Jump to content

Captain of USS Roosevelt fired.


Recommended Posts

This continues to present a huge problem for all the world's navies:

https://news.usni.org/2020/04/15/two-u-s-sailors-on-french-carrier-charles-de-gaulle-test-positive-for-covid-19

A COVID-19 outbreak on French aircraft carrier FS Charles de Gaulle (R91) and its carrier strike group has ballooned from 50 positive cases last week to at least 668 today, with 31 service members hospitalized and one in intensive care.

The French Navy (Marine Nationale) began testing suspected COVID cases on the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier on April 8 and found 40 initial cases. On April 12 that figure had risen to 50 positive tests of out the 66 total tests performed.

Today, the French Navy announced it had tested 1,767 sailors from the carrier strike group, and 668 were positive for the virus. Another 530 tests results have not come back yet. The numbers are not broken down by ship, but the French Navy news release notes that “the vast majority of these tests concern sailors of the aircraft carrier,” according to a translation.

At least two American sailors are among the sick on Charles de Gaulle, though neither navy has elaborated on the severity of their conditions. Four American sailors are assigned to Charles de Gaulle as part of the Navy’s Personnel Exchange Program, which fully integrates the sailors into partner nations’ crews and operations, according to a U.S. Navy news release today. Two of those four tested positive for the disease.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 582
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

From the same source: “It prompted outrage online as people demanded he be reinstated. Many noted that the captain only received help after the letter was released to the public.” Maybe he k

The Navy recommends reinstating him. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/navy/494553-navy-recommends-reinstating-crozier-as-captain-of-uss-theodore-roosevelt   

Says you. I think the skipper made a different decision than you have. He made his decision based on his position, his history, and the available information. I think he said, "No, I cannot

Posted Images

Whoops.  What say you, bullshitters?

93829743_2927782297257154_51803548968969

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/493192-fired-captain-sent-memo-to-fewer-people-than-former-navy-head-alleged-report

 

Quote

The email from Capt. Brett Crozier was sent to three admirals and copied to seven other captains, according to a copy obtained by the Post, contradicting former acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly’s assertion it was sent to “20 or 30” people.

and the justification for removing him:

Quote

“It was copied to 20 or 30 other people," Modly said then. "That's just not acceptable. He did not take care and what that did is it created a little bit of a panic on the ship."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I dunno if it will ever come out in the wash, in the investigation, and I've said it before, but I think Modly was the leak. In his press conference where he fired Crozier he pointed out that the leak came from Crozier's 'hometown' newspaper. First, why point this out? Second, it wasn't even true. He's from Santa Rosa which is a good 55 miles north AND he delivered newspapers for his actual hometown newspaper. Modly strikes me as very loyal to his patron but like his patron, not very smart.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2020 at 5:47 PM, Desert Racer said:

That's why, IMHO - the US military, along with a handful of public service communities such as Fire, Police, EMT and such are essentially some of the last truly honorable professions left in the US.  Very few other professions have the work ethic, moral code and ethos for doing what's right instilled in them from the beginning.  Because almost anywhere else, chasing $$ is the holy grail and the whole reason for being.  Very few companies take care of their people like the above mentioned professions do.  

My friend worked EMT.  He was arrested on a misdemeanor charge.  He didn't hire me but asked for my advise.  I said enter a plea of not guilty.  He entered a plea of guilty.  He then asked, what should I do now?  Duh.

There are great people in every profession.  When you meet good ones you keep them in your life, whether they sell cars, hang drywall or put a stethoscope against your chest.  

Companies that succeed take care of their employees.  Employees are the life blood of the companies.

Nothing is more satisfying than a job well done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, hasher said:

 

Companies that succeed take care of their employees.  Employees are the life blood of the companies.

Nothing is more satisfying than a job well done.

The government today says it's the CEO's. Well a good CEO takes care of it's workers!

This country seems to have forgotten this ! Bravo Zulu =well done in the navy

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Not for nothing said:

The government today says it's the CEO's. Well a good CEO takes care of it's workers!

This country seems to have forgotten this ! Bravo Zulu =well done in the navy

 

Stories are told of patricians dying during the great depression.  Some threw their fortunes into the winds of a hurricane.  Some jumped out of the window.  All felt responsibility.

Since Raygun, greed is in style.  A golden parachute will help those who gave us the little don.

Fortunately, we can be sure the same nitwits will lead us out of here with the generosity of spirit and superior intellect that put us on the bottom of the curve.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, hasher said:

Stories are told of patricians dying during the great depression.  Some threw their fortunes into the winds of a hurricane.  Some jumped out of the window.  All felt responsibility.

Since Raygun, greed is in style.  A golden parachute will help those who gave us the little don.

Fortunately, we can be sure the same nitwits will lead us out of here with the generosity of spirit and superior intellect that put us on the bottom of the curve.

Cite? Especially where they all felt responsibility? And when, exactly, did greed start in style? Why do you hate the truth, Hasher?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Cite? Especially where they all felt responsibility? And when, exactly, did greed start in style? Why do you hate the truth, Hasher?

 

Perhaps I presume too much.  There are books.  Some magazines also contain great writing and a breadth of knowledge that astounds me.

If you are out of touch to what is obvious, it concerns me.

Do you know where cheese comes from or should I send you the information?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Desert Racer said:

No, it doesn't work that way.  The US military, if nothing, actually takes their Oath of office seriously.  POTUS would have to disband both Congress and the SCOTUS and put them up against a wall at the same time before the DOD would ever consider something like you would suggest.  The process would have to play out in the courts and in congress before we ever became banana-y.  

 

Nice fantasy.

The military, including top brass, is a mix of people with differing attitudes. Some are pretty obviously Yay-Trumpers.

It was blatantly illegal to off Gen. Soleimani, but he found guys who would do it. Not a peep from JCS, although the ones who accepted those orders may have been quietly reassigned.

Just the CBPS had a lot of officers who were enthusiastic about opening and running a concentration camp, I'm sure the miltary has a bunch of people who would enthusiastically plan and launch loyalty ops for Trump.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Nice fantasy.

The military, including top brass, is a mix of people with differing attitudes. Some are pretty obviously Yay-Trumpers.

It was blatantly illegal to off Gen. Soleimani, but he found guys who would do it. Not a peep from JCS, although the ones who accepted those orders may have been quietly reassigned.

Just the CBPS had a lot of officers who were enthusiastic about opening and running a concentration camp, I'm sure the miltary has a bunch of people who would enthusiastically plan and launch loyalty ops for Trump.

- DSK

By inference then, there should be people on the other side of the coin.  Those who felt the military, and therefore the nation, was threatened by Trump's incoherent leadership.   Those who would feel that Crozier's firing by a Trump appointee was over the top in terms of political interference in military affairs.  There must be some fed-up generals out there.  What is different now is that Trump has done things that would outrage any thinking person, left or right.  His lies become more blatant by the day.  That is the recipe for mutiny.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rain Man said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

... Just the CBPS had a lot of officers who were enthusiastic about opening and running a concentration camp, I'm sure the miltary has a bunch of people who would enthusiastically plan and launch loyalty ops for Trump.

 

By inference then, there should be people on the other side of the coin.  Those who felt the military, and therefore the nation, was threatened by Trump's incoherent leadership.   Those who would feel that Crozier's firing by a Trump appointee was over the top in terms of political interference in military affairs.  There must be some fed-up generals out there.  What is different now is that Trump has done things that would outrage any thinking person, left or right.  His lies become more blatant by the day.  That is the recipe for mutiny.  

Absolutely. Trump outrages every military principle. I'm sure many would prefer to remove him from office than suffer more of his idiocy and corrosive destruction of America.

However if the military divides against itself, that just means big-ass civil war sooner rather than later, with a lot more death and destruction than if it's just "civil unrest" while the military sits it out and waits for We The People to settle it amongst ourselves.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hasher said:

Perhaps I presume too much.  There are books.  Some magazines also contain great writing and a breadth of knowledge that astounds me.

If you are out of touch to what is obvious, it concerns me.

Do you know where cheese comes from or should I send you the information?

I think the real key here is that you think your posts are full of colorful language. They are not.  Ya know that great Geo Carlin riff about the even dumber half? He was talking about your half. Perhaps you're a functional human being in life but it doesn't really show in your communications. I don't think you're even capable of understanding criticism. Even your comebacks bounce off the margins.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Just the CBPS had a lot of officers who were enthusiastic about opening and running a concentration camp, I'm sure the miltary has a bunch of people who would enthusiastically plan and launch loyalty ops for Trump.

