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.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Luther Billis with coconuts in South Pacific.
MSimon on January 4, 2011 at 2:05 PM
I sure hope they don’t show any sit-coms from BBC on board then, because just about any episode of The Office or Coupling (or dozens of others) is just as bad, if not worse, than what was in those videos.
And beating hearts be still if they accidentally saw a Cohen brothers movie, or a Ben Stiller movie, etc, etc.
I suppose Dexter and Californication are out of the question, too, those faint of heart soldiers couldn’t take it.
/
DrAllecon on January 4, 2011 at 2:06 PM
Code of Federal Regulations – Title 32: National Defense
TITLE 32 – NATIONAL DEFENSE
SUBTITLE A – DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
CHAPTER VI – DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
SUBCHAPTER A – UNITED STATES NAVY REGULATIONS AND OFFICIAL RECORDS
PART 700 – UNITED STATES NAVY REGULATIONS AND OFFICIAL RECORDS
subpart k – GENERAL REGULATIONS
700.1166 – Sexual harassment.
(a) Sexual harassment will not be condoned or tolerated in the Department of the Navy. It is a form of arbitrary discrimination which is unprofessional, unmilitary, and which adversely affects morale and discipline and ultimately the mission effectiveness of the command involved.
(b) Personnel who use implicit or explicit sexual behavior to control, influence or affect the career, promotion opportunities, duty assignments or pay of any other person are engaging in sexual harassment. Naval personnel who make deliberate or repeated offensive verbal comments, gestures or physical contact of a sexual nature in the work environment are also engaging in sexual harassment.
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM
I would die. Absolutely die.
Bee on January 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM
Put some heels on that man! He had some Gams!
upinak on January 4, 2011 at 2:16 PM
The military gay got their first scalp, After the fact. How fair is that? NOT!
JAW on January 4, 2011 at 2:19 PM
Dexter is a guilty pleasure of mine. I always thought the absurdly over the top cursing would make a great drinking game, but most participants would have died of acute alochol poisoning before the second act.
DrAllecon on January 4, 2011 at 2:19 PM
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 2:08 PM
Gracious, a sea lawyer. See: SECNAV INSTRUCTION 5300.26D for further details.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 2:20 PM
So, what is more egregious? When a gay or lesbian officer makes unwanted sexual advances on her juniors, or when an officer uses the word ‘fag’? I guess we know now.
Vashta.Nerada on January 4, 2011 at 2:23 PM
Harassment of whom, specifically? Those regulations are directed at individuals dealing with other individuals. “Offensive” is in the eye of the beholder. Those regulations are very carefully couched with caution about determining what is TRUE harassment.
JannyMae on January 4, 2011 at 2:27 PM
I’m shocked, SHOCKED that our soldiers are entertained by this sort of thing. Of course, that’s nothing compared to how embarrassed Russians must be about their troops raping and pillaging in Georgia and Chechnya.
Mark30339 on January 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM
Couldn’t disagree w/ you more Ed. These were internal clips intended for the crew of the Enterprise ONLY, never for public consumption. This is PC’dom run amok in the worst way. Now instead of having a career navy man, who worked his way from pilot all the way to Capt. of a Nimitz class carrier (who’s next stop would have been admiral BTW), defend our country in a time of war we’re left less secure b-c liberal politicians don’t like this guys sense of humor.
This is a travesty for us all.
Tom66 on January 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM
The pantywaists here need to serve in combat. The videos made fun of everyone on the ship, no one was excluded.
removing the Captain is a travesty. Once again, enemies of the US win.
eaglesdontflock on January 4, 2011 at 2:31 PM
I’m not a sea-lawyer by any means, although I do have a lot of senior level experience in the application of sexual harassment laws and regulations. The navy’s regulations and the Title 32 definitions are very little different from any government or private enterprise groups’ rules and regulations on this issue. As I hope I’ve pointed out, I am not taking sides on the issue of whether sexual harassment laws are a good idea or not. I’m merely pointing out that the laws are there and have to be obeyed. I’m sure that Captain Honors is a good man and a very competent sailor and aviator, but I’m sorry, it will be incredibly difficult to defend his behavior in this case from a legal perspective.
I have looked at SECNAV INSTRUCTION 5300.26D which is more or less the systems in place for reporting sexual harassment in the Navy, and I’m not clear on your reference to it.
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM
You highlighted the wrong section of the statute. This is the purpose of the statute, and what is designed to prevent.
Do you have any idea where you are going with this? One or two people on a ship with 5000 personnel are “offended,” by a video, and you state it constitutes “sexual harassment?” Talk about a stretch….
