCoastie. This is tailor-made for civilians to cast their eyes at our warriors and make peace-time assumptions.

Seriously; four years ago? Can’t there be a statute of limitations?

itsspideyman on January 4, 2011 at 12:40 PM

That is way tasteless but I still want to know why it came out now and would it still be a huge deal if it was done in the civilian world?

mizflame98 on January 4, 2011 at 12:19 PM

If he worked where I do, he’d probably be on the street.

tgharris on January 4, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Someone in another thread made the statement that many people having not been to the PI (Philippines) don’t have any idea about what really is ‘racy’.

Having been stationed there I concur with that statement.

catmman on January 4, 2011 at 12:41 PM

If someone didn’t want to watch it or was offended, they didn’t have to watch it.

I thought I read that these videos were part of training/education. Could sailors really opt out? And if they did, what would their shipmates think about them?

In civilian life, if your boss or co-workers behave in a way you find unprofessional, demeaning, or whatever, you can either quit the job or, if depending on the nature of the behavior, pursue a complaint. (Most people go for the former to avoid damaging their careers.)

I suppose sailors could request transfers, but they can’t just quit. So what we have is not just the foolishness of this former XO putting things on tape that violated regulations (how dumb is that?), but one who admits on the tape that he thinks complaints about these shenanigans are gutless and dismisses them out of hand. Would you want to go to sea with that person as your commander? What if your shipmate harassed you or worse? How confident would you feel that your commander would do anything about it?

I think that’s why this is coming out now. People who objected to the attitudes embodied in these tapes did not want to be under this commander.

It’s less about the content of the tapes and more about the judgment of this particular naval officer, imho.

Y-not on January 4, 2011 at 12:42 PM

There honestly is not much to do on 6-9 month cruises floating in the middle of the water. If someone didn’t want to watch it or was offended, they didn’t have to watch it. To ruin a persons career over this is horrible.

cfooteman on January 4, 2011 at 12:29 PM

I agree, being underway is crazy. You don’t port often and if you do, you’ve got duty most of the time, you eat questionable meat the longer you’re away, there’s no contact with love ones. Seriously, there were so few ways to find release other than smoke and read books and occasionally fish off the fantail if you’re lucky. I feel the most for the crew who now gets a new commander on the eve of deployment, here’s hoping he/she has experience with that class of ships.

LastRick on January 4, 2011 at 12:42 PM

God forbid one of these uber sensitive candy-a$$es ever observe a “Foc’s’le Follies”… they’d have to relieve an entire airwing.

Roc on January 4, 2011 at 12:43 PM

If he worked where I do, he’d probably be on the street.

tgharris on January 4, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Good thing you don’t work where he does, huh?

Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 12:43 PM

I question the timing.

Knucklehead on January 4, 2011 at 12:31 PM

I want to know what the other hand is doing if the MSM is trying to make us focus on this story.

darwin-t on January 4, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Roc on January 4, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Or any squadron “admin.”

Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 12:46 PM

This is the Navy, and there will be no salty language!

If the jokes had been better, he wouldn’t have been relieved?

profitsbeard on January 4, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Insensitive Armed forces leaders joking about sexual behavior?

SHOCK!!!

PappyD61 on January 4, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Rather suddenly and without a strong response from its crew, the United States slipped below the surface dragged down by its nose succumbing to the forces of Political Correctness. So ended a proud chapter in man kinds continuing struggle to survive from self imposed insanity.

dmann on January 4, 2011 at 12:49 PM

wonder who pushed for this to be hyped to the press at THIS particular time? And when will they be wearing stars?

The bravo sierra runs deep in this story.

fiatboomer on January 4, 2011 at 12:23 PM

Forgive me for not being outraged by the Captain’s humor. Navy, you blew this one. Cuckolded by the progressive agenda again.

eaglesdontflock on January 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM

I want to know what the other hand is doing if the MSM is trying to make us focus on this story.

darwin-t on January 4, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Good point, but the MSM is always prepared to portray our military in a bad light.

ladyingray on January 4, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Double sigh.

The bottom line – or what should be the bottom line for military officers – ought to be simple:

Will this officer’s firing improve combat effectiveness? Or will it decrease it? Will this officer’s firing increase morale and unit cohesion? Or lower it?

Will lives be saved because he was fired? Or will it cost lives?

Just like DADT, that should be the question asked. The ONLY question asked. The military only has one function: combat

If the carrier is now more combat effective, great. Fire his butt.

If his absence will cost lives or hamper mission effectiveness – well, for shame.

——-

For the record, I REALLY hope they don’t start taking a good hard look at the Marine Corps.

Our warriors are often a nasty, naughty bunch.

God bless them for it. And God spare us from the politically correct etiquette police – on all sides – who somehow seem to think the military is a jobs program or a social banquet or anything other than an organization created with the sole purpose of killing the enemy to protect our country.

Well, at least there aren’t any actual wars happening. This obviously could only happen in peacetime. Otherwise, it’d be godawful stupid, now wouldn’t it?

Professor Blather on January 4, 2011 at 12:52 PM

E9RET on January 4, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Roc on January 4, 2011 at 12:43 PM

I concur with these two gentleman completely, and in an unusual turn of events, disagree with Cap’n Ed completely…

Ed,
This is nothing more than a victory lap by the DADT repeal activist types. While Honor’s humor is not up to everyone’s standards of taste and decorum, one has to remember the audience of young folks he was playing to. And while this was recorded on tape, for posterity, perhaps the most injudicious of actions, it is certainly not the most outrageous remarks ever made at sea. As Roc noted, if they ever got hold of video or audio tape of a Foc’s’le follies, an entire air wing would have to be disciplined.

Honors was the XO at the time and as such responsibility for these performances falls on his superiour; the Captain at that time. He should be stepping up and volunteering for dismissal instead of Honors being relieved.

Honors is being sacrificed on the PC altar…

Regards,
Bob

RocketmanBob on January 4, 2011 at 12:53 PM

I am going to wait for the Taiwanese re enactment video.

Dr Evil on January 4, 2011 at 12:55 PM

From Rush (paraphrasing):

“Is it too late for Capt. Honors to say he is gay? If he were gay, he could get away with videos like this.”

catmman on January 4, 2011 at 12:55 PM

LincolntheHun on January 4, 2011 at 12:39 PM

But that isn’t what they were saying, according to my understanding. Any senior officers aboard the ship (and there wouldn’t be many) would be under the CO, so going to the JAG or IG would be a very grave thing (and anonymity is particularly gutless when you are doing something that might destroy someone else’s career). And according to the report, the Navy wants to know why those over CAPT Honors (who would be the CO and then others not aboard the ship) didn’t do anything to stop it. Why would anyone over the CO even know about it?

The whole thing smells of the typical Navy witch hunt in which the brass will toss anyone under the bus rather than standing up to the media. Having known my share of Admirals, and respected very few as men of integrity and principle, I can’t say I’m surprised.

DrMagnolias on January 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Here’s the difference between Cmdr Sims and Capt Honors-

one is the type of guy that ran out of the Pentagon on 9/11 to save his life, and the other is the type that ran back into the fire repeatedly to save other lives.

Like most in uniform today, I sure as hell know which one I want in command.

thuljunior on January 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM

The timing and release of this now is suspicious but, I’m sorry, anyone who has worked in a management position of any kind, be it military, government, or corporate, during the past 15-20 years knows that this kind of behavior is a big effing deal and is not tolerated in any organization that I’m aware of. Like it or not, call it the ‘wussification’ factor if you want to, but sexual harassment (which this most definitely is) is against the law. I was senior police executive for many years and fired managers and line employees alike for much less than this. You have no choice and risk exposure to multi-million dollar law suits if you don’t take action. Captain Honors knew the law when he did this and, as fine a sailor and aviator as he may be, I think one may rightly question his command judgement because of what appears to be sophomoric behavior designed to curry favor with the troops while serving in a senior command position. The Navy can do better than Capt. Honors

Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 12:57 PM

This just seems like retroactive retribution to me.
If it is a punisable offense today ai want to know why he wasn’t brought up on charges at the time. The former Capt. of the Enterprise knew about it and shouldn’t fall to him for corrective measures?

darwin-t on January 4, 2011 at 12:58 PM

I want to know what the other hand is doing if the MSM is trying to make us focus on this story.

darwin-t on January 4, 2011 at 12:44 PM

^^^ This. Something isn’t passing the smell test.

CantCureStupid on January 4, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Why do I keep seeing Slim Pickens bronco busting that nuke down over Soviet Russia?

Limerick on January 4, 2011 at 12:59 PM

LincolntheHun on January 4, 2011 at 12:39 PM
DrMagnolias on January 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Sorry my two posts sounded jumbled. I hope you can understand what I meant.

DrMagnolias on January 4, 2011 at 12:59 PM

profitsbeard –

I don’t know…I chuckled a good bit at the “SWOveralls” comment….

USN – Ret

Larr on January 4, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Just another step in trying to dismantle american military, captain Honors acted “stupidly”.

anikol on January 4, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Wonder if an “outie” will replace him

Sonosam on January 4, 2011 at 1:03 PM

The Navy can do better than Capt. Honors

Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 12:57 PM

I challenge you to prove that assertion. Or support it with any evidence whatsoever – and start by defining “better.”

Can the Navy find commanders and captains that are always politically correct? Of course. Can they find officers who will always put rules and regulations over the welfare of their men, in order to please civilians and the media? Again, sure.

But if by “better” you use my definition – most combat effective, most successful as a leader of men in combat, most likely to save lives and increase mission effectiveness – than you have no idea whether or not “better” is available.

In fact, the only evidence thus far is that Capt. Honors was either the best or among the very best for his unique position on a unique vessel.

Unless there is another officer with combat experience and combat deployments as an XO on the Enterprise … I don’t think there is a “better.”

Well? If there is “better,” who is it?

I’m really curious. Who is it, how do we find them, and what qualifies them as “better?”

It’s mostly a rhetorical question. I suspect I know exactly what you mean by “better,” and it has nothing to do with leading men in combat or successfully executing a military mission.

Professor Blather on January 4, 2011 at 1:04 PM

“The Pentagon is concerned….”

Don’t these desk-jockies have anything better to do?

franksalterego on January 4, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Captain Honors knew the law
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 12:57 PM

and which/whoms law are you implying…

dmann on January 4, 2011 at 1:05 PM

It never ceases to amaze me how people who’ve never seen the ocean (much less served aboard a warship) are so eager to blithely stomp on a warrior who’s got more sea time than they’ve got time.

But, hey, gotta burnish the ol’ PC Merit Badge. Self esteem & multiculti sensitivity über alles!

OhioCoastie on January 4, 2011 at 1:05 PM

At first I took umbrage with the video, but Lincolnthehun set me straight.

no sarc intended

It’s the military, and when I think of some of the stories my dad, relatives, and friends have told me, this pales in comparison, really.

blatantblue on January 4, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Wonder if an “outie” will replace him

Sonosam on January 4, 2011 at 1:03 PM

This calls for all of the sensativity that a female captain has to offer so I’m bettin’ his replacement is an ‘inny’.

darwin-t on January 4, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Next, there will be a court martial for Col. Nicholson — not for building a better bridge for the Japs — but for permitting that scandalous burlesque show featuring transvestites.

tommylotto on January 4, 2011 at 1:08 PM

It never ceases to amaze me how people who’ve never seen the ocean (much less served aboard a warship) are so eager to blithely stomp on a warrior who’s got more sea time than they’ve got time.

It never ceases to amaze me how people who draw a paycheck from taxpayer dollars think that they can tell the taxpayers to STFU.

I haven’t seen anyone “stomp” Honors, merely opine on his lack of judgment. And it was his bosses in the military who decided to relieve him of command, not us landlubbers.

Y-not on January 4, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Maybe I am out of touch but the stories picked to comment on suck and have for awhile.Can we have one comment thread on what is happening that is important and not sex tapes and some guy I could care less about losing his command.

Conan on January 4, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Ya know, Ed, if you DID have the urge, or the time, this story is PERFECT for going above and beyond just parroting the MSM with an additional tut-tutting tossed in for ‘original’ content.

The timing and the target are key here, not that the XO of an afloat command used questionable taste in fulfilling one of his actual duties, which is crew morale. By the overwhelming feedback from the vets off the ‘Prize during that time frame, he was wildly successful in that department, matters of taste aside.

Instead of a PC panty twisting competition, how about some genuine investigation and reporting about what is NOT being discussed amidst all the massive harrumphing? Like the screaming question of the circumstances surrounding what, by all appearances, is a very carefully timed, razor sharp and directed career assassination of, by all appearances again, a highly capable, accomplished and decorated Navy Officer on the threshold of an important assignment?

Who was behind this? What was their axe to grind here? The schlubs at the Virginia-Pilot were probably ecstatic to get the attention of publishing the allegations, but about as concerned with the how and why as Julian Assange in this case. From the overwhelming feedback the case has generated amongst those who were actually onboard, or have otherwise served under Honors’ command, it sounds like some folks standing up for a leader that they’d willingly march into hell for soaked in gasoline.

And for all the huff and puffery using the fictional character Jack Nicholson played in a movie, true leaders able to cultivate that sort of loyalty are very, very few and far between, no matter WHAT military organization we’re talking about.

So who the snivelling, whiny, malcontented loser who sniped from cover to take down such a man IS very relevant. And as an aircraft carrier has a compliment of well over 5,000 at any given time, it might be in the best interests of everyone involved to consider the 4,999 motivated and loyal crewmembers satisfied with his job as XO, as opposed to the petty and feeble crybaby routine and the irrelevant sideline cacklers who live to squawk about such crap.

Who did this Ed? And why? Those are the questions to be asked, and answered.

Wind Rider on January 4, 2011 at 1:10 PM

If this guy did this at Second City he’d be hosting SNL this weekend.

darwin-t on January 4, 2011 at 1:10 PM

It never ceases to amaze me how people who’ve never seen the ocean (much less served aboard a warship) are so eager to blithely stomp on a warrior who’s got more sea time than they’ve got time.

But, hey, gotta burnish the ol’ PC Merit Badge. Self esteem & multiculti sensitivity über alles!

OhioCoastie on January 4, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Indeed.

Eventually we’ll have a major World War II-type conflict … and it will be fascinating at that point to see how quickly our priorities change.

I really, really wonder how Nimitz or Patton or MacArthur or Chesty Puller or Dan Daly would have fared if they faced our modern media and our era of political correctness?

Professor Blather on January 4, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Maybe I am out of touch but the stories picked to comment on suck and have for awhile.Can we have one comment thread on what is happening that is important and not sex tapes and some guy I could care less about losing his command.

Conan on January 4, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Didn’t you get the memo? What do you think the word ‘Hot’ in Hot Air stands for since the takeover.

darwin-t on January 4, 2011 at 1:12 PM

General McAuliffe forced to attend posthumous sensitivity training for uttering the word “Nuts!” to the Germans at Bastogne in 1944.

catmman on January 4, 2011 at 1:13 PM

It never ceases to amaze me how people who draw a paycheck from taxpayer dollars think that they can tell the taxpayers to STFU.

I haven’t seen anyone “stomp” Honors, merely opine on his lack of judgment. And it was his bosses in the military who decided to relieve him of command, not us landlubbers.

Y-not on January 4, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Ugh.

And its so darn much taxpayer money, too.

Speechless on this one.

Maybe when civilians like this clueless idiot render the military truly unable to protect him … he’ll finally get a clue.

Until then: you’re welcome, Skippy. Thanks for the couple hundred bucks a month in combat pay.

In the meantime, rest easy, keyboard warrior: I guarantee the new skipper will ease up on all that military training and mission focusing to ensure lots and lots of PowerPoint sensitivity briefings for the crew. So you’re golden.

Ugh.

Professor Blather on January 4, 2011 at 1:16 PM

I really, really wonder how Nimitz or Patton or MacArthur or Chesty Puller or Dan Daly would have fared if they faced our modern media and our era of political correctness?

Professor Blather on January 4, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Patton got fired too, remember?

catmman on January 4, 2011 at 1:16 PM

catmman on January 4, 2011 at 12:55 PM

ding ding ding…he would be lauded on AC360 fer sure

cmsinaz on January 4, 2011 at 1:17 PM

I get the whole ‘boys will be boys’ attitude expressed in a lot of these comments, I have 3 of them in my house. But is it too much to expect our Naval officers to behave like grown men and professionals instead of like 14-year-old boys in a locker room with a stash of Playboys?

Common Sense on January 4, 2011 at 1:19 PM

So who the snivelling, whiny, malcontented loser who sniped from cover to take down such a man IS very relevant.

That is something that really bothers me. People talk about whoever reported this fearing reprisal and damage to his/her career if s/he came forward, but what about CAPT Honors’ career? He is being publicly dragged through the mud, while his accuser remains in safe anonymity. How do we know this wasn’t the work of a sailor who was relieved of duty and exacting revenge? I don’t believe in killing the messenger–if someone does wrong, who points it out doesn’t affect the wrongness of it–but I also abhor this inability to face one’s accusers, and anonymous reports deny that.

DrMagnolias on January 4, 2011 at 1:21 PM

The repeal of DADT has now opened the floodgates and look for hundreds of more stories like this now as the military attempts to become PC.

It is just another of the unseen ramifications of repealing DADT and HotAir should be celebrating his firing and the PC additive that is going to sweep across the military now because they backed this.

JeffinSac on January 4, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Let’s wish the new captain the best of luck in his new command, and hope he doesn’t need to cross the Equator on his first deployment.

Since they started allowing women on ships it has changed big time already to cater to the PC crowd, so no he will have no problems.

JeffinSac on January 4, 2011 at 1:24 PM

As I said in the headlines, I think Honors exhibited poor judgement. EVERYthing is available for use against someone in the age of Youtube.

Having said that, I don’t believe he should have been relieved of his command.

ladyingray on January 4, 2011 at 1:25 PM

I have a hunch the new CO is in the pipeline.

OhioCoastie on January 4, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Shame

Kini on January 4, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Captain Honors knew the law
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 12:57 PM

and which/whoms law are you implying…

dmann on January 4, 2011 at 1:05 PM

We can start with Article 93 and 132, UCMJ. US Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991. US Naval Regulation 1166. SECNAVINST 5300.26C: DON Policy on Sexual Harassment

Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 1:30 PM

It never ceases to amaze me how people who draw a paycheck from taxpayer dollars think that they can tell the taxpayers to STFU.

I haven’t seen anyone “stomp” Honors, merely opine on his lack of judgment. And it was his bosses in the military who decided to relieve him of command, not us landlubbers.

Y-not on January 4, 2011 at 1:08 PM

How about people such as myself, and quite a few others, whom served AND pay taxes and tell YOU to STFU.

Being relieved of Command for making a funny “movie” when WE HAVE ALL WATCHED Movies we PAY FOR that are worse than anything this guy has ever done…. sure does seem you can ride a tide well.

upinak on January 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM

I challenge you to prove that assertion. Or support it with any evidence whatsoever – and start by defining “better.”

Professor Blather on January 4, 2011 at 1:04 PM

By better, I mean an officer who can conduct himself/herself professionally, who can lead by natural authority, not ingratation, and who can obey the laws and naval regulations he swore to uphold.

This is a divisive issue I agree, and I am neither defending not decrying the existent laws or naval regulations on sexual harassment; however, they are the law and commanding officers must obey and demand obedience to all laws and regulations steadfastly.

Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Why does this cause a stir FOUR YEARS after it happened?

EasyEight on January 4, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Navy regs state thou shall exercise an ULTRA PC attitude at all times during a Democrat commander in chiefs reign of terror. Or we will destroy your career!!!

Woman or Ghay commander of the Enterprise in the wings?

Kuffar on January 4, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 1:30 PM

By what criteria does what was in the videos constitute sexual harassment?

JannyMae on January 4, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Once again Hot Air shows it’s lack of vertebrae.

clearbluesky on January 4, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Sounds to me like you expect perfection.

JannyMae on January 4, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Thank you for your precise response, if pursued this will be a very interesting case.

dmann on January 4, 2011 at 1:44 PM

DrMagnolias on January 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM
But that isn’t what they were saying, according to my understanding. Any senior officers aboard the ship (and there wouldn’t be many) would be under the CO, so going to the JAG or IG would be a very grave thing (and anonymity is particularly gutless when you are doing something that might destroy someone else’s career).

Apparently a carrier is a different kind of animal and has several different commands upon it. There is also the Admiral, who is in charge of the carrier group, along with his staff and JAG and IG and other people.
There is also the command group of the fleet back on shore and so on. It’s not like the days of ships being cut off from everyone. If there was a problem it could have been transmitted.

And according to the report, the Navy wants to know why those over CAPT Honors (who would be the CO and then others not aboard the ship) didn’t do anything to stop it.

The admiral in charge of the carrier group, the admiral in charge of the fleet, the admiral in charge of the air command (for the planes) the commander of the Marines

Why would anyone over the CO even know about it?

As you rise in command there are lots of people who will snitch in hopes of advancement. Besides a commander is responsible for all that his personnel do or fail to do.

The whole thing smells of the typical Navy witch hunt in which the brass will toss anyone under the bus rather than standing up to the media.

It is in my opinion. I also think the Navy was willing to look the other way until the Enterprise met all of the tough re-certifications to become “combat ready”. Now that a less exception commander can be in charge the knives come out.

LincolntheHun on January 4, 2011 at 1:45 PM

“I think that’s why this is coming out now. People who objected to the attitudes embodied in these tapes did not want to be under this commander. ”

“under this commander” oooh, watch your language.

see how sensitive people can be?
and repeal of DADT will not affect the military?
oh wow….

Redteam on January 4, 2011 at 1:49 PM

I read this site every day, and really like the writing. Unfortunately this post is probably the most ill-informed thing I have ever read on this site.

Really, if you actually watched the film and find it offensive, you don’t belong in the Navy, much less in the Marine Corps or the Army combat arms. You might be cut out to be an Air force public affairs specialist.

I’m a former USMC SSgt (0369). I found the video funny. But, to check my reaction, I showed it to my wife, a retired Marine Captain. (She is highly sensitive to real sexual harassment, having suffered enough of it.) She found it funny as well. The Navy made the right choice four years ago, with the “stop that” order. Not so much because of the contents, but because its best if civilians can live their cozy insulated lives without knowing what life is like deployed during a war.

The purpose of leadership is to provide leadership, which the Cmdr. did for 99.8% of the crew. If 0.2% was offended, screw them. They can get out after four years and find a new job. The Navy is no place for wussie men or beta females.

I would imagine that most of these comments comparing this situation to the civilian world were made by people who either never served or were true pogues. Such comments are ridiculous. Since leaving the Corps I’ve had an academic and industrial career as an engineer. The way I talked among my Marines would be totally inappropriate to deal with college students or my employees and vice versa.

hpnq420 on January 4, 2011 at 1:50 PM

LincolntheHun on January 4, 2011 at 1:45 PM
If there was a problem it could have been transmitted.

RIght, but by whom? It sounds as though the CO thought he’d handled it. Then, years later, someone reports it to…the Virginian-Pilot?

As you rise in command there are lots of people who will snitch in hopes of advancement. Besides a commander is responsible for all that his personnel do or fail to do.

Yes, although I haven’t seen anything that indicates that is what happened here. It appears the CO thought it was handled, and no one went beyond him. The CO doesn’t have to report disciplinary issues, etc., up the chain, if he’s handled them and doesn’t believe they warrant it.

It is in my opinion. I also think the Navy was willing to look the other way until the Enterprise met all of the tough re-certifications to become “combat ready”. Now that a less exception commander can be in charge the knives come out.

The Navy brass is populated with PC weenies who will happily toss someone under the bus to save their own skins.

DrMagnolias on January 4, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Having PC indoctrinated persons, male or female, are the bane of shipboard life.

csdeven on January 4, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Y-not on January 4, 2011 at 1:08 PM
I haven’t seen anyone “stomp” Honors, merely opine on his lack of judgment. And it was his bosses in the military who decided to relieve him of command, not us landlubbers.

Then you don’t know how the military works at the upper level.
CAPT Honors is done. Even if he is cleared of any and all charges, and reinstated, this will hang over him like a chilli cheese dog digestive smell for as long as he is in the Navy. And probably into any military related job in the private sector, he will never be appointed to any position of trust that requires Senate confirmation, regardless of his ability.
Even if he is returned to command with an official apology, He will have a very difficult time commanding. He will always get a side long look, from subordinates and superiors and others will know he is weak.
Even if his Fit Rep is glows, commending his ability to walk on water and feed 5000 with just a few fish and loaves of bread, he will never be picked up for another command. Nor will he be promoted.
Since the Senate must approve all promotions ANY Senator can block his promotion, (they actually block the list until offending parties are removed) and one of them will object to his promotion, regardless of the truth.
So yes, CAPT Honors has been stomped.

LincolntheHun on January 4, 2011 at 1:59 PM

“I think that’s why this is coming out now. People who objected to the attitudes embodied in these tapes did not want to be under this commander. ”

With the rate of rotation…if these tapes were 2006/2007 there should be almost no one left who would have been onboard at the time.

hpnq420 – Maybe USCG as well

USN – Ret

Larr on January 4, 2011 at 2:01 PM

So, we’ve traded screwing over perfectly qualified gays out of the service in favor of perfectly qualified non-gays.

What in goodness name does this have to do with our ability to kill the enemies of this country?!

csdeven on January 4, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Welcome to the era of openly serving gays in the US military. And for those who think that this is not a byproduct of repeal, you’re woefully ill-informed.

Having more than a year of my six in the Corps deployed on two US Navy warships, I can promise you that weeks between ports can be pretty damn boring. Anything to bring levity to a bunch of guys couped up on ship is good for morale. But apparently morale isn’t much of a concern.

By the way, here’s the Shellback Cert from my first time below the equator; and a couple of pics that will really set the gay community off- from the same Wog Day ceremony. (The “guy” in the top right picture was from my Arty unit.)

BKeyser on January 4, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3