- DSK

I sorta hate myself for writing this, but if the Blob needs sycophants to carry out those dirty deeds, 

they need look no farther than the ranks of political scientists , , 

who, during the 2003 Iraq War of US Aggression demonstrated that they  

would cheerfully and dutifully stuff screaming humans into the ovens of doom 

if it meant that they could score a DOD grant or consultancy. 

There, I wrote it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

I think the real key here is that you think your posts are full of colorful language. They are not.  Ya know that great Geo Carlin riff about the even dumber half? He was talking about your half. Perhaps you're a functional human being in life but it doesn't really show in your communications. I don't think you're even capable of understanding criticism. Even your comebacks bounce off the margins.

Spouting off on the webs is one thing.

I hate what truth, crabby one?

Look at what wages have gone to for working people versus executives since the Raygun years.

Crawl off crab legs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hasher said:

Spouting off on the webs is one thing.

I hate what truth, crabby one?

Look at what wages have gone to for working people versus executives since the Raygun years.

Crawl off crab legs.

I stand humbled and humiliated sir.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Nice fantasy.

The military, including top brass, is a mix of people with differing attitudes. Some are pretty obviously Yay-Trumpers.

It was blatantly illegal to off Gen. Soleimani, but he found guys who would do it. Not a peep from JCS, although the ones who accepted those orders may have been quietly reassigned.

Just the CBPS had a lot of officers who were enthusiastic about opening and running a concentration camp, I'm sure the miltary has a bunch of people who would enthusiastically plan and launch loyalty ops for Trump.

- DSK

Why do you think this? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Executive Order 11905

(g) Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

In addition to it being illegal, it was stupid. Then your boy lied about the Iranian retaliation then lied again about an imminent attack ... last week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
12 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

... It was blatantly illegal to off Gen. Soleimani, but he found guys who would do it....   ...

- DSK

Why do you think this? 

Because it's illegal to kill people, -except- under very specific circumstances.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Because it's illegal to kill people, -except- under very specific circumstances.

OK - Do we agree that he was a uniformed soldier, operating in theater, in support of combatants that were engaged against our forces?  

No. Are we at war with Iran?

BTW it turned out that there were no "imminent attacks." That was just another Trump lie.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

No. Provide a finding which says otherwise.

There are plenty - do you prefer Pentagon statements, CNN transcripts?   How far back do we wanta go?   here's one from 2014 - http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1406/23/sitroom.02.html

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2049534/statement-by-the-department-of-defense/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50980093

That individual was responsible for planning, orchestrating, and coordinating attacks against our forces, and had been for a long time.   He was in Iraq, engaged in action against US forces at the time of his demise.   

You can pretend that because he was Iranian, and that we "aren't at war with Iran", that  that means that he wasn't a legitimate military target.  His presence in Iraq - his coordination & support of Iranian backed militia efforts make him a combatant.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

There are plenty - do you prefer Pentagon statements, CNN transcripts?   How far back do we wanta go?   here's one from 2014 - http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1406/23/sitroom.02.html

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2049534/statement-by-the-department-of-defense/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50980093

That individual was responsible for planning, orchestrating, and coordinating attacks against our forces, and had been for a long time.   He was in Iraq, engaged in action against US forces at the time of his demise.   

You can pretend that because he was Iranian, and that we "aren't at war with Iran", that  that means that he wasn't a legitimate military target.  His presence in Iraq - his coordination & support of Iranian backed militia efforts make him a combatant.  

 

You realize, that pretty much anyone the US Military doesn't like can fall into that bucket. Little Rocket Man? Check. 

Putin? Check (when we were in Syria)

On the battlefield, running Ops? Fair game. Getting off a plane for a diplomatic meeting?  I'd be nervous if I was a US theatre commander these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

There are plenty - do you prefer Pentagon statements, CNN transcripts?   How far back do we wanta go?   here's one from 2014 - http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1406/23/sitroom.02.html

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2049534/statement-by-the-department-of-defense/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50980093

That individual was responsible for planning, orchestrating, and coordinating attacks against our forces, and had been for a long time.   He was in Iraq, engaged in action against US forces at the time of his demise.   

You can pretend that because he was Iranian, and that we "aren't at war with Iran", that  that means that he wasn't a legitimate military target.  His presence in Iraq - his coordination & support of Iranian backed militia efforts make him a combatant.  

No, I don't have to pretend that he was Iranian nor do I have to pretend that we are not at war with Iran. He is and we aren't. However, you have to pretend that we hadn't allied with Soleimani and that this wasn't a political assassination at the direction of a politician similar to how a politician fired Crozier because base politics is all that matters to Shitstain.

And BTW, what your boy chose to do was illegal and it was stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

You realize, that pretty much anyone the US Military doesn't like can fall into that bucket. Little Rocket Man? Check. 

Putin? Check (when we were in Syria)

On the battlefield, running Ops? Fair game. Getting off a plane for a diplomatic meeting?  I'd be nervous if I was a US theatre commander these days.

Your point w/r/t the timing/location is valid.   Hitting him while he was with more than the single Militia leader would have been more palatable and politically acceptable. 

Soleimani's presence and activities, especially w/r/t his direct and continued support for and engagement with Iranian backed militias, specifically the one who'd attacked the US Embassy in the green zone, and the base in Kirkuk, still made him a valid target. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Your point w/r/t the timing/location is valid.   Hitting him while he was with more than the single Militia leader would have been more palatable and politically acceptable. 

Soleimani's presence and activities, especially w/r/t his direct and continued support for and engagement with Iranian backed militias, specifically the one who'd attacked the US Embassy in the green zone, and the base in Kirkuk, still made him a valid target. 

You realize that every German WW2 survivor planned & coordinated to kill American troops? Why don't we go after them?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

You realize that every German WW2 survivor planned & coordinated to kill American troops? Why don't we go after them?

 - DSK

Pretty big stretch - especially after a cessation of hostilities had been declared.  Until that point?  They would have been classified as combatants.  The timing was terrible, the value questionable at best, and the optics are rotten, but those things don't mean that the attack on Soleimani was illegal.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Pretty big stretch - especially after a cessation of hostilities had been declared.  Until that point?  They would have been classified as combatants.  The timing was terrible, the value questionable at best, and the optics are rotten, but those things don't mean that the attack on Soleimani was illegal.  

In the absence of a specific application of the rules of engagement, killing him was illegal.

The best info I can gather suggests rather strongly that the whole "imminent attacks" thing was bullshit. OTOH we've hit wedding parties, so maybe there is some double-secret probation rule that I don't know about. It is possible that, as you say, the killing of Soleimani was technically legal but incredibly stupid and of negative strategic value.

But until I see stronger evidence than Trumpian bullshit, my opinion will be that it was illegal under the laws of the USA as well as every other international agreement.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

In the absence of a specific application of the rules of engagement, killing him was illegal.

The best info I can gather suggests rather strongly that the whole "imminent attacks" thing was bullshit. OTOH we've hit wedding parties, so maybe there is some double-secret probation rule that I don't know about. It is possible that, as you say, the killing of Soleimani was technically legal but incredibly stupid and of negative strategic value.

But until I see stronger evidence than Trumpian bullshit, my opinion will be that it was illegal under the laws of the USA as well as every other international agreement.

 - DSK

Where did you pull the bolded part?  Please - tell me where local Rules of Engagement ( established completely by US BTW, to serve as guidance to  troops constraining how they act absent articulated commands ) equates to international law?   Here's a little primer that may help you distinguish between the two. 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/rules-of-engagement-military-directives

Read the cites - you don't have to publicly agree with me if you're worried about the groupthink peanut gallery tossin' you out for non-compliance.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
12 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

In the absence of a specific application of the rules of engagement, killing him was illegal.

The best info I can gather suggests rather strongly that the whole "imminent attacks" thing was bullshit. OTOH we've hit wedding parties, so maybe there is some double-secret probation rule that I don't know about. It is possible that, as you say, the killing of Soleimani was technically legal but incredibly stupid and of negative strategic value.

But until I see stronger evidence than Trumpian bullshit, my opinion will be that it was illegal under the laws of the USA as well as every other international agreement.

 - DSK

Where did you pull the bolded part?  Please - tell me where local Rules of Engagement ( established completely by US BTW, to serve as guidance to  troops constraining how they act absent articulated commands ) equates to international law?   Here's a little primer that may help you distinguish between the two. 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/rules-of-engagement-military-directives

Read the cites - you don't have to publicly agree with me if you're worried about the groupthink peanut gallery tossin' you out for non-compliance.  

Nice article, thanks for the link. But it basically confirms what I was taught in boot camp ("taught" being somewhat of a euphemism I'm sure you understand) that even in a declared war, a soldier cannot simply kill any and everybody within reach of his weapon(s).

(quote from the above link, with thanks to Encylopedia Britannica, links left in place to help support them): Rules of engagement (ROE), military directives meant to describe the circumstances under which ground, naval, and air forces will enter into and continue combat with opposing forces. Formally, rules of engagement refer to the orders issued by a competent military authority that delineate when, where, how, and against whom military force may be used, and they have implications for what actions soldiers may take on their own authority and what directives may be issued by a commanding officer. Rules of engagement are part of a general recognition that procedures and standards are essential to the conduct and effectiveness of civilized warfare.....

Rules of engagement must be consistent ... They might describe appropriate action regarding unarmed mobs, the property of local civilians, the use of force in self-defense, the returning of hostile fire, the taking of prisoners, the level of hostility (that is, whether the country is at war)...

Get exclusive access to content from our 1768 First Edition with your subscription. Subscribe today

Since the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings, a caveat has been added to American rules of engagement to state that all personnel have an inherent right of self-defense. Peacetime rules of engagement (PROE) were also developed that differentiated hostile acts versus hostile intent and also emphasized that a response must be appropriate to the level of threat. Prior to the development of PROE, rules of engagement had only served to inform wartime actions; such directives were then distinguished as WROE. In 1994 PROE were replaced by Joint Chiefs of Staff standing ROE (JCS SROE), which mandate that the use of force must also be consistent with international law.

In other words, you can't just kill people because they are a general from a country you hate.

1- as I stated, US armed forces draft their ROE within the boundaries of international law.

2- The justification of killing Soleimani in self-defense has been (to the best that I can determine) shown false

So, I hope you'll understand why I continue to stand by MHO that killing Soleimani was illegal. The men who carried out those orders may have believed one or another legal justification, but further up the chain of command rests the inescapable responsibility.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Nice article, thanks for the link. But it basically confirms what I was taught in boot camp ("taught" being somewhat of a euphemism I'm sure you understand) that even in a declared war, a soldier cannot simply kill any and everybody within reach of his weapon(s).

 (quote from the above link, with thanks to Encylopedia Britannica, links left in place to help support them): Rules of engagement (ROE), military directives meant to describe the circumstances under which ground, naval, and air forces will enter into and continue combat with opposing forces. Formally, rules of engagement refer to the orders issued by a competent military authority that delineate when, where, how, and against whom military force may be used, and they have implications for what actions soldiers may take on their own authority and what directives may be issued by a commanding officer. Rules of engagement are part of a general recognition that procedures and standards are essential to the conduct and effectiveness of civilized warfare.....

Rules of engagement must be consistent ... They might describe appropriate action regarding unarmed mobs, the property of local civilians, the use of force in self-defense, the returning of hostile fire, the taking of prisoners, the level of hostility (that is, whether the country is at war)...

Get exclusive access to content from our 1768 First Edition with your subscription. Subscribe today

Since the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings, a caveat has been added to American rules of engagement to state that all personnel have an inherent right of self-defense. Peacetime rules of engagement (PROE) were also developed that differentiated hostile acts versus hostile intent and also emphasized that a response must be appropriate to the level of threat. Prior to the development of PROE, rules of engagement had only served to inform wartime actions; such directives were then distinguished as WROE. In 1994 PROE were replaced by Joint Chiefs of Staff standing ROE (JCS SROE), which mandate that the use of force must also be consistent with international law.

In other words, you can't just kill people because they are a general from a country you hate.

1- as I stated, US armed forces draft their ROE within the boundaries of international law.

2- The justification of killing Soleimani in self-defense has been (to the best that I can determine) shown false

So, I hope you'll understand why I continue to stand by MHO that killing Soleimani was illegal. The men who carried out those orders may have believed one or another legal justification, but further up the chain of command rests the inescapable responsibility.

- DSK

You're right, but, that's NOT what happened in Soleimani's case - he was actively engaged in actions against our troops - by that definition, he IS a legal combatant.    I think we agree that the timing of the attack, and the value of its outcome are questionable at best - but, those things don't negate his status as a combatant commander.  There had been 2 attacks on US & Iraqi troops, carried out by the militia that he supported with training, coordination, intelligence and logistical support in the weeks immediately preceding his termination.  

I think that the wording of the "imminent attack" justification was poorly done - that his past behavior and stated intentions were sufficient to justify the outcome.

I appreciate your perspective in disagreeing w/the attack - where we diverge is that I think the suggestion that it was illegal is incorrect. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Shitstain's report to Congress on the assassination. It doesn't mention any imminent attack. At very best it can be described as a revenge killing, or in its words, in response to.

https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/4/3/4362ca46-3a7d-43e8-a3ec-be0245705722/6E1A0F30F9204E380A7AD0C84EC572EC.doc148.pdf

Revenge is good. Ask me what I think about OBL getting ventilated or Gaddafi coming to a bad end. Go ahead. It's just when it's stupid that I have a problem, and then lying on top of stupidity is like an oak leaf cluster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
29 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

So, I hope you'll understand why I continue to stand by MHO that killing Soleimani was illegal. The men who carried out those orders may have believed one or another legal justification, but further up the chain of command rests the inescapable responsibility.

- DSK

You're right, but, that's NOT what happened in Soleimani's case - he was actively engaged in actions against our troops - by that definition, he IS a legal combatant.    I think we agree that the timing of the attack, and the value of its outcome are questionable at best - but, those things don't negate his status as a combatant commander.  There had been 2 attacks on US & Iraqi troops, carried out by the militia that he supported with training, coordination, intelligence and logistical support in the weeks immediately preceding his termination.  

I think that the wording of the "imminent attack" justification was poorly done - that his past behavior and stated intentions were sufficient to justify the outcome.

I appreciate your perspective in disagreeing w/the attack - where we diverge is that I think the suggestion that it was illegal is incorrect.  

 

If you can present some new knowledge about Soleimani's involvement in attacks that would change his status.

"Attacks supported by militia that he supported" is two steps removed from him being an enemy combatant. And a time differential of "weeks" is certainly not "imminent."

In other words, killing Soleimani is more like killing a former German WW2 soldier than it is the killing of an enemy combatant. If he was in Iran  directing training or distributing supplies to anti-US militia, that STILL would be one step removed from him being an "enemy combatant."

But here's the key- I understand that you think of him as an enemy, and enemies should be killed. But the fact remains that killing is ILLEGAL unless it is specifically justifiable under law.

As an example, a co-worker back when I lived in Florida shot and killed a robber one morning. He had gone into a convenience store and interrupted an armed robbery in progress, and shot the robber in the back of the head. He then made sure the store clerk was OK, then drove to work where he asked to use the office phone to call the cops. The sheriff came by and interviewed him, he was never charged.

That killing was legal.

As I understand it, the killing of Soleimani falls outside the specifics of legality.

If you present info that changes my opinion, I'd say so publicly.

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It turns out Ex Acting SecNAV Modly was at minimum vastly overstating the rationale he had for firing Crozier in the first place. From Task and Purpose:

Talking to the press at the Pentagon after he announced his decision to relieve Crozier of his command, Modly accused the captain of sending the letter out "over non-secure, unclassified email." He said that the captain should not have sent a "blast-out email to anybody who he knows about the situation."

The former acting Navy secretary added the email was "copied to 20 or 30 other people."

Asked specifically if Crozier was being "relieved because he CC'd too many people," Modly replied, "To me, that demonstrated extremely poor judgment in the middle of a crisis."

But the email, to which the captain's four-page letter was attached, appears to have been sent to only 10 people in total, The Washington Post, which obtained a copy of the email, reported Thursday.

It was sent to Crozier's immediate boss, Rear Adm. Stuart Baker, U.S. Pacific Fleet commander Adm. John Aquilino, and Vice Adm. DeWolfe Miller, who oversees all Pacific naval air forces. Crozier, according to The Post, then copied the message to only seven other people, all of whom were fellow U.S. Navy captains.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2020 at 8:37 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

OK - Do we agree that he was a uniformed soldier, operating in theater, in support of combatants that were engaged against our forces?  

No to all three - Jeez you guys from the Blob are tough!

And "In Theater" in a country in which the views of the darker skinned inhabitants count for squat.  

On 4/17/2020 at 9:19 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Hitting him while he was with more than the single Militia leader would have been more palatable

WTF does this mean. Soleimani was in the company of TWO high ranking Iraqi govt. officials 

What ghoulish reasons can you proffer to off them as well? 

And the REAL blowback will come from those deaths 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Are they going to apologize to him and make amends by firing Modly out a 16" gun into lower earth orbit?

Forget an apology.  Give him his first star.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mid said:

TBH , I don't see how he could just go back to his old position .

As a civilian, he seems to be exactly the kind of person I would want running a ship like that.  Cares about his crew, willing to question the actions of his superiors, stoic, takes his medicine without complaint.  Are there a lot of people of his calibre around willing and able to do a job like that?  I'd be surprised.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

As a civilian, he seems to be exactly the kind of person I would want running a ship like that.  Cares about his crew, willing to question the actions of his superiors, stoic, takes his medicine without complaint.  Are there a lot of people of his calibre around willing and able to do a job like that?  I'd be surprised.  

no argument , just that things have changed and frankly he deserves more than just his old job back .

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mid said:

TBH , I don't see how he could just go back to his old position .

He should be asked, as should every other honest public servant who got the flick because they were not willing to bullshit for this gang of shitheels. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Are they going to apologize to him and make amends by firing Modly out a 16" gun into lower earth orbit?

North Korean style, just make him stand in front of it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, folks, Shitstain may try to fire Crozier again. Seriously, Shitstain is completely utterly whacknoodle bonkers, in hock to the Russians and now  apparently in hock to the Chinese as well, although Jeff will be along shortly to remind us that at least we don't have Hillary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Uh, folks, Shitstain may try to fire Crozier again. Seriously, Shitstain is completely utterly whacknoodle bonkers, in hock to the Russians and now  apparently in hock to the Chinese as well, although Jeff will be along shortly to remind us that at least we don't have Hillary.

Don't forget the Turks and the Arabs. Turnip's in deep. I see another bankruptcy in his future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Don't forget the Turks and the Arabs. Turnip's in deep. I see another bankruptcy in his future.

We all do - but it's the USA this time, not a cheesy casino.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Don't forget the Turks and the Arabs. Turnip's in deep. I see another bankruptcy in his future.

 An interesting thought. Won't help him if he's deep in Russians/Arab et al shady money-laundering though. Bankruptcy protects borrowers against lenders but not gangsters.  "In Russia, bank rupture you." 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure Deutsche Bank was the model for the bank in "The International", not just the BCCI .

A really good movie by the way. The gun battle at the Guggenheim was a little over the top but the morality play was excellent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2020 at 1:15 PM, Mark K said:

 An interesting thought. Won't help him if he's deep in Russians/Arab et al shady money-laundering though. Bankruptcy protects borrowers against lenders but not gangsters.  "In Russia, bank rupture you." 

Haha, funny but so true!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 4/8/2020 at 12:38 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Withheld from who?   Do you think that YOU are the only appropriate arbiter of wrong and right?   I’m not bustin your stones, but I think that you do lack an understanding of the accountability standards that the military holds itself to.  
if you think I’m missing something you intend, then spell it out - I don’t intend that anyone accept what I say simply because I said it - but I won’t afford consideration to anyone who’d discount what I say just because I said it either. 

These accountability standards you speak of are notoriously low. Military organisations everywhere are right up there with cops when it come to Protecting their Own.

Do you really think anything would have happened about Abu Graib if it hadn't been sensationally leaked? Even when it was they sacrificed a few grunts, and all the important people skated.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

These accountability standards you speak of are notoriously low. Military organisations everywhere are right up there with cops when it come to Protecting their Own.

Do you really think anything would have happened about Abu Graib if it hadn't been sensationally leaked? Even when it was they sacrificed a few grunts, and all the important people skated.

You're quite welcome to think whatever you want to.  I know better, and the VERY few sensational cases that make the media don't discount the overwhelming majority of professional individuals who are accountable and who do hold those around them accountable for appropriate behavioral standards.  Maligning a whole group because of the actions of a minority is called what? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You're quite welcome to think whatever you want to.  I know better, and the VERY few sensational cases that make the media don't discount the overwhelming majority of professional individuals who are accountable and who do hold those around them accountable for appropriate behavioral standards.  Maligning a whole group because of the actions of a minority is called what? 

 

Being a Republican? What do I win?

”they send us their rapists, their criminals...”

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What do ya win?  How 'bout a kick in the nuts? 

 

As Mom used to say, paraphrased,“ if you don’t want to be known as a racist idiot, don’t hang out with racist idiots.”

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You're quite welcome to think whatever you want to.  I know better, and the VERY few sensational cases that make the media don't discount the overwhelming majority of professional individuals who are accountable and who do hold those around them accountable for appropriate behavioral standards.  

Yeah, the CIA part of the Blob did such a great job of investigating and prosecuting their own torturers.  

Oh, wait. 

(I sort of like it that Chessie has me on ignore. Gives me the last word) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Yeah, the CIA part of the Blob did such a great job of investigating and prosecuting their own torturers.  

Oh, wait. 

(I sort of like it that Chessie has me on ignore. Gives me the last least word) 

FIFY

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dr. Blue Crab said:

FIFY

Gee, my very own interweb stalker. 

How cute. 

But no physical threats for a while, so I guess that is sorta progress. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Of course - "you should shun and belittle everyone who's not like you".   

 

Do you mean become a goper?  No thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Of course - "you should shun and belittle everyone who's not like you".   

 

I don't think that's what he said......

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Of course - "you should shun and belittle everyone who's not like you".   

 

Nah, but I will certainly point out their inconsistencies, and if they hang out with racists, well, I'll have to assume they're racist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Of course - "you should shun and belittle everyone who's not like you".   

 

No, just the racists and unapologetically stupid.  Also the misogynists and homophobes that seek to inflict their fears on others.   Oh, also religious bigots and hypocrites.    Maybe the superstitious, flat earthers and climate denialists as well  Also the anti maskers.    Oh, almost forgot those that feel the need to pack an arsenal since they are unable to defend themselves against little children.    Other then that, I celebrate the nutjobs that aren’t like me.   Mostly.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You're quite welcome to think whatever you want to.  I know better, and the VERY few sensational cases that make the media don't discount the overwhelming majority of professional individuals who are accountable and who do hold those around them accountable for appropriate behavioral standards.  Maligning a whole group because of the actions of a minority is called what? 

Ah yes. "Just a few bad eggs". I am happy to agree that they were all there stuck with an impossible job in very trying conditions, but the blame-dodging culture they use to protect themselves also protects the politicians who sent them.

I see your "maligning a whole group because of the actions of a minority", and raise you a "birds of a feather flock together".

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dr. Blue Crab said:

Ollie, you're a fucking idiot. 

Ah, the usual pearls of wisdom from the Doc.  

You are a Doc of Whut ?  

Lame trash talk ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lark said:

No, just the racists and unapologetically stupid.  Also the misogynists and homophobes that seek to inflict their fears on others.   Oh, also religious bigots and hypocrites.    Maybe the superstitious, flat earthers and climate denialists as well  Also the anti maskers.    Oh, almost forgot those that feel the need to pack an arsenal since they are unable to defend themselves against little children.    Other then that, I celebrate the nutjobs that aren’t like me.   Mostly.:)

Don’t forget the anti-vaxxers. They serve a shit-ton of scorn and derision.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

I will not reassign Captain Brett Crozier as the commanding officer of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, nor will he be eligible for future command. Captain Crozier will be reassigned.

Not sure what that means but it seems to me like he was uncomfortably speaking someone else's words.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olsonist said:

I will not reassign Captain Brett Crozier as the commanding officer of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, nor will he be eligible for future command. Captain Crozier will be reassigned.

Not sure what that means but it seems to me like he was uncomfortably speaking someone else's words.

Oh yes. Undoubtedly someone in the White House spoke to someone at the Pentagon and suddenly everybody's minds were changed. Trump needs to be reassigned to the heart of the sun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest