Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Brin: General's career ended for criticizing Iraq War

Expand Messages
  • Dave Land
    ... Am I the only one surprised to find adultery on this list of most serious offenses for which this sanction can be applied? I can see that it s a problem
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      On Jun 1, 2005, at 8:57 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:

      > Little-Used Punishment
      >
      > A senior officer's loss of a star is a punishment seldom used, and then
      > usually for the most serious offenses, such as dereliction of duty or
      > command failures, adultery or misuse of government funds or equipment.

      Am I the only one surprised to find adultery on this list of "most
      serious offenses" for which this sanction can be applied? I can see that
      it's a problem if it leads to a dereliction of duty, command failure, or
      misuse of gov't funds or equipment or so forth. I realize that this is
      just the article author's list, but I suspect that he didn't make it up
      out of whole cloth. I would be willing to bet that other serious
      offenses, such as murder, drug abuse, prostitution and so forth would
      qualify as well.

      Far be it from me to minimize the personal costs of adultery, but I'm
      not sure how that one (serious, but personal) failing rises to the same
      level as, for example, dereliction of duty.

      Thoughts?

      Dave

      _______________________________________________
      http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
    • Dan Minette
      ... From: Dave Land To: Killer Bs Discussion Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:47 AM Subject: Re: Brin:
      Message 2 of 9 , Jun 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Dave Land" <dland@...>
        To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@...>
        Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:47 AM
        Subject: Re: Brin: General's career ended for criticizing Iraq War


        > On Jun 1, 2005, at 8:57 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
        >
        > > Little-Used Punishment
        > >
        > > A senior officer's loss of a star is a punishment seldom used, and then
        > > usually for the most serious offenses, such as dereliction of duty or
        > > command failures, adultery or misuse of government funds or equipment.
        >

        > Far be it from me to minimize the personal costs of adultery, but I'm
        > not sure how that one (serious, but personal) failing rises to the same
        > level as, for example, dereliction of duty.

        Most of the time that I've seen it applied it has affected the armed forces
        directly. I would rather suspect that a soldier visiting a brothal would
        not be brought up on charges. But, a general having an affair with the
        wife of one of his subordinates strikes directly at the mutual trust needed
        in the armed forces. I'm not in an armed forces community, but I would
        guess that it could seriously harm the readiness of the unit.

        I also think that generals who commit murder are not nearly as common as
        those who commit adultry, have command failures, misuse funds and
        equipment, etc. I'm sure they exist, but I'd guess that, when the book is
        thrown at them, the loss of a star is such a small part of the penelty that
        it is "lost in the noise" , or (more likely) the demotion in rank is far
        bigger. Is anyone familiar enough with the military to know what demotions
        in rank, loss of pension, etc. are associated with capital crimes, such as
        murder?

        Dan M.
        Dan M.


        _______________________________________________
        http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
      • David Brin
        ... The utter hypocrisy of so-called conservatives who are unable to grasp that the GOP has been seized (again) by monsters, is simply staggering. For eight
        Message 3 of 9 , Jun 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- Nick Arnett <narnett@...> wrote:

          > Unceremonious End to Army Career
          > By Tom Bowman
          > The Baltimore Sun
          >
          > Sunday 29 May 2005

          The utter hypocrisy of so-called "conservatives" who
          are unable to grasp that the GOP has been seized
          (again) by monsters, is simply staggering.

          For eight years they hounded a DLC moderate who
          offered his hand in negotiation during his entire
          presidency and ran a trim, efficient and transparent
          administration, reducing govt payrolls, deficits and
          secrecy. Why? Fundamentally, out of a deep inner
          yearning to give the other side a "Watergate".

          That trauma (highlighted today by the Deep Throat
          revelations) has embittered the Right since the 70s.
          Deep down, it is the root of Limbaughism. And the
          fact that THIRTEEN YEARS AND A BILLION WASTED DOLLARS
          have resulted in one indictment and zero convictions
          will never be perceived as evidence that they were
          wrong.

          It is only seen as evidence that "evidence" does not
          matter.

          Hence the more recent neconservative campaign against
          science itself. Featuring the staggering sight of
          grown men actually saying "we need more research" in
          order to confirm Global Warming... while savagely
          cutting the research budget.

          What will it take? The worst political purge of the
          US Officer Corps in three generations? Skyrocketing
          deficits & oil prices and plummeting military
          readiness? A grotesquely divided nation and alliances
          in ashes?

          The appointment of screeching maniacs as "diplomats"
          and SaudFamily bodyguards as head of Homelandsecutity?

          What will it take?

          A few bright men like George F. Will - true
          conservatives with that old Goldwater-libertarian tilt
          and a grounding in Locke-Burke-Hume-Hayek - are
          capable of seeing these facts. They complain about
          them individually, one at a time, frantically trying
          not to see the pattern. Peering closely at smoldering
          spots in order not to realize that they are standing
          in a conflagration.

          One that will do to the GOP what Watergate did. What
          The Depression did.

          Men like Will have got to stand up. If they do it
          now, BEFORE the hanchmen and new Deep Throats start
          emerging, then conservatism will have its voice and
          men with clean hands to pick up the pieces.
          _______________________________________________
          http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
        • David Brin
          ... Actually, I am not surprised. The military is a hothouse environment. Mariages are its bedrock. What is unfair, of course, is uneven enforcement. But
          Message 4 of 9 , Jun 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- Dave Land <dland@...> wrote:

            > Am I the only one surprised to find adultery on this
            > list of "most
            > serious offenses"

            Actually, I am not surprised. The military is a
            hothouse environment. Mariages are its bedrock. What
            is unfair, of course, is uneven enforcement. But if
            you are a general, you should have learned to keep
            your pants zipped.

            As Clinton should have.

            As should the majority of GOP "prosecutors" who
            hounded him during impeachment, whose messy divorces
            made BC look like a choir boy.


            _______________________________________________
            http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
          • Ronn!Blankenship
            ... Have you ever been in the US military? -- Ronn! :) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
            Message 5 of 9 , Jun 1, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              At 11:47 AM Wednesday 6/1/2005, Dave Land wrote:
              >On Jun 1, 2005, at 8:57 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
              >
              >>Little-Used Punishment
              >>
              >>A senior officer's loss of a star is a punishment seldom used, and then
              >>usually for the most serious offenses, such as dereliction of duty or
              >>command failures, adultery or misuse of government funds or equipment.
              >
              >Am I the only one surprised to find adultery on this list of "most
              >serious offenses" for which this sanction can be applied? I can see that
              >it's a problem if it leads to a dereliction of duty, command failure, or
              >misuse of gov't funds or equipment or so forth. I realize that this is
              >just the article author's list, but I suspect that he didn't make it up
              >out of whole cloth. I would be willing to bet that other serious
              >offenses, such as murder, drug abuse, prostitution and so forth would
              >qualify as well.
              >
              >Far be it from me to minimize the personal costs of adultery, but I'm
              >not sure how that one (serious, but personal) failing rises to the same
              >level as, for example, dereliction of duty.
              >
              >Thoughts?


              Have you ever been in the US military?


              -- Ronn! :)


              _______________________________________________
              http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
            • Dave Land
              ... I was in the US Coast Guard Academy in 1976. Class of 80 -- the first one that included women cadets. I lasted about four months before I processed out,
              Message 6 of 9 , Jun 1, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                On Jun 1, 2005, at 3:22 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

                > At 11:47 AM Wednesday 6/1/2005, Dave Land wrote:
                >> On Jun 1, 2005, at 8:57 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
                >>
                >>> Little-Used Punishment
                >>>
                >>> A senior officer's loss of a star is a punishment seldom used, and
                >>> then
                >>> usually for the most serious offenses, such as dereliction of duty or
                >>> command failures, adultery or misuse of government funds or
                >>> equipment.
                >>
                >> Am I the only one surprised to find adultery on this list of "most
                >> serious offenses" for which this sanction can be applied? I can see
                >> that
                >> it's a problem if it leads to a dereliction of duty, command failure,
                >> or
                >> misuse of gov't funds or equipment or so forth. I realize that this is
                >> just the article author's list, but I suspect that he didn't make it
                >> up
                >> out of whole cloth. I would be willing to bet that other serious
                >> offenses, such as murder, drug abuse, prostitution and so forth would
                >> qualify as well.
                >>
                >> Far be it from me to minimize the personal costs of adultery, but I'm
                >> not sure how that one (serious, but personal) failing rises to the
                >> same
                >> level as, for example, dereliction of duty.
                >>
                >> Thoughts?
                >
                >
                > Have you ever been in the US military?

                I was in the US Coast Guard Academy in 1976. Class of '80 -- the first
                one that included women cadets. I lasted about four months before I
                "processed out," but I did get to spend a week on the Eagle during the
                tail end of the Bicentennial "Operation Sail" program of tall ships
                visiting US ports.

                It *almost* made all the other BS of being in a military academy worth
                it. Almost.

                But, in direct answer to your question, no, I haven't.

                After asking the above question, I realized that people lose their
                security clearance for things like adultery, because it makes them
                susceptible to blackmail and such-like. And I guess you don't get to
                have any stars at all if you don't have pretty solid clearance.

                Dave

                _______________________________________________
                http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
              • Ronn!Blankenship
                ... That s okay. My point was just that the military is different in many ways from civilian society, even to the point of having a different set of laws for
                Message 7 of 9 , Jun 1, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 06:05 PM Wednesday 6/1/2005, Dave Land wrote:

                  >On Jun 1, 2005, at 3:22 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
                  >
                  >>At 11:47 AM Wednesday 6/1/2005, Dave Land wrote:
                  >>>On Jun 1, 2005, at 8:57 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
                  >>>
                  >>>>Little-Used Punishment
                  >>>>
                  >>>>A senior officer's loss of a star is a punishment seldom used, and then
                  >>>>usually for the most serious offenses, such as dereliction of duty or
                  >>>>command failures, adultery or misuse of government funds or equipment.
                  >>>
                  >>>Am I the only one surprised to find adultery on this list of "most
                  >>>serious offenses" for which this sanction can be applied? I can see that
                  >>>it's a problem if it leads to a dereliction of duty, command failure, or
                  >>>misuse of gov't funds or equipment or so forth. I realize that this is
                  >>>just the article author's list, but I suspect that he didn't make it up
                  >>>out of whole cloth. I would be willing to bet that other serious
                  >>>offenses, such as murder, drug abuse, prostitution and so forth would
                  >>>qualify as well.
                  >>>
                  >>>Far be it from me to minimize the personal costs of adultery, but I'm
                  >>>not sure how that one (serious, but personal) failing rises to the same
                  >>>level as, for example, dereliction of duty.
                  >>>
                  >>>Thoughts?
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>Have you ever been in the US military?
                  >
                  >I was in the US Coast Guard Academy in 1976. Class of '80 -- the first
                  >one that included women cadets. I lasted about four months before I
                  >"processed out," but I did get to spend a week on the Eagle during the
                  >tail end of the Bicentennial "Operation Sail" program of tall ships
                  >visiting US ports.
                  >
                  >It *almost* made all the other BS of being in a military academy worth
                  >it. Almost.
                  >
                  >But, in direct answer to your question, no, I haven't.



                  That's okay. My point was just that the military is different in many ways
                  from civilian society, even to the point of having a different set of laws
                  for its members (the UCMJ), and some of the differences are hard to explain
                  to someone who's never been part of it and who may think that it is just
                  like civilian life except that everyone wears the same years-out-of-style
                  suit every day (and some of them get to fly really hot planes and shoot
                  really big guns). I expect you had some taste of the difference during
                  your time at the USCGA . . .



                  >After asking the above question, I realized that people lose their
                  >security clearance for things like adultery, because it makes them
                  >susceptible to blackmail and such-like.



                  The same argument has been made about homosexuals: that, particularly if
                  they were still "in the closet", they could be subject to blackmail by
                  anyone who discovered their secret and threatened to reveal it. And even
                  today when that is more acceptable to many in society in general, there are
                  many who in particular do not want their parents or someone like that to
                  find out, and so are thought to be susceptible to blackmail



                  > And I guess you don't get to
                  >have any stars at all if you don't have pretty solid clearance.



                  And a few other things. People who don't care about it put in their 20 and
                  retire as O-5s (Lt. Col. in the Army, Air Force, or Marines, Cmdr. in the
                  Navy). Those who make O-6 then are concerned with whether they will get
                  stars or not, so they are really concerned with what their superiors think
                  about them. And then one-stars worry about getting a second star, and
                  two-stars worry about getting a third, and so on . . . People who want to
                  rise as far as possible in the Pentagon start early on worrying about what
                  their superiors think of them and what goes into their records folders.

                  (Me? As I've said before, when I determined that remaining in the Air
                  Force was not likely to get me any higher than the troposphere or at best
                  the lower stratosphere, I decided to go a different way. As it turned out,
                  even if I'd been successful in getting into the astronaut program, I would
                  probably have only gotten started by the time my health decided to go
                  downhill . . . though I suppose that had I been in Houston or Florida at
                  that time rather than where I was, maybe I wouldn't have caught whatever it
                  was. Or not . . . )


                  -- Ronn! :)


                  _______________________________________________
                  http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                • David Brin
                  Dave s point about blackmail is hugely significant. For many years discrimination against homosexuals was defended based upon their susceptibility to coercion
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jun 1, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dave's point about blackmail is hugely significant.
                    For many years discrimination against homosexuals was
                    defended based upon their susceptibility to coercion
                    vs being outed.

                    To this day, SECRET homosexuality is considered
                    worrisome by the State Dept. Alas, that is the only
                    kind allowed in the military, a really weird decision.

                    In a more general sense, of course, this is about the
                    cleansing power of Transparency. When it is mixed
                    with a general rise in tolerance of non-harmful human
                    eccentricity and diversity.

                    Darkness and skulking favor our civilization's enemies
                    over the long run. (The SHORT run can feature many
                    advantages to short term secrecy, of course. I am not
                    a fanatic and I want our side always to have the
                    tactical advantages that information superiority
                    provides.) Alas, the temptation that lures ALL human
                    leaders is to rationalize why THEY should be allowed
                    to evade accountability.

                    Clinton benefited us - and himself - when he reduced
                    overall secrecy. When he lied, he harmed us and
                    himself.

                    None of which compares to today's lie and secrecy
                    fest.

                    The deep scandal is subbornation. How many officials
                    are subborned by enemies of the republic? How high
                    does it go? What methods were used? Blackmail.
                    Pictures from wild parties?

                    This was NOT considered an unreasonable question
                    during our adversarial relationship with the soviets
                    and nazis, so why is it so today?

                    Can anyone come up with another explanation for Bolton
                    and Kerrick? Any other even REMOTELY possible
                    explanation for the appointment of a shrieking
                    hysteric as a diplomat and a saudfamily bodyguard to
                    head homelandsec?

                    Really. Is Limbaughism so far along that college
                    educated and supposedly patriotic americans cannot
                    even see their country being sold out from under them?



                    _______________________________________________
                    http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.