Pentagon chief fires Navy secretary over SEAL controversy
WOW!!
0
-
Everybody has a boss.
Some just need to be reminded who it is.
0 -
Could not believe that they were going to take away that Seal's honors because he took a selfie with a dead bomb maker. That man won his Trident WAY before. That is his hard won honor. 0 -
US Military Guy wrote:Everybody has a boss.
Some just need to be reminded who it is.
^^^^THIS^^^^^ and in this case, the President of the United States is THE BOSS of all in the US Military Service. Generals and Admirals should NEVER forget they took/followed ordered to attain the rank they hold.0 -
They mishandled the whole thing from the get-go. The Navy Sec should know when to keep his mouth shut and keep the officers inline and if he cannot do he needs to go.
If he felt that strongly he should have resigned over it and not run his face, same with the Admirals.0 -
Cornflk1 wrote:Could not believe that they were going to take away that Seal's honors because he took a selfie with a dead bomb maker. That man won his Trident WAY before. That is his hard won honor.
Agreed 100%.
That Man won his Honors and Trident, through Blood, Sweat and Tears. A Man's Man.0 -
He tried to back door his boss. Went straight to Trump and stated he would not let the Seal lose the award and didn't tell HIS boss Asper that he had communicated the info to Trump office.
Just one of his bad decisions. His departing letter indicates his true feelings. He was part of the swamp.
EDIT: The ah just won't shut up. Just keeps digging his grave.
https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/ousted-navy-secretary-says-trumps-012304253.html0 -
Draining the swamp....to be continued. 0 -
Does the pledge of allegiance and the military oath say something about the president - the commander in chief of our armed forces...
What was that phrase again???
Hmm...
Mike0 -
mrmike08075 wrote:Does the pledge of allegiance and the military oath say something about the president - the commander in chief of our armed forces...
What was that phrase again???
Hmm...
Mike
Well Trump had a Television Series named Apprentice and used "Your Fired" everywhere ! It's getting surreal up there in D.C. Poor Guy is still in his own world. How many people have left his administration? Dozens I bet!
serfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crmvHJpCkfM0 -
serf wrote:mrmike08075 wrote:Does the pledge of allegiance and the military oath say something about the president - the commander in chief of our armed forces...
What was that phrase again???
Hmm...
Mike
Well Trump had a Television Series named Apprentice and used "Your Fired" everywhere ! It's getting surreal up there in D.C. Poor Guy is still in his own world. How many people have left his administration? Dozens I bet!
serfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crmvHJpCkfM
Serf, one of these days you and all the libtards will suddenly remember that the Donald is a master of the Reality TV genre and his entire campaign and Presidency has been scripted to provide Circus to the masses.0 -
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Oh there it is...
Can I ask a stupid question???
If the seal violated the UCMJ or his oath or committed a war crime while on active duty in a combat theatre why was he tried in a civilian court...
If due process is valid and the constitution is valid and double jeopardy applies and he was acquired of all charges brought against him - how can he still be punished with loss of rank and loss of benefits and be stripped of qualifications???
Why was he not court marshalled and convicted by a board of officers and sent to levanworth.
Where is jag Corp in this - who brought the charges - please explain this clusterfluff to me as I do not understand...
The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States of America and he has the power to pardon...
I don't understand.
Mike0 -
This is worth reading - though I know many of you fully understand the implications and interpretations and have a close personal professional understanding of this matter...
My hardbound copy is from 1958 and another from 1972 so they both may be a bit out of date at this point...
For those of you who have served I still thought this might interest you.
Again I don't believe in unthinking obedience to the orders of senior officers or the president - the Nuremberg trials settled that issue in case someone here thinks different - cause we don't want concentration camps with bodies burned in ovens and mass genocide and other such trivialities...
Mike
By General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., USMC
Preface
By MG Frederick M. Padilla, USMC
Chapter 1 | The Commission and the Oath
Chapter 2 | The Profession of Arms
Chapter 3 | The Officer in the Profession of Arms
Chapter 4 | The Officer at Work: The Ethical Use of Force
Chapter 5 | The Officer at Work: Leadership
Chapter 6 | The Officer at Work: Command
Chapter 7 | The Officer and Society: The Vertical Dimension
Chapter 8 | The Officer and Society: The Horizontal Dimension
Chapter 9 | Service Identity and Joint Warfighting
Chapter 10 | The Armed Forces Officer
Appendix A | Founding Documents: The Declaration of Independence
Appendix A | Founding Documents: The Constitution of the United States
Appendix B | Authorizing Statues for the Armed Forces
Appendix C | Service Values of the Armed Forces
Appendix D | Code of Conduct for Members of the United States Armed Forces
The Armed Forces Officer
Chapter 1 | The Commission and the Oath
By Richard M. Swain and Albert C. Pierce The Armed Forces Officer
17
PRINT | E-MAIL
April 17, 2017 ?DOWNLOAD PDF
You become an officer in the Armed Forces of the United States by accepting a commission and swearing the oath of support for the Constitution required by Article VI of ?all executive and judicial Officers [the President excepted], both of the United States and of the several states.?1 The commission and the oath constitute an individual moral commitment and common ethical instruction. They legitimize the officer?s trade and provide the basis of the shared ethic of commissioned leadership that binds the American military into an effective and loyal fighting force. They are the foundation of the trust safely placed in the Armed Forces by the American people. The commission and oath unite all Armed Forces officers in a common undertaking of service to the Nation.
The Commission
Though the paths taken to the tender of a Federal military commission are various, the form of the document is common among the Armed Forces, save for the fact that each reflects appointment in a particular branch of the Armed Forces (Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, or Coast Guard). The commission is granted under the President?s powers in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution. It is a notice of appointment, a grant of executive authority, and an admonition for obedience. It is bestowed, the commission says, because of the ?special trust and confidence? reposed by the President ?in the patriotism, valor, fidelity and abilities? of the appointee. The officer is enjoined to ?carefully and diligently discharge the duties? of his or her office. Subordinates are charged to render the obedience due an officer of his or her station. The officer is admonished to ?observe and follow such orders and directions . . . as may be given by? the President or the President?s successors, ?or other Superior Officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America [emphasis added].?2 No grant of professional discretion exempts any Armed Forces officer from the obligation to act within the confines of the law.
The form of the commission document remains much like that granted by the Continental Congress to officers of the Continental Army during the American Revolution.3 The wording of the current commission replaces the 1777 conduct with abilities.4 By way of comparison, Article I of the 1775 ?Rules for the Regulation of the Navy of the United States Colonies of North America? reads: ?The Commanders of all ships and vessels belonging to the thirteen United Colonies are strictly required to show themselves a good example of honor and virtue to their officers and men.?5
The Armed Forces of the United States depend for their success, indeed for their existence, on a web of trust beginning with that between them and the American people and their government. The President expects the officer to live up to the expectations expressed in the commission. The people depend upon the Armed Forces for their security in a dangerous world. They provide their sons and daughters as Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, Airmen, and Coastguardsmen, in trust that their lives will be risked reluctantly and expended parsimoniously only as required for important tasks. They expect the leaders and members of their Armed Forces to be both effective and accountable before the law and public opinion. The people pay their taxes in order to ensure the safety of the Nation. Notably, providing for ?the common defense? precedes promoting ?the general welfare? as a founding purpose in the preamble of the Constitution.
In return for their investment, the American people expect reliable, effective, honorable, and efficient performance. They demand military leaders who demonstrate high standards of character and competence and who conduct themselves in a manner that reflects basic principles of integrity, justice, and fairness toward all subordinates.6 When these expectations are disappointed, the people and their government withhold the trust, resources, and discretionary latitude the Services enjoy in more normal times. Equally important, when a lack of public trust becomes evident, the morale of Servicemembers suffers. Military men and women question the value of their sacrifices, the worth of their cause, and trust in their leaders. Discipline becomes problematic.7
In 1950, S.L.A. Marshall began the first edition of The Armed Forces Officer with a chapter titled ?The Meaning of Your Commission.? His opening sentences read as follows:
Upon being commissioned in the Armed Services of the United States, a man incurs a lasting obligation to cherish and protect his country and to develop within himself that capacity and reserve strength which will enable him to serve its arms and the welfare of his fellow Americans with increasing wisdom, diligence, and patriotic conviction. This is the meaning of his commission.8
Lingering over the implications of the four virtues to which the President attests, Marshall gave pride of place to fidelity, discounting patriotism, which he had largely defined in his opening sentence because, he said, it could be assumed. Valor he set aside because it remained unknown until it was tested. Abilities depended on individual nature. ?Fidelity,? he asserted, ?is the derivative of personal decision . . . the jewel within reach of every man who has the will to possess it.?9
Patriotism, the zealous devotion to one?s own country, is a suspect virtue today, more credible when recognized by others than when self-proclaimed. Samuel Johnson?s assertion that patriotism represents the last refuge of the scoundrel seems too often justified in the conduct of the professionally patriotic. If experience teaches the unwisdom of Marshall?s too easy presumption of patriotism by the officer, its recognition by others?the public and those with whom one has influence?should remain an important aspiration of every Armed Forces officer. Evident and motivating love of country is the beginning of authority?s legitimacy.
Valor represents the virtue, or quality of mind, that enables a person to face danger with boldness or firmness. It is an essential if not sufficient requirement of any who would aspire to lead those intended to go into harm?s way. Marshall may have been correct that valor remains unknown until tested. If so, officers would do well to examine themselves to the extent practicable and, by repeated experience and reflection, gain confidence in their own measure.
On the other hand, contrary to Marshall?s view, abilities, or the ?power or skill to do something,? are subject to training and improvement. Abilities can be enhanced. Abilities become capabilities or capacities through practice and application. Demonstrated abilities, not least a certain athleticism for what is a physically demanding calling, may be the basis for initial commissioning, but the officer remains under obligation to extend his or her inherent abilities to their maximum potential. Perhaps the ability of intellectual growth is the most important, which returns us to Marshall?s foremost virtue, fidelity.
Of the four commissioning virtues, Marshall preferred fidelity because he saw that it was a matter of individual choice or will. The Oxford English Dictionary defines fidelity as ?the quality of being faithful; faithfulness, loyalty, unswerving allegiance to a person, party, bond, etc. [emphasis added].? Fidelity is the foundation of the various strands of trust that mark the relationships of the Armed Forces officer. It means the officer will stand fast in the face of hardship and danger. Fidelity, faithfulness to the Constitution, binds the officer to the Nation and the people the officer serves. Fidelity to the Service, and to those in superior command, ensures discipline and reliability. Fidelity to the men and women entrusted to the officer?s care is the basis of esprit and collective performance. At its most basic level, it is acceptance of the primacy of duty in all things.
The Oath
Acceptance of the commission is conditional upon execution of the constitutional oath. The commissioning oath is an individual commitment, made freely, publicly, and without mental reservation, to support and defend the compact that forms the United States ?against all enemies foreign and domestic; to bear true faith and allegiance to the same,? and, echoing the commission, to ?well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.?10 The current form of the officer?s oath is found in Title 5, ?Government Organization and Employees,? of the U.S. Code; the enlisted member?s oath of enlistment is in Title 10, ?Armed Forces.? The form of the oath has changed over time, most notably during the Civil War and its aftermath, as the Congress of the United States sought to protect itself, in the first place, from a repeat of officers and officials ?going South,? and also to keep former Confederate officials out of government.11
Marshall had less to say about the oath of office than the commission, though he observed in his discussion of esprit that
the interesting and important thing that happens to a man when he enters military service is that, the moment he takes the oath, loyalty to the arms he bears ranks first on the list, above all other loyalties. . . . In his life, service to country is no longer a beautiful abstraction; it is the sternly concrete and unremitting obligation of service to the regiment, the group or the ship?s company. . . . In this radical reorientation of the individual life and the arbitrary imposition of a commanding loyalty is to be found the key to the esprit of any military organization.12
There are stark differences between the undertaking of the civil servant who subscribes to the constitutional oath and the military officer who does the same to activate a military commission. Notably, while both the commission and oath involve, on the one hand, the admonition for careful and diligent discharge of duties and, on the other, a commitment ?to well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office,? both are silent as to what those duties might encompass beyond the shared purpose of protecting and defending the Constitution. But it is precisely the nature of the task that makes Armed Forces officers unique among executive officers of the government.
The military oath is implicitly a commitment to what a British general, Sir John Hackett, called ?the ordered application of force under an unlimited liability.?13 The military man or woman may be called upon at any time to perform duties under conditions not only of great discomfort, but also of threat of serious injury, loss of limb, or death. Officers? particular duty, or at least that which defines their corps, is the leadership and direction of men and women in the disciplined use of lethal force (or the threat thereof), in the pursuit of purposes sanctioned by the state and legal under the Constitution and in international law. The Supreme Court of the United States has observed: ?An army is not a deliberative body. It is an executive arm. Its law is that of obedience. No question can be left open as to the right of command in the officer, or the duty of obedience in the soldier.?14
The ?Otherness? of Officers
Not only in the United States, but also within the armed forces of other established nation-states, the officer corps generally exists as a body apart from the enlisted force. Commissioned officers are intentionally different. General Hackett observed that, to underscore the officer?s right to command:
there is in armies a tendency to set up an officer group with an otherness as a step towards or if necessary even in some degree a replacement of, the betterness you require. The officer is set apart, clothed differently and given distinguishing marks. His greater responsibilities are rewarded with greater privileges. There is some insistence on a show of respect. He is removed from that intimate contact with the men under his command which can throw such a strain upon the relationship of subordination.15
In the United States, Armed Forces officers are set apart as a group within the wider profession of arms: in uniform, insignia, formal respect required, authority assigned, responsibility, and limitations on appropriate interaction with other members. The commission document, the unique form of appointment, is one of these distinguishing features and has already been addressed. The salute is a required greeting of senior officers, rendered by subordinates, enlisted and commissioned alike; likewise, the use of certain forms of address, such as Sir or Ma?am, is an obligatory sign of respect. An officer?s authority is underwritten by the Uniform Code of Military Justice in the severity of punishment for offenses committed against commissioned officers in execution of their office.16 Indicative of differences in responsibility, there are offenses in the Uniform Code of Military Justice that only an officer can commit; most notably, these are Article 88, ?Contempt for officials,? and Article 133, ?Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman? (one of the few remaining couplings of the terms ?officer? and ?gentleman?).
Among the U.S. Armed Forces, the Marine Corps is the most eloquent in defining the ?otherness of officers.? In the Marine Corps Manual, the core document of the Marine Corps, paragraph 1100, ?Leadership,? includes the following:
The special trust and confidence, which is expressly reposed in officers by their commission, is the distinguishing privilege of the officer corps. It is the policy of the Marine Corps that this privilege be tangible and real; it is the corresponding obligation of the officer corps that it be wholly deserved.
(1) As an accompanying condition commanders will impress upon all subordinate officers the fact that the presumption of integrity, good manners, sound judgment, and discretion, which is the basis for the special trust and confidence reposed in each officer, is jeopardized by the slightest transgression on the part of any member of the officer corps. Any offense, however minor, will be dealt with promptly, and with sufficient severity to impress on the officer at fault, and on the officer corps. Dedication to the basic elements of special trust and confidence is a Marine officer?s obligation to the officer corps as a whole, and transcends the bonds of personal friendship.
(2) As a further and continuing action, commanders are requested to bring to the attention of higher authority, referencing this paragraph, any situation, policy, directive, or procedure which contravenes the spirit of this paragraph, and which is not susceptible to local correction.17
Whereas General Hackett looked to institutional ?otherness? to act in place of a ?betterness? that justified command, the American Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall saw the origin of the officer?s prestige as derived from the ?exceptional and unremitting responsibility,? which is his or her lot, and he saw that the importance of this esteem and trust was one of the reasons the Services placed emphasis on personal honor. ?They know,? Marshall wrote, ?that the future of our arms and the well-being of our people depend upon a constant renewing and strengthening of public faith in the virtue of the [officer] corps.?18 Marshall observed as well that ?while he continues to serve honorably, it [the Nation] will sustain him and will clothe him with its dignity [emphasis added].?19 In short, the Nation will bestow on the officer the authority to command his or her fellow citizens.
The Army tends to follow Marshall, adding to responsibility the attribute of specialized knowledge, and writes the following in its leadership reference manual:
2-6. Officers are essential to the Army?s organization to command units, establish policy, and manage resources while balancing risks and caring for their people and families. . . .
2-7. Serving as an officer differs from other forms of Army leadership by the quality and breadth of expert knowledge required, in the measure of responsibility attached, and in the magnitude of the consequences of inaction or ineffectiveness. . . . While officers depend on the counsel, technical skill, maturity, and experience of subordinates to translate their orders into action, the ultimate responsibility for mission success or failure resides with the officer in charge.20
All the Services have explicit policies on improper relationships, or fraternization, between ranks, intended to maintain good order and discipline by forbidding certain transactions and relationships between the different classes of membership.
Society?s respect for the professional officer is conditioned on reliable, effective, honorable, and efficient performance of duty. As General William T. Sherman warned officers attending the new School of Application for Infantry and Cavalry at Fort Leavenworth in October 1882:
No other profession holds out to the worthy so certain a reward for intelligence and fidelity, no people on earth so generously and willingly accord to the soldier the most exalted praise for heroic conduct in action, or for long and faithful service, as do the people of the United States; nor does any other people so overwhelmingly cast away those who fail at the critical moment, or who betray their trusts.21
The military ethic is a warrior ethic and the military ethos is a warrior ethos, a point made clear by the Soldier?s Creed, the Marine Hymn, the Sailor?s Creed, and the Airman?s Creed. This seems unlikely to change, even in the era of cyber-conflict and unmanned attack aircraft. In 2003, American journalist William Pfaff wrote in his essay ?The Honorable Absurdity of the Soldier?s Role? that the soldier?s lot ?is inherently and voluntarily a tragic role, an undertaking to offer one?s life, and to assume the right to take the lives of others. . . . The intelligent soldier recognizes that the two undertakings are connected. His warrant to kill is integrally related to his willingness to die.?22 When one is not willing to go into harm?s way, he or she is not a soldier but a technician of death, or just a technician. A defining moral quality is absent. The military ethic is based on a commitment to disciplined service under conditions of unlimited liability, whether or not one has a military occupational specialty that involves combat.23
The year following Pfaff?s essay, in an important and eloquent public strategy document, the Secretary of the Army and the Army Chief of Staff reflected that this right to take the lives of others involves a burden of discrimination?that ?Only the true warrior ethos can moderate war?s inevitable brutality.?24 Later that year, Lieutenant General James Mattis, USMC, perhaps the most admired warrior-general of the day, told an audience of Naval Academy Midshipmen: ?The first thing, my fine young men and women, you must make certain that your troops know where you are coming from and what you stand for and, more importantly, what you will not tolerate.?25 Mattis went on to recount a story brought to him by a non-U.S. war correspondent who witnessed the actions of a young Marine rifleman in Mamadia, Iraq. The correspondent, skeptical of the Marine Corps admonition of ?No better friend, no worse enemy,? had observed the young Marine protecting nearby Iraqi civilians caught in the danger zone while simultaneously fighting off terrorists. ?Now think,? Mattis concluded, ?what that says about a 19-year-old who could discriminate.?26
What the American people expect from their Armed Forces, and trust that they will receive, is reliable, effective, honorable, and efficient service, whenever, wherever, and in whatever form the government of the day decides is necessary. The guarantee of that service is internalization in every officer of the expectations embodied in the commission and the oath: patriotism, valor, fidelity, and abilities; dedication to the protection of the letter of and the values embodied in the Constitution; and a willingness to offer, if required, what President Lincoln called ?the last full measure of devotion? in its defense. In the first Raymond Spruance Lecture at the Naval War College, Herman Wouk, author of The Caine Mutiny and The Winds of War, and a World War II Navy officer himself, told an audience emerging from the disheartening experience of Vietnam, that in a society riven by social and political turmoil, their job was ?Not to solve the great ongoing problems of social stress, nor to despair at the immensity and complexity of these problems outside our country and inside, but to stand and to serve. To improvise, to make do with what we have; to serve in still another kind of revolutionary warfare . . . and with this service, to give freedom one more chance for one more generation.?27
Notes
The President?s unique oath is found in the final paragraph of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution.
Commission document.
Continental Congress, 1777, Printed Commission Form. George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741?1799: Series 4, General Correspondence, 1697?1799, April 30, 1777, to January 24, 1778, image 676, available at <http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwhome.html>.
Washington?s 1753 commission in the Virginia Regiment shows ability, conduct, and fidelity as the relevant virtues. The Writings of George Washington: Being His Correspondence, Addresses, Messages, and Other Papers Official and Private, Selected and Published from the General Manuscripts; with A Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations, Jared Sparks, ed., 12 volumes, vol. II (Boston: American Stationer?s Company, 1838), available at <http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/imgsrv/download/pdf?id=uc1.c2741841;orient=0;size=100;seq=461;num=429;attachment=0>.
Quoted in Department of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations [Admiral Gary Roughead], Memorandum for All Prospective Commanding Officers, Subject: The Charge of Command (June 9, 2011). Emphasis in original.
U.S. Code, Title 10, ?Armed Forces,? Sections 5947, 3583, and 85831, ?Requirement for Exemplary Conduct,? as quoted in Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute, available at <www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10>.
Richard Swain, The Obligations of Military Professionalism: Service Unsullied by Partisanship (Washington, DC: Institute for National Security Ethics and Leadership, December 2010), 7, available at <www.mca-marines.org/files/obligations%20of%20military%20professionalism.pdf>.
The Armed Forces Officer (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1950), 1. Marshall abandoned these words in his final edition of the book in 1975. Times were hard in the wake of the war in Vietnam, and Marshall was evidently distressed. He wrote in his introductory remarks:
Love of country is still the only possible refuge for intelligent American men and women in service; it is their sword and shield and the emblem of their advance. Everything that enters into the making of truly superior military officers would qualify them to live more generously and rewardingly in any other company. That, essentially, is what this manual has to say. Hardly a new and radically different treatment of the subject, it is at least as old as the American Dream.
?Introduction,? The Armed Forces Officer (Washington, DC: Armed Forces Information Service, 1975), iii.
The Armed Forces Officer (1950), 3.
U.S. Code, Title 5, ?Government Organization and Employees,? Part III, ?Employees,? Subpart B, ?Employment and Retention,? Chapter 33, ?Examination, Selection and Placement,? Subchapter II. Oath of office, Section 3331, ?Oath of Office,? as quoted in Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute, available at <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331>.
There are two exemplary studies of the oath of office by commissioned officers: Kenneth Keskel, ?The Oath of Office: A Historical Guide to Moral Leadership,? Air and Space Power Journal (Winter 2002), available at <www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/win02/keskel.html>; and Thomas H. Reese, ?An Officer?s Oath,? Military Law Review (July 1964), 1?41, available at <www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Military_Law_Review/pdf-files/276073~1.pdf>.
The Armed Forces Officer (1950), 158.
Sir John Winthrop Hackett, The Profession of Arms (New York: Macmillan, 1983), 202.
In re Grimley, 137 U.S. 147, 153 (1890), cited as precedent by Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Parker, Warden, et al. v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974), available at <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/417/733/case.html>.
Hackett, The Profession of Arms, 220. The quotation is from an essay titled ?Leadership,? which was not part of the original lectures.
See Manual for Courts Martial, Article 90, ?Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer,? and compare it to Article 91, ?Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer or petty officer,? available at <www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/mcm.pdf>.
U.S. Department of the Navy, Marine Corps Manual with Changes 1?3, 1980; Change 1, 1982; Change 2, 1984; Change 3, 1996, Paragraph 1100, 1?21, 1?22.
The Armed Forces Officer (1950), 2.
Ibid.
Army Doctrine Reference Publication 6-22, Army Leadership (Washington, DC: Headquarters Department of the Army, August 2012), 2-1, available at <http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/adrp6_22_new.pdf>.
William T. Sherman, ?Address to the Officers and Soldiers Composing the School of Application at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, October 25, 1882,? 8, available at the digital collection of the Archives, Combined Arms Research Library, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, <http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p4013coll4/id/352>.
William Pfaff, ?The Honorable Absurdity of the Soldier?s Role,? International Herald Tribune On Line, March 25, 2003, 8. Available at <www.iht.com/ihtsearch.php?id=90840&owner=(IHT)&date=20030326163223>. Reprinted without title, dated March 20, in William Pfaff, Fear, Anger and Failure: A Chronicle of the Bush Administration?s War Against Terror from the Attacks of September 11, 2001 to Defeat in Baghdad (New York: Algora Publishing, 2004), 169?171. (Punctuation varies in minor instances between versions.)
There is a paradox here, for the whole purpose of tactics at the small unit level and the massive investment in sophisticated hardware at the national level is intended to drive the risk of losses as close to zero as possible. The argument is that at some point this creates a new understanding of the military professional and changes fundamentally the ethical climate in which he or she lives.
Les Brownlee and Peter Schoomaker, ?Serving a Nation at War: A Campaign Quality Army with Joint and Expeditionary Capabilities,? Parameters (Summer 2004), 12?13. The same point was argued by Michael Ignatieff, The Warrior?s Honor: Ethnic War and the Modern Conscience (New York: Henry Holt, Owl Books, 1998).
James N. Mattis, ?Ethical Challenges in Contemporary Conflict: The Afghanistan and Iraq Cases,? The 2004 William C. Stutt Ethics Lecture sponsored by the Center for the Study of Professional Military Ethics, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD, November 2004, 10.
Ibid., 11?12.
Herman Wouk, Spruance Lecture, ?The Naval Officer in an Age of Revolution,? The Naval War College Review 25, no. 4 (March?April 1973), 10?11, available at <www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Review/ArchivedIssues/1970s/1973-March-April.aspx>.
17
Follow Us
Facebook Flickr Twitter Pinterest
About DOD
Link Disclaimer
FOIA
NDU.edu
Contact
DOD Inspector General
Recovery Act
Web Policy
USA.gov
No FEAR Act
DOD Careers
Privacy and Security
Site Map
National Defense University
18
SHARES0 -
Now The former Sec Navy says Trump doesn't understand the definition of a "Warfighter"(A term I really don't like).
OK how do you know it better? Because you spent 5 years in the Marines and made CPT? What did you do in the USMC? He flew stuff, he was an Aviator.
Then he was on wallstreet and made millions..........good job.
I just don't understand why these guys can't keep their mouth shut.0 -
The job of our military is NOT to be concerned about whether anyone will be offended by the job they do. Their job is to kill the enemy and break his stuff.
Posing for a photograph with the severed head of an enemy combatant does not bother me in the least. If our war fighters even want to use the empty skulls of our enemies to drink a pint of ale, more power to them!
Bravo, Chief Petty Officer Gallagher!0 -
I feel the same way Nunn especially after spending about 5 years total fighting them.
We had a no photo policy in my unit. When pictures are made then they can be not only used against you but be misinterpreted by people who have no fricking clue about anything.
I have enough jacked up crap in my head that I damn sure don't need to be reminded of it with pictures. Plus its a violation of OPSEC IMO.
But stuff happens and the leaders need to take into account not everyone is perfect.
The problem is when whatever is going down everyone is fine with it, then ONE guy starts thinking and spills to some person who was not there and it gets blown all out of proportion. I have seen it happen several times.0 -
mrmike08075 wrote:I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Oh there it is...
Can I ask a stupid question???
If the seal violated the UCMJ or his oath or committed a war crime while on active duty in a combat theatre why was he tried in a civilian court...
If due process is valid and the constitution is valid and double jeopardy applies and he was acquired of all charges brought against him - how can he still be punished with loss of rank and loss of benefits and be stripped of qualifications???
Why was he not court marshalled and convicted by a board of officers and sent to levanworth.
Where is jag Corp in this - who brought the charges - please explain this clusterfluff to me as I do not understand...
The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States of America and he has the power to pardon...
I don't understand.
Mike
Couple of things, Mike.
1. He was not tried in a civilian court. He went through a court martial, and was found not guilty of the murder of the captive after one of his shipmates testified that it was not Gallagher's slitting the guys throat, rather that he killed the captive by blocking his airway.
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/06/24/gallagher-court-martial-pathologist-cant-say-what-killed-prisoner/
From the link:
SAN DIEGO ? A pathologist testified Monday at a Navy SEAL?s murder trial that a wounded Islamic State militant in Iraq could have died from a stabbing described by other witnesses.
Dr. Frank Sheridan said he couldn?t determine a cause of death because there was no body and a lack of other evidence.
The testimony at the trial of Special Warfare Operator Chief Edward ?Eddie? Gallagher, though, countered a statement offered last week by another SEAL who stunned the court when he confessed to the killing.
Corey Scott testified Thursday that he killed the victim by plugging his breathing tube after Gallagher unexpectedly stabbed the fighter while treating him for injuries suffered in an air strike outside Mosul in 2017.
Scott testified that the militant, described as an adolescent boy, would have survived the stabbing.
But Scott said he decided to asphyxiate him because he assumed he would later be tortured and killed by Iraqi forces who captured him and brought him to the Navy medics for treatment.
https://taskandpurpose.com/seal-chief-gallagher-isis-execution
From this link:
For example, prosecutors introduced text messages from Gallagher to Chief Warrant Officer 2 B.G., in which he said, "I got him with my hunting knife" with the photo of him with the dead ISIS fighter. B.G. replied, "be careful with pictures." And another text message from Gallagher to another active-duty SEAL, according to Warpinski, referenced "getting his knife skills on."
People can believe what they wish to believe. I am sensitive about what people in my Navy do, are accused of doing, and when they are unjustly treated.
In this case, there are some things that most folks agree are factual.
1. An iswas piece of human garbage was injured in an air strike, captured, and turned over to a Seal Team medics for treatment.
2. During this treatment, Gallagher stabbed the captive an undisclosed number of times.
3. The captive died, and Gallagher posed with the corpse. (Some say he posed with the head, but this seems to be in dispute, so I do not consider this to be factual information.)
4. Gallagher went through Court Martial proceedings, and was acquitted of the murder because of Scott's testimony (Please note that Scott had received full immunity prior to testifying), but convicted of posing with the body.
IMO, Secretary Spencer approached this correctly at first, when he said he would resign if Gallagher was fully exonerated by President Trump. His oath includes 'according to regulations and the UCMJ', and it is 100% logical that and honorable man would walk from his job if he felt he was given orders that would compromise this clause.
It then appears that Spencer tried to have his cake and eat it too by backdooring SECDEF and trying to cut a deal with POTUS in order to remain SECNAV. If this it true, he has lost any claim to honor.
All members of the US Armed forces should be held to a professional standard of conduct. Transgressions can be forgiven when in contact with an active enemy. Transgressions against a captive over whom we have complete control cannot be forgiven.
I cannot speak to whether this one incident should define his entire career. He should, however, be forced to face the consequences of his actions, and (again, in my opinion) Trump stepped into this with a political motivation and has not considered the long term ramifications of the precedent that is being sent with this exoneration.0 -
Don,
That clarifies things greatly for me - as you well know there is no absolute black and white but only varying shades of grey...
My first reaction is to support the troops especially a spec ops veteran who wears the trident - who faces the barbarians at the gate while we sleep...
But the lessons of Nuremberg are in the forefront of my mind - as a highschool age young man I watched all the films and read all the books even the transcripts - we studies them extensively at military summer school - taught by a retired veteran / lawyer / judge who was part of the US team prosecuting those on trial...
He was a passionate man and he imparted not only horrific details - but the primary importance of the burden a soldier has conducting himself on the field of battle - possibly receiving orders that should never be followed...
SLA Marshall and WEB Griffin and other touch on the picture issues and the fine line of morality - and that bad things happen in warfare...
I appreciate your reply - thank you for putting the picture in focus.
Mike0 -
Mike,
Military personnel also don?t have constitutional rights, per say. They have the rights afforded to them from the UCMJ. You don?t have double jeopardy rights, and if caught, and tried ?out in town?, you can be tried for it again in a military court.0 -
My father was a military police officer - honor graduate of his class - he spent some time prisoner chasing and transporting - sometimes to Leavenworth...
I do recall him saying that a stay in such a facility was equivalent to a stay in hell - and that your time in prison did not count against your time in service obligation - that when your sentence was over you still owed time...
He recalled uniforms stripped and sanitized of any hint you were a serving soldier...
Some were genuine killers many were gay men caught with other men while in uniform...
He traveled with an NCO armed with a trench gun - he was armed with a pistol - sometimes using civilian transport...
One man as deserted after commuting murder and had been on the run 16 years.
I will agree that Gallagher looks to have commuted war crimes and murder as well as a laundry list of offenses that are inhuman and unforgivable...
I still want to understand what happened to the JAG case - what went so horribly wrong and why.
Mike0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
19 comments