JannyMae on January 4, 2011 at 2:37 PM
I’m not sure if my pointing out of the existent laws and regulations on this qualifies me as a ‘pantywaist’ in your book. But I want to assure you that I have served in combat during 9 years in the US Army. I’ve also served as a police officer for 25 years in a city designated as one of the 5 most dangerous in the country. Pantywaist? I think not. I’m merely trying to explain what the law says on sexual harassment, not whether I agree with the law or not. Thanks!
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 2:37 PM
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM
Just trying to help you out.
Read the part about “reasonable person” in the instruction.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 2:39 PM
A little while ago, you said “the navy could do better.” I am sorry you’ve backtracked from that, and now insist you’re not taking sides.
JannyMae on January 4, 2011 at 2:40 PM
Must be a bunch of civilians commenting on this. Even if you were to put sexual harrassment aside (and you shouldn’t), the command atmospher was totally poisoned – by the Captain’s own words and actions. I can think of a few other regulations broken – Conduct Unbecoming an Officer comes readily to mind. After 22 years in the Navy – on 4 different ships – I never had a commanding officer act in this manner, regardless of the circumstances. Captain Honors no doubt is an otherwise top notch sailor (you don’t get command of an aircraft carrier for being a bum), and in my eyes, that makes this more egregious. Surely he should have known better. Relieving him of command was the right thing to do.
jehowe2nd on January 4, 2011 at 2:42 PM
Most excellent. You made my point much better than I did. My work here is done. Thanks!
JannyMae on January 4, 2011 at 2:43 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
tgharris on January 4, 2011 at 2:43 PM
The old man is required to keep his men alive while executing his mission as efficiently as possible. He doesn’t have to be PC or cuddly, or any other bullshit. Was he over the line, maybe. Spank him, yes. Relieve him of command? No, hell no.
Wood Dragon on January 4, 2011 at 2:43 PM
I’m sorry Janny. I realize that this is an emotional issue, but it is one with which I am very familiar from a legal and risk-management perspective. I’ve also taught sexual harassment seminars to police officers, police training academies, and to police commanders, so I know something about this. I am not saying i agree with sexual harassment laws, I’m merely pointing out what they are.
You are incorrect in your assertion that I highlightted the wrong section of the regulation i posted. the regulation must be read as two entirely separate statements. Section a) and the first sentence of section b) are indeed quite specific. the second sentence of section b) is the “catch-all” and must be read separately when it says “Naval personnel who make deliberate or repeated offensive verbal comments, gestures or physical contact of a sexual nature in the work environment are also engaging in sexual harassment.” The key word here is “also”, indicating that the harasser doesn’t have to target any one person specifically, just make “repeated offensive, verbal comments” in general. Like it or not, the law is quite clear that if one person among a group of 5,000 or even 100,000 is offended, it’s sexual harassment. Don’t kill the messenger!
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 2:46 PM
And yet a Commander-In-Chief of the US Armed Forces can get a bj in the Oral err Oval Office, lie about it under oath (and have this lie totally exposed by a DNA test) and not only survive but see his popularity rise as well as the swelling in his pants.
I’ve got to check this Democratic Party out-not only do they not have to pay taxes and avoid being forced to pay for inferior third- world-quality medical care, but they have automatic immunity from prosecution for crimes and misdemeanors. Oh, and also, government regulations (under the sheepskin of green jobs and saving worthless minnows) doesn’t apply to them-right Al Gore?
MaiDee on January 4, 2011 at 2:48 PM
No, I’m not back-tracking at all. Being a good sailor and a good aviator and a good man are different from being the best man to command. And I’m afraid that violating the law and Naval regulations are not exactly strong qualifications to command.
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 2:49 PM
The new Navy.
Gay sex….? Just fine.
Gay jokes….? Your fired.
NeoKong on January 4, 2011 at 2:50 PM
This truly sickens me. We have a fine officer, a warrior with decades of service.
He is being relieved as we all know due to the idiotic PC Left demanding a sacrifice.
And the main thing, that which cost this man his command, was the use of the term “Fag.” This country is in complete decline.
TiminPhx on January 4, 2011 at 2:54 PM
Please refer to the section that OtisB highlighted for you about the “reasonable person” standard at the top of page 8. Based on that, you’re a poor messenger.
There are multiple standards for declaring something “sexual harassment” and, and if your interpretation is correct, that “only one person has to be offended,” then just about anything could be declared harassment. It is stated right there in the statute, itself, that this is NOT what it is meant to do.
JannyMae on January 4, 2011 at 2:55 PM
tgharris on January 4, 2011 at 2:43 PM
Understood.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 2:59 PM
Lemme guess – SWO, right?
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 3:02 PM
Since trafalgar refuses to address this, here it is:
In addition, see here, page 10:
Quite frankly, I don’t think you have a clue what you’re talking about.
JannyMae on January 4, 2011 at 3:07 PM
He’s probably still typing, Janny.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 3:09 PM
Maybe he’s off reading the rest of that 12 page statute, which is what he should have done before he cherry-picked one sentence from one section that appeared to support his POV, rather than looking at it as a whole?
Or, maybe not!
I have to go. Thanks Otis!
JannyMae on January 4, 2011 at 3:13 PM
JannyMae on January 4, 2011 at 3:13 PM
Take care – and thank you as well.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 3:14 PM
I’ve thought for some time now that our military has become so political that the rise of talented, but unconventional, people like Patton won’t be possible anymore. Looks like it just got much worse. Imagine a military ran by mediocre office managers.
DFCtomm on January 4, 2011 at 3:24 PM
Thanks guys for the interesting discussion. We can agree to disagree, but I stand my ground. I do know this stuff and have been in court many times as a representative for the defendant (in my case, a city)on sexual harassment cases and,interestingly enough,just recently wrote the sexual harassment policy for a major defense contractor here in Virginia. I apologize for my inability to articulate the law better for you. On a personal note, I do believe that sexual harassmnt claims are frequently frivolous and ridiculous on their face, but you won’t believe in how many of them ‘reasonable’ juries find for the plaintiff.
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 3:25 PM
So let me get this straight:
A) These movies were filmed 4-5 years ago
B) When told to stop making these movies, the XO complied as ordered
C) For some reason currently unknown, a disgruntled shipmate is just NOW filing a complaint with Navy IG and is going public (the best of both worlds, intended, I’m sure for maximum effect)
We now have Navy precedent to fire someone over an incident that occurred in the past in which the defendant complied with orders to cease and desist. (Premptive strike: The Stufflebeem firin from a few years ago doesn’t count since he DIDN’T COMPLY and in fact, LIED about the past case)
Hmmm…I wonder if Fleet Forces Commander ADM John Harvey or CNO ADM Gary “Diversity is my NUMBER ONE PRIORITY for the Navy” Roughead have any skeletons in THEIR closets that need to be investigated.
rotorhead on January 4, 2011 at 3:31 PM
Trafalgar essentially is correct.
If the conduct is deemed unwanted/offensive to 1 individual there is possibility of a violation and it must be addressed and investigated immediately.
“Reasonable Person” is legal standard only by which the standard of the behavior must be measured against. So if Mary and her co-workers are standing by her cubicle and Bob is delivering mail to which Bob then hears Mary tell a distasteful joke about men that her co-workers find funny but Bob finds offensive then there is a violation. And if Bob’s superiors do not act upon his complaint they are then held liable. Reasonable Person would imply that to any reasonable standard the joke was in poor taste and could be found to be offensive regardless if it did not personally offend everyone who heard it. If those conditions are met, there was a violation regardless of the number of people that were offended.
Magnus on January 4, 2011 at 3:31 PM
Ed, I don’t care one bit about your sensibilities. Personally, I am not upset about what is in the videos. So what if the guys clown around. What I care about is whether Captain Honors and his sailors can fight. He and they can. Of course, Captain Honors’s men are standing up for him.
All you very foolish people who thought repeal of DADT was a cool thing to do, what we will now witness is an effort on the part of what is an anti-military media and anti-military political Left to try to come up with a Tailhook-type scandal so that they can undermine the military. What we will also see is a push for a massive program of “sensitivity training” — i.e., pro-gay propaganda that combat arms guys typically don’t believe and that is contrary to the beliefs of the many Christians among our warriors.
Phil Byler on January 4, 2011 at 3:33 PM
Thank you Magnus for phrasing more eloquently what I’ve been trying to say. And for the support!
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 3:39 PM
Ed,
I think you are completely missing the point on this one. You seem to be falling hook, line and sinker for the priggish line the Obama Administration is taking on this.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this story was planted by the Administration, or at their behest, and that it is now being orchestrated by them for a few important purposes. (Important from their perspective, that is . . . not important for the well-being of our nation by any stretch of the imagination!)
These skits were put on four years ago! Suddenly, two weeks after the repeal of DADT, they are being shopped to the press . . . with every other damn sentence pointing out that Capt. Owen Honors used a “slur” for being gay?
We’re shocked! Shocked! And by the way, did we say that he once used the word “fag?” Oh, the horror!
One of their purposes for leaking this now was to ensure the silence any of the Administration’s potential intra-military critics on DADT repeal. They are sending a loud-and-clear signal to all men and women in uniform to keep their traps shut, or else.
Another purpose is to serve as a sounding board for developing (or more likely) selling the new service regs they have probably already written; the ones that they are going to be adopting very soon to fill the vacuum that was left by DADT repeal.
They can toot their horns all they want over that repeal, but they know they still have a huge sales job ahead of them in justifying a series of policies that will now allow homosexuals to openly trumpet their sexual orientation, policies which will obviously have to fully accommodate gays by extending to them an entire range of military benefits, including housing, pension benefits, survivorship rights, ultimately the full panoply of marriage benefits . . . a whole host of other obligations.
How better to accomplish that than to be able to point the finger of disapproval at a top officer? We are witnessing the career destruction of a top officer who they’ll say “stepped over the line” and thereby paid the ultimate price for . . . for making a few jokes?
These were admittedly amateurish skits — again, four years old — that were clearly cobbled together in fun, and obviously done merely as preview skits before movie presentations. They were morale boosters for the crew. I even suspect his claim (on one of the videos) that he had gotten numerous anonymous “complaints” was said in jest as well.
If anyone was seriously offended, you can damn well bet that some asinine Member of Congress somewhere could have been easily induced to make a huge stink about Captain Honors, long, long ago. It didn’t happen because virtually everyone on board recognized it for exactly what it was.
When you are in the military, stuff like this is a truly welcome break from the tedium of your daily assignments. It may seem silly or even over the line to you, but you are wrong. Stuff like this is an integral part of the camaraderie that is essential to unit cohesion. It’s not just a joke . . . it’s our little joke, amongst ourselves. I have absolutely no doubt that nearly all of the troops, men and women alike, eagerly looked forward to these movie night “previews.” I sure as hell would have.
And I further have no doubt that this entire incident will be viewed with horror by the brave men and women of our military who understand the importance of that unit cohesion, and the camaraderie that is the glue.
The suggestion by some (even on this thread) that they somehow constituted “sexual harassment” is just plain stupid . . . stupid almost beyond belief. They were skits for laughs, for crying out loud!
A top, highly respected military officer has now been singled out, and is having his entire career of honorable military service to our nation, literally torn to shreds by a bunch of politically correct and vicious prigs who, in reality, are nothing but power-hungry thugs.
Trochilus on January 4, 2011 at 3:40 PM
This is exactly what I’m talking about. A corporate sexual harassment policy? The 8th/229th lawyers battalion. The USS Indemnity clause commanded by office manager Michael Scott.
DFCtomm on January 4, 2011 at 3:43 PM
Ed … your investigation here is sloppy … sorry but I gotta call you out on that.
First … the videos are three years old – they were made when the current CO was the XO of the Enterprise.
If what he did was wrong – then why did his Commanding Officer at that time not give him an order to stop making and airing the videos?
The videos were shown during deployment to the entire Enterprise crew – which, combined with the air wing, is over 5,000 people – including the CO.
Why isn’t the old CO getting slammed too? Oh – that’s right – someone reported that he’s a REAR ADMIRAL now.
Owens was not Commanding Officer when these videos were made. And these aren’t videos that he made privately. These were publicly aired videos on the ships closed-circuit television and the CO at the time damn sure saw them.
But nothing is happening to that guy.
Why aren’t you digging for the truth Ed? This guy may have crossed the line – but there are “checks and balances” on every ship to prevent the XO from getting out of line like this. Why wasn’t he stopped?
I’ll tell you why …
Because the old CO had poor judgement too.
HondaV65 on January 4, 2011 at 3:45 PM
Having said that this is obnoxious. Reprimand him -I agree. Kick him to the curb -out of control.
Magnus on January 4, 2011 at 3:47 PM
I like your post but I don’t think this has anything to do with DADT.
I’ve just checked – and Captain Owens was most likely eligible for promotion to Rear Admiral – he should be “in zone” now and guess when that selection board started?
LAST MONTH.
I suspect it’s over – and it may very well be that someone out there knows he was actually selected for Admiral on that list – which isn’t official (and not even supposed to be public) until the President signs it.
Last time I saw this happen was at the White House Military Office with Captain Rogers when he was CO there. When the list was “leaked” – suddenly (that day) he got EO complaint filed against him for some very old off-color jokes he told and some salty language.
I smell someone out for revenge.
HondaV65 on January 4, 2011 at 3:49 PM
Funny you should mention it, but the BG CDR at the time of the videos subsequently worked at the White House until 2009.
Beck would have a field day with this.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 3:51 PM
It’s only the beginning, folks. It’s amazing how selective the media and PC idiots are about what’s immoral and inappropriate. The feeding frenzy over at CNN with this story is telling enough, but it’s only going to get worse now that’s it’s open season on our wonderful men and women in uniform. Dismantling our military little by little – the death by a thousand cuts syndrome. The media and PR sharks can now find fresh blood with our military. And if it’s not prevocative or controversial enough, hey, they can do what Dan Rather did and create or distort news. Let the witchhunt begin!
mozalf on January 4, 2011 at 3:51 PM
Sorry DFC, I don’t write the laws or the judicial rulings, I simply develop policies to help companies stay out of trouble with the law, and so do the lawyers at the Pentagon and Dept. of the Navy. In many cases I think that sexual harassment claims are simply assinine and frivolous, but that doesn’t change the law.
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 3:52 PM
I read one report that said the old CO is now a retired RADM.
It’s the RADM at the time that I am beginning to wonder about.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 3:52 PM
Obama needs to be relieved of his duties as C-in-C for “teabagger”.
malclave on January 4, 2011 at 3:53 PM
In September of 2008 Honors was the Sixth Fleet’s commander and captain of the USS Mount Whitney when it sailed into the country of Georgia during its armed conflict with Russia. At the time, the Americans were on a humanitarian mission; Honors was quoted as saying that the mission was, “…not a show of force—it’s a show of solidarity.”[5]
On May 6, 2010 he was appointed the 21st commander of the USS Enterprise.
He is a recipient of the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medals, Meritorious Service Medal, and various campaign/unit awards
This was a good American who did his job well and didn’t deserve to be FIRED.
Repremanded? Sure okay – but fired?
This is BS.
HondaV65 on January 4, 2011 at 3:57 PM
Another GREAT point that I forgot – since these vids were shown on deployment – the Carrier Strike Group Admiral would have been onboard watching them. In fact, he even mentions the Admiral in the video.
Yet only this guy is being fired? WTF?
HondaV65 on January 4, 2011 at 3:59 PM
HondaV65 on January 4, 2011 at 3:57 PM
A reprimand at that level is pretty much the same as being fired. If you have to be reprimanded as the CO of an aircraft carrier, you shouldn’t be there.
To think this happened to a Legion of Merit recipient for some videos that by most accounts actually helped morale on the ship.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 4:01 PM
Immediately, or after four years, whichever comes first.
The statute in question, SECNAV INSTRUCTION 5300.26D, is 12 pages long, and it also includes very detailed criteria for what constitutes sexual harassment. Sadly, for you and your buddy, trafalgar, based on what I read on page 10 and 11 of the statute, you two are dead wrong.
JannyMae on January 4, 2011 at 4:05 PM
I question the fortitude of anyone who felt “threatened” by these videos–I don’t like the videos, either, but a little perspective, please. This is nothing compared to what actually goes on in war, and if they can’t handle this, they’re certainly not cut out for the purpose of the military.
Well said.
DrMagnolias on January 4, 2011 at 4:08 PM
Uh huh.
Yet you’ve as much as declared Honors guilty of sexual harassment without even taking into account the whole of the law involved? Something stinks here….
JannyMae on January 4, 2011 at 4:09 PM
Agreed.
Anyone notice that when the Shirly Sherrod tape came out … ED kind of defended her by saying the whole story wasn’t on the video?
But Ed doesn’t want to give this guy the benifit of the doubt? A war hero? Well – I guess Ed thinks Shirley Sherrod has done more for this nation than a Bronze Star recipient has.
Hmmmmm
HondaV65 on January 4, 2011 at 4:11 PM
HondaV65 on January 4, 2011 at 4:11 PM
I guess the reason this bothers me so much is this guy isn’t much different than one of my old COs. It’s just a shame that this would happen.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 4:21 PM
I would not be surprised we see a lot of this type of stuff come up from years ago now that DADT is gone.
How many more military folks are going to pay? How many more are going to be dragged through the mud?
But at least now homosexuals can feel good about themselves.
catmman on January 4, 2011 at 4:24 PM
He’s not being fired for any action taken as CO, is he?
As I understand it, he’s just being punished now because the right to not be offended is absolute and has no statute of limitations.
malclave on January 4, 2011 at 4:26 PM
HondaV65 on January 4, 2011 at 4:27 PM
malclave on January 4, 2011 at 4:26 PM
I guess time has no bounds when you have an agenda to support.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 4:29 PM
At least three officers above him in the chain of command (two of his CO’s and one Carrier Strike Group Admiral who was aboard when these videos were aired) knew about these videos. They watched these videos and still recommended him for command of the USS ENTERPRISE.
Nothing has happened to those officers.
HondaV65 on January 4, 2011 at 4:30 PM
FIFY
Mr. Grump on January 4, 2011 at 4:33 PM
HondaV65 on January 4, 2011 at 4:30 PM
What I want to know if there were any formal complaints, through the proper channels, regarding the videos.
If the CO did not know about the complaints through the EO officer or other official channel to lodge them, then there either were not any official complaints, or the CO and other seniors brushed them under the rug.
I find it hard to believe that there was no official policy promulgated onboard the Enterprise outlining official channels for EO complaints.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 4:33 PM
If there were no official complaints, then the official policy was not followed regarding those types of complaints, and CAPT Honors never had a chance to correct those errors – per instruction.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 4:36 PM
When I was in the Navy in the 90s, it was commonplace to have commericial porn being shown in the open. It was also common to make wisecracks about every race, gender, and sexual orientation.
And then there was the Shellback experience.
While I agree that times have changed, and the vid was in poor taste, it seems like a big punishment for something that 1) happened almost 2 years ago, and 2) wasn’t directly attacking anyone.
Aircraft carrier commanders got there through a lot of Federal funding. It’s a shame to lose one so quickly. I was in the Navy during the Tailhook “scandal”, and we lost about $1 billion worth of pilots and RIOs over a junior aide’s broken heart.
Bigurn on January 4, 2011 at 4:37 PM
You know … I was a CMC in the navy up until 2006. I can tell you – I saw a lot of screwed up ships – but on none of those ships did I see a CO who would turn a blind eye to an EO complaint.
In all likelyhood – there were NO EO complaints made by anyone on the ship until just recently.
I’ve seen EO complaints and how they’re handled – it’s just too easy for a CO to say … “Hey XO, I think you need to tone those videos down” … it doesn’t appear to have happened.
There IS a report that his superiors were aware of the videos – and ordered him to stop making them.
I don’t buy that. These videos were made over MANY MONTHS and the “offensive” conduct was not in only one of them.
And besides – even if they had told him to stop – why did those same officers turn around and RECOMMEND this guy for Command of the ENTERPRISE?
At least three of his superiors knew everything about these videos in 2007. They knew eveything we know today. They took no action and even recommended for Captain Owens to take command of ENTERPRISE.
Now suddenly … ex post facto … what he did was wrong? He gets fired – and his bosses get off scott-free?
HondaV65 on January 4, 2011 at 4:48 PM
I understand your claim to remain neutral, because it’s “the law,” but what I hope you understand is that with the loss of a leader like CAPT Honors, what we’ll get is a “protect yourself first” leader, with no compassion for those he leads.
The message is sent and received, to be sure, that there will be no tolerance for those who use the terms CAPT Honors used, but the other message is more subtle and disheartening – we will have leadership that cares more for its own political goals and less care for those they lead.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 4:53 PM
I don’t buy that either. If they told him to stop, and he didn’t, then they should have relieved him then and there.
The XO not following the CO’s, or worse, the Admiral’s, guidance? Please.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 4:55 PM
Completely agree – and the biggest problem here …
Here’s a guy who was a war hero – multiple tours in theater – MANY hours in the cockpit on combat missions fighitng terrorists. This is the guy who commanded the Naval Task Force that sailed into Georgia when the Russians invaded it. I served the Navy for 24 years as a Cold War Submariner and later a Command Master Chief – but my service is a pimple on this guy’s ass. This guy really is a war hero.
And a likeable guy judging for the comments on the Enterprise facebook page from his crew.
He was using humor to transmit important messages into the minds of 18 year old kids during a war. The shower skit was meant to relay a message … “Don’t use too much water or your shipmates will run out of hot water”. He also used these videos to make a point of not drinking and driving, on being safe in shipboard tasks, and proper conduct while ashore on liberty.
There was a point to these videos besides the humor (and they are funny).
HondaV65 on January 4, 2011 at 4:55 PM
This guy made some videos in an effort to boost the morale of the aircraft carrier sailors. The videos are raunchy by civilian standards, but they were for sailors who had been at sea for over a year. The jokes made by sailors at sea are not for the consumption, or judgment, of people who have never been deployed at sea.
BierManVA on January 4, 2011 at 5:00 PM
Calling people who had a problem with his videos “gutless” for not confronting him directly is reason enough to fire him. Does anyone know how hard it is to even speak to a superior even when you have a legitimate reason? I get yelled at all the time for talking to chiefs in my chain of command! XOs and COs have a lot of power over their subordinates. With a single stroke of their pen, they can ruin people’s lives.
The Navy is full of bullies like this. It is an extremely sexual and sexually invasive place. It is also extremely amoral. This is not something that started with the repeal of DADT, though I believe that repeal to be a symptom of the problem.
I do not believe Honors was dismissed because he was violating the oft-overlooked rules regarding rape and harassment. He was dismissed because he made public the embarrassing truth of today’s Navy.
He deserved to be dismissed, but then so does 85% of the Navy (95% for submariners).
StubbleSpark on January 4, 2011 at 5:02 PM
I’ll try one last time to explain sexual harassment laws as they exist today. Sexual harassment essentially occurs in two forms. One is what’s called “quid pro quo”, meaning something for something. That is exactly what the regulation is referring to when it talks about
“Personnel who use implicit or explicit sexual behavior to control, influence or affect the career, promotion opportunities, duty assignments or pay of any other person are engaging in sexual harassment.”
It’s essentially saying that a supervisor or superior officer cannot demand sexual favors in exchange for workplace considerations such as pay, promotion, duty assignments, etc. That’s the something for something aspect, sort of ‘you go to bed with me and I’ll give you the assignment you want’. Easy to define and recognize and clearly illegal.
The second form of sexual harassment is what’s known as a ‘hostile work environment’. And that’s what the regulation is discussing when it says
“Naval personnel who make deliberate or repeated offensive verbal comments, gestures or physical contact of a sexual nature in the work environment are also engaging in sexual harassment.”
Under ‘hostile work environment’ the comments or gestures don’t have to be directed toward any particular individual, they just have to be made. And if those comments can be construed by a reasonable person (i.e. jury)to be offensive and to make any member of the workforce feel threatened or ‘uncomfortable’ (sorry to use that word, but it’s what the courts recognize), then it constitutes sexual harassment under the law. It goes further than that and the behavior doesn’t even have to occur in the workplace. As an example, there is a case of an employee who held a party at his home and invited several co-workers. He happened to have pin-up posters of scantily clad women in his garage and one of the female co-workers complained that this created a hostile work environment because she now knew that her co-worker had such pictures. Know what? She won! Insane? Yes. True? Yes. Furthermore, the courts have said that even in cases where nobody comes forward and says they were offended by the behavior, if the behavior ‘could’ be offensive to someone and ‘could’ create a hostile work environment, it’s sexual harassment.
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 5:06 PM
I’m still pissed that my ship didn’t make and give us our shellback cards on our 2001/2002 deployment.
What was really sad was that we had our wog day split for a very tragic reason. We lost a shipmate sometime in the middle of the night and didn’t know it until sometime after the initiation started:( Stopped the whole thing and spend the next few days at sea looking for him in the sea. Sent chills down my spine when I heard his name called months later stating that he finally made E-6.
DethMetalCookieMonst on January 4, 2011 at 5:06 PM
Well yes…but then I do it anyway, especially if I believe it is the right thing to do.
This struck me as humorous, thank you.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 5:07 PM
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 5:06 PM
lol – a hostile work environment on a combat vessel?
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 5:08 PM
I should state that we did complete the shellback ceremony at a later date. We never got our cards, though.
DethMetalCookieMonst on January 4, 2011 at 5:09 PM
I agree entirely and I’m glad you recognize the distinction between my (long-winded) explanations of the law and how application of the law makes some people feel. In corporate America as well as the government and the military, sexual harassment laws and other similar laws have created an entire business out of risk management and guarding one’s behind from these kinds of claims. We are risk averse as a result. Are we better? In many cases no, and we have managers rather than doers. Another unintended by-product of legislators and judges with “good intentions”.
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 5:15 PM
Yep, sad I know. But that’s what the law and the regulations say
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 5:20 PM
That’s the rub, then, isn’t it?
Creating a “risk averse” culture within the military is inherently dangerous, considering the environments we ask people to serve in, and the stake of their success.
McClellan, for example, was “risk averse.”
We’ve just relieved a man who was not.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 5:21 PM
The regulations, as currently written, are vague enough to allow Commanders to make those decisions as they see fit – and are designed as such. However, in this case, the Commander of the Enterprise at the time, CAPT Rice, did not consider the situation worthy of the relief of his XO.
Therefore, the law, apparently, is subject to change dependent upon political climes.
What rule of law is this?
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 5:28 PM
And if someone decides to be offended at something that was said several years earlier, you’re screwed.
malclave on January 4, 2011 at 5:29 PM
Otis, I’m glad we’ve reached the point where we agree more than disagree. I have never said in any of my posts that I agree with sexual harassment laws or claims, although they have indeed put a stop to some truly egregious behaviors that no one should have to tolerate. My point has been to try and explain the laws as they stand, and to point out that Captain Honors, while a fine aviator and war hero, knew what those laws were (whether one agrees with the laws or not is irrelevant).
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 5:34 PM
No matter the other arguments, this makes it a travesty.
miConsevative on January 4, 2011 at 5:41 PM
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 5:34 PM
That’s great, but none of what we just argued was given as cause for his relief. He was not relieved for “sexual harassment.”
Captain Owen Honors was relieved of command for his “profound lack of good judgment and professionalism.”
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 5:41 PM
And if you believe that I got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 5:43 PM
And I will guarantee you that the Navy will pin the charge of ‘profound lack of good judgement and professionalism’ on the fact that he knew the law and regulations on sexual harassment and used his judgement to produce the videos which could create – wait for it – a hostile work environment.
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 5:46 PM
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 5:46 PM
Probably. But that isn’t why he was relieved. If that were so, he would have been relieved 3-5 years ago.
He’s a sacrifice.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 5:48 PM
Trafalgar
Love the screen name, by the way. I’m a huge Nelson fan.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 5:49 PM
What a crock! I actually thought the videos were funny.
This is probably the one and only USN Capt. and carrier commander who had a sense of humor, and a connection with the people under his command. That is never, ever seen. The Navy doesn’t want that, but they want a bunch of flamers running around making waves for everyone else.
Without technology and big-ass, powerful weapons, our military would be a joke that couldn’t get out of their own way. I’m so happy my military career is over with because I sense I’d have more of an issue with my own side, than the enemy…
stacman on January 4, 2011 at 5:49 PM
The spinelessness of the Navy’s high command makes me want to puke. 4 years ago?
44Magnum on January 4, 2011 at 5:50 PM
Funny, too, because of the many who have come out in support of the exact opposite by stating that those videos actually improved morale.
Hostile work environment for what, one or two anonymous persons who have yet to come forward?
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 5:53 PM
Thanks! My dad was a Royal Navy officer and I’ve had a passion for all things Nelsonian since I read Mr. Midshipman Hornblower when I was 11. Think I can bore you with sexual harassment law? Just get me talking about Nelson!!!
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 5:54 PM
Unfortunately, as I pointed out in an earlier post, courts have held that even when nobody complains, if the behavior ‘could’ create a hostile work environment and ‘could’ make employees feel uncomfortable or threatened, it constitutes sexual harassment.
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 5:56 PM
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 5:54 PM
I visited Portsmouth a few years ago and took a tour of the Victory. Tremendous showing.
We were stationed in Rota for a couple of years as well, and drove by the cape south of Cadiz. May have to revisit someday.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 5:57 PM
I attended a Patrick O’Brian Weekend at the Royal Naval Dockyard in Portsmouth a few years ago. It included a special tour of Victory conducted by the current commanding officer and the highlight was a formal dinner on the lower gun deck with the keynote speech given by the Second Sea Lord, whose flagship is Victory. I was in heaven!
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 6:00 PM
Yes, and you excused the term “uncomfortable.”
Life at sea in a combat vessel is by nature “uncomfortable,” so the comparison is lacking.
Working in an office building is world’s away from shipboard life.
I don’t see how the two can be comparable rated, though I worry that we will find out soon enough, through lawsuits of this nature against servicemen, sadly.
Otis B on January 4, 2011 at 6:01 PM
And, in the context of this thread, Nelson did not have to deal with sexual harassment and lawyers, with his statement that “East of Gibraltar, all men are bachelors”!
Trafalgar on January 4, 2011 at 6:03 PM
Yeah, well it’s the Navy’s hypocritical double standard, not mine. Honor, Courage, Commitment … what about “Virtue”? I bet that word makes you laugh, too. Fact: the Navy makes no bones about using sex to control its subordinates. Nothing like a cheap child hooker in Thailand to make that deployment worth your while, right?
I hope the whole thing collapses under its PC weight and double-think. It is not worth saving.
StubbleSpark on January 4, 2011 at 6:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »