The CO of the USS ENTERPRISE is under investigation according to the Virginian-Pilot, here and here, for a series of training videos aired 3 years ago while he was the Big “E”‘s XO.  The video available on the PilotOnline website, here, collects many of those vignettes in a final montage, apparently aired just before CAPT Honors left the ship as XO to become the CO of USS MT. WHITNEY (see bio here).

From what I can tell, CAPT Honors’ tour on the ENTERPRISE as XO, including two deployments, was highly successful.  The ship received numerous awards in 2007, including its only Battenberg Cup Award, given to the best ship or submarine in the entire Atlantic Fleet. 

Given the nature of the reporting, focusing on the “anti-gay remarks,” and statements by the Navy, I don’t see the CO retaining command after the investigation is complete.  Because these videos were shown to the whole crew and nothing happened for more than 3 years, the only question remains how many of the other former officers onboard Big “E” during these deployments will go down with him, the former COs (who are now both admirals, RADM Rice, and RADM Horton), the BATGRU Commanders (including VADM Holloway, who is now COMSECONDFLT), the SJA(s)?

92 Responses to “Navy’s Big “E” CO Under Investigation for Training Vignettes”

  1. Socrates says:

    Colonel Kurtz: “They train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won’t allow them to write fuck on their airplanes because it’s obscene!” – Apocalypse Now

    The absurdity! The absurdity!

  2. Anonymous says:

    Where the heck was the SJA? Any first-tour JAG would know this was a terrible idea. I hope he advised the XO to knock it off and the XO just didn’t listen.

  3. Colonel Jessup says:

    What’s wrong with the video? We kill people for a living, but we can’t show a little lube on TV? Humans are doomed…

  4. Anonymous says:

    Anon 1311: That’s why having an O-3 SJA “advising” and O-5/O-6 is not good policy. And you assume the XO/Co ran all this by the SJA beforehand. That is not the way it works in the real world unfortunately.

  5. Christopher Mathews says:

    As usual, I want to say that the captain and the admiral – they don’t know anything at all about the content of this video or the movie this evening, and they should absolutely not be held accountable in any judicial setting …

    A disclaimer like that makes it difficult to claim you thought there was nothing wrong with the video. Not impossible; it’s just a bad fact.

    Over the years I’ve gotten several complaints about inappropriate materials in these videos, never to me personally but, gutlessly, through other channels.

    Not real helpful, either.

  6. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    I’m with you, Col Jessup. I watched that entire video, and when I wasn’t laughing, I was wondering what the hell was wrong with it. Pretty tame stuff. Communication is impossible aboard a carrier without the all-purpose f-bomb, and faggot is a general non-specific insult hurled about with such regularity one doesn’t even notice it. It sure as hell isn’t an “anti-gay remark.”

    It would be very interesting to hear from people who served aboard the Big E during this time . . . my money says she was a happy and motivated ship with high morale. The numerous awards would seem to back that up.

    Compared to the antics at foc’s’le follies and other memorable shipboard events (you never forget a LCDR standing on a table, waving his genitals at the CO of the carrier and most of the senior officers in the air wing, and announcing, “This is for all you faggots that didn’t see it the first time”). This video is nothing. If this hangs Captain Honors, the Navy is doomed.

  7. anon says:

    Anon 13:49 – The CJA on a carrier is an 0-4. I doubt the first script wasn’t “run by” the CJA but I am sure that JAG saw it and should have told the XO that he shouldn’t do videos such as these. Sorry the Navy of the 70’s and 80’s is over, Tailhook 20 years ago should have been a wake up call to the aviation community. Sorry, a bunch of aviators telling me this was not offensive doesn’t make it so. I was an 0-3 CJA on a carrier and never had a problem with the 0-6 CO and 0-6 XO following my advice.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Agree with Anon 1:49. The self-importance that you wish to attach to the words “the SJA(s)?” at the end of your entry is funny. That LT/SJA probably wasn’t even allowed in the XO’s stateroom and certainly wasn’t perceived as anything other than a key puncher who produced wills and poas for the crew. The fact that he likely wasn’t in the “in” crowd will likely save him from any scrutiny. The video is hilarious and not particularily offensive.

  9. publius says:

    Interesting timing. These videos are years old. Why not release/report prior to repeal of DADT? Sophomoric content, awful judgment and and piss poor leadership before or after DADT repeal, yes. But those warning of the “unintentended/unforeseen consequences of DADT repeal” may now have their first example.

  10. anon says:

    Anon 14:15 – The CJA of a carrier is an 0-4. Opining that the CJA on a carrier doesn’t get into the XO’s stateroom makes clear one thing, you’ve never been on a carrier. You can opine about the offensiveness of the video since you’ve seen it but since you’ve never served on a carrier I suggest you stick to other topics you are familiar with

  11. Anonymous says:

    the idea that “faggot” is not an anti-gay slur is ridiculous.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Anon 2:06/14:06, This isn’t tailhook, it’s an XO with a sense of humor…my guess is you toured museums during port calls. Likely bad judgment, but not criminal and shouldn’t stop him from picking up a star. Good cocktail party story for the future admiral a few years from now.

  13. anon says:

    Anon 14:36 you are wrong on all accounts, we didn’t have port calls on my deployments, to the Gulf and back save one stop in Australia and no museums, drunken Sailors keeps the JAG pretty busy in port. Oh and I defended aviators who were accused at Tailhook so I am pretty used to bawdy behavior of the airdales…still this is over the top and shows poor judgment. Clearly Navy leadership thinks so.

  14. Anonymous says:

    14:32, this is 14:15, you (14:06) said you were an 03 CJA??? And, yes, I’m pretty sure you didn’t spend a lot of social time with the XO.

  15. Paul LeBlanc says:

    Anon 14:32 you are incorrect.

  16. Paul LeBlanc says:

    Oops, my mistake, I guess I was answering Anon 14:44.

  17. Socrates says:

    There is no constitutional right to be free from “offense.” Humor – even ‘offensive’ humor – is an essential method to deal with the stress of arduous duty and combat. Ditto with cursing. The term “faggot,” in this context, was probably not intended to be anti-gay, but connotes anti-masculine snivelling and weakness.

    The video was somewhat funny. If lawyers start editing these type of scripts and become PR agents, lawyers will be hated even more. And if the production of this video is a firing offense, our military may indeed be doomed.

  18. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    As far as the potential downfall of any Navy lawyer onboard the ENTERPRISE, I think comments on here about whether the XO consulted with any of said lawyers are irrelevant because the issue is that said lawyers would have obviously seen the videos while embarked or heard complaints (if contemporaneous ones were, in fact, made) about them. Yes, those lawyers may be insulated if the XO ignored their advice. I also doubt that in today’s Navy climate leadership would ignore their SJA that advised that the risks of XYZ activity were 1, 2 and 3 and a better strategy was ABC.

    I have no idea how many videos in context were aired that were inappropriate and I await the results of the investigation. But I think we can all agree that a Navy lawyer on board Big “E” that saw an inappropriate video or heard complaints about them and did nothing should not be surprised if an investigation looked into their actions/inactions.

  19. Socrates says:

    I smelled a fart on my ship. I think we should investigate. Possible Art. 134 offense.

  20. Anonymous says:

    There is no constitutional right to be free from “offense.”Humor – even ‘offensive’ humor – is an essential method to deal with the stress of arduous duty and combat.Ditto with cursing.The term “faggot,” in this context, was probably not intended to be anti-gay, but connotes anti-masculine snivelling and weakness.The video was somewhat funny.If lawyers start editing these type of scripts and become PR agents, lawyers will be hated even more.And if the production of this video is a firing offense, our military may indeed be doomed.

    Absolute BS, the whole impact behind the word faggot is as an anti-gay sentiment. A faggot is slang for a gay person in American culture. It’s exactly equivalent to saying “homo” which I’d guess you’d also say really isn’t meant to be anti-gay and is just something else.

    I have a problem with the absolute lack of common sense exhibited by a senior officer and leader in that kind of language and comportment. The vast majority of senior leaders seem to be able to get through the “stress of arduous duty and combat” without such behavior, so apparently, it’s possible.

    If lawyers can’t do their job because they are afraid of being hated, then they need to find a new career field.

  21. Anon says:

    Pretty sophomoric and not befitting of a senior Naval officer. It is unfortunate that a ship full of sailors was given the impression over the course of two years by their XO, now CO, that this sort of frat house behavior is not only acceptable, but is normal. His poor judgment reflects the aviator attitude that culminated in Tailhook. He was on active duty during that community-self-imposed fiasco but apparently didn’t get the very clear message that times have changed. Also, having served 30 years on active duty in the USMC, been a commanding officer, and spent many months aboard ships while on several WestPacs, I find it ludicrous that the Admiral and ship’s CO didn’t know what the XO was putting out over the ships internal CCTV.

  22. Socrates says:

    How many wars has America won since elevating lawyers to the top? How many more do you think we will win?

    We won our wars when soldiers and sailors called each other “faggots” if they didn’t carry their weight. Your desire to take “ownership” over the term and make it always an anti-gay slur is simplistic (and bad lawyering).

    No, if MILITARY lawyers can’t find a way of accomodating MILITARY culture, they need to find a new career field. Your rant is all “PR”…and no law. Who gives a f if you are offended! Get offended on your own time with your “senior leader” friends. I’m sure that’s a fun party.

  23. ksf says:

    This is an issue where I would have laughed my arse off at the XO’s humor, then would have told him that perhaps this would not pass the CNN test. “I’m sorry, Sir, but calling the SMO a fag on XO movie night could be considered by some as harrassment of homosexuals.” If he disagreed, then I would have sent him my opinion by e-mail with return receipt requested to CMA.

  24. Anonymous says:

    I would have told on him and then written a law review article about it.

  25. Anonymous says:

    For those who wouldn’t have advised the XO against this as SJAs, you’d clearly have been wrong, as is evidenced by the current investigation. But at least the XO would have liked you and you would have felt old-school.

  26. Colonel Jessup says:

    A bunch of Lt. Weinberg’s on this thread…

  27. ksf says:

    Anon@1549, that would be a queer thing to do.

    And, I don’t mean ‘queer,’ in some sort of anti-gay way. I mean it as if doing something like that would be odd…..odd like a man who exudes an effeminate nature by dressing up as a woman, wearing pink, or speaking with a lisp.

  28. Anonymous says:

    “Faggot” means “gay” which means homosexual, it’s because you and others equate it to “anti-masculine snivelling and weakness” that many take offense to it.

    Ironic that someone named “Socrates” feels this way about homosexuals…

  29. Anonymous says:

    I firmly believe that when advising a senior officer in the Naval Service/USMC it’s most often the messenger not the message that allows a JA to get the job done. If you act like a homo (whether you are or not) your message will be lost. I don’t see that changing as long as we still expect 19 year old kids to kill bad guys. We are in the business of killin not whining about who’s feelings are hurt the most.

  30. Anonymous says:

    “If you act like a homo (whether you are or not) your message will be lost.”

    You mean, like, have sex with another man?

  31. ksf says:

    Anon@1648:

    It appears that you are attempting to equate all homosexual men with being whiny and snivelling. If I were a homosexual, then I might take offense to it like I would if someone equated all white people to be racist rednecks. However, it is my understanding that term ‘faggot’ is a deragatory term for a homosexuals who exudes annoying feminine qualities and not all homosexuals are stereotypical ‘faggots’ of the Perez Hilton variety. In fact, the vast majority of the homosexual men that I know in the military appear to be very masculine and you would not know what their sexual preference is.

    Nonetheless, I also find the term faggot to be derogatory, thus I would refrain from using it, but I think Socrates would advise you to stop acting like a whining and snivelling man who has sex with other men, dresses in pink, and speaks with a lisp.

  32. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    Piece of info Merriam-Webster’s online:
    Faggot
    fag·got noun \ˈfa-gət\
    Definition of FAGGOT
    usually disparaging
    : a male homosexual
    — fag·got·ry \-gə-trē\ noun, usually disparaging
    — fag·goty \-gə-tē\ adjective, usually disparaging
    See faggot defined for English-language learners »
    Origin of FAGGOT
    earlier and dialect, contemptuous word for a woman or child, probably from fagot
    First Known Use: 1914

  33. Anonymous says:

    Anon 17:12,

    YES.

    VR,

    Anon 16:50

  34. mikeyes says:

    I’m having trouble keeping all the anonymouses apart. Would at least half of you have the courtesy (or guts) to use a different moniker?

  35. ksf says:

    Be careful, Mike. Anon at 1553hrs might assume “no guts” = gay = homosexual and accuse you of being a homophobe or gay basher because Anon at 1553hrs believe that homosexuals have no guts.

  36. ksf says:

    Sorry Anon @1553, I really meant Anon @1648.

    You’re right, Mike. It is hard to keep all these similar monikers apart.

  37. Norbert Basil MacLean III says:

    I watched the video and don’t find it offensive – I’m gay and don’t find that its discriminatory towards gays. It’s a funny video. If the senior brass sack this officer because of this video then the United States Navy has truly lost the plot with political correctness gone mad.

  38. Anonymous says:

    I’m having trouble keeping all the anonymouses apart.Would at least half of you have the courtesy (or guts) to use a different moniker?

    Unless we are using our actual names, what “guts” does it take to use a nom de plum, like say, mikeyes which isn’t exactly descriptive on its face.

  39. Christopher Mathews says:

    As a graduate of the unconstitutional service, I am mildly alarmed at all the predictions that the Navy is doomed.

    If CAPT Honors finds himself looking for new work, though, I suspect he could have a bright career in the entertainment industry. I hear the Village People may be looking for a comeback tour manager.

  40. Socrates says:

    Thanks for the dictionary definition of “faggot,” ignoring my point about connotation. I don’t need Webster to tell me if I ask for a “faggot,” I may not get a cigarrette because the term has only one meaning, thank you.

    Most often, the term “faggot” is deragatory. I would probably refrain from calling someone that term in a meanspirited and direct way. But it also depends on the context. If I’m hanging out with friends, and one of the guys, say, complains that about a fight breaking out at the hockey game, or maybe he asks for whip cream on his latte, or he asks if we can switch the channel to Oprah, then I might jokingly call him a “faggot.” Its love, man. Or, if you like, man-love. But this is hardly an obsession. I am decrying the simplistic idea that the term is now being placed on some kind of new “banned words” list (evidently maintained by oh-so-wise lawyers and “senior leaders”…who sound so dreadfully humorless). This video was funny.

    All the commentary is just PR…no citation to a law or regulation. So lawyers are expanding their authority to PR now.

    Even a dog can tell the difference between being tripped over and being kicked. And many gay people have a sense of humor.

    By the way – I defended a gay sailor on the Enterprise. I gave him the best defense possible…and think it was an outrage and injustice that he was separated after being “outed” by a disgruntled lover. Not fair. I’m glad that the repeal of DADT will end that.

    I just want to allow humor to remain in the military also.

  41. Steven B. says:

    Totally unrelated to arguing the merits of sophomoric name calling as a means of measuring strength of character and leadership…Did anyone else notice the cameo by Glen Close near the end of the video? Am I crazy? It is during the last few minutes of the video, somewhere in the middle of the numerous CAPT Honors love-fest montages

  42. mikeyes says:

    “A moniker (or monicker) is another term for a nickname, pseudonym, or cognomen. Typically, the title is used as a personal or professional name, instead of the person’s given name, for works of art, music, books, or performances.”

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moniker

    That way you can tell one person from another. If you have been a regular here through the Lakin case, you would know that my moniker is a contraction of my name.

  43. lifer says:

    First time I have agreed with NBM3, okay maybe the second (I too didn’t like DADT). Whether anyone likes it or not, this stuff happens every day on ship, in the Stan and Iraq. It is one of the ways Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, and Marines deal with the unnatural stressful environment in which they toil.

    I heard the most foul language, the terms “faggot” “homo” “Mother-fucker”, etc., being used all the time onboard, and that was from the female Sailors, often used jokingly or, as crazy as it may seem, as terms of endearment. Just don’t call a male Sailor a “pussy” because that was a fighting word every time. There was no more derogatory term for males onboard.

    Why don’t we just outlaw all curse words or offensive language. Get a blue ribbon panel together (like the porn screeners for exchanges in the late 90s) and create a laundry list of unacceptable words which may no be spoken by members subject to the UCMJ.

  44. Charles Gittins says:

    Now we get to see Moon Mullins at his PC best. 4 years ago is along time. This is a lot like when the Navy decided to change the rules about strippers 30 seconds after the Navy prohibited strippers in its Officer clubs. Now that Moon has sucked the Ds of the homosexuals and supported gays in the military it is going to be a crime that 4 years ago a dude made a homo joke. Somebody please tell this Captain to call me. We need to take this one to CM and “test our balls for Navy.” His CM has to be populated by all officers with balls and all who predated the new, gentler Navy. Let’s step up, men!

  45. Christopher Mathews says:

    Charlie, first you have to have your client record a YouTube video explaining why he wants to be court-martialed.

  46. Anonymous says:

    First time I have agreed with NBM3, okay maybe the second (I too didn’t like DADT).Whether anyone likes it or not, this stuff happens every day on ship, in the Stan and Iraq.It is one of the ways Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, and Marines deal with the unnatural stressful environment in which they toil.
    I heard the most foul language, the terms “faggot” “homo” “Mother-fucker”, etc., being used all the time onboard, and that was from the female Sailors, often used jokingly or, as crazy as it may seem, as terms of endearment.Just don’t call a male Sailor a “pussy” because that was a fighting word every time.There was no more derogatory term for males onboard.Why don’t we just outlaw all curse words or offensive language.Get a blue ribbon panel together (like the porn screeners for exchanges in the late 90s) and create a laundry list of unacceptable words which may no be spoken by members subject to the UCMJ.

    All curse words? No just the ones that slander a whole group of people, like homo, fag, and any of the various racial slurs that were in fact common language prior to integration.

    But oh yes I know, slurs against gays are “different” from slurs against blacks, or hispanics, right?

  47. Charles Gittins says:

    Chris:

    If you have followed my cases, my clients never say anything I don’t tell them to say. It has tended to work out. No excuses. I think all the video that will be available has already been made. Now it is just a matter of explaining why it was a morale builder rather than a crime, supported by the COC. I don’t suppose it matters to anyone that this video surfaced about 10 days after the President was successful in having “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Suck D” for all you are worth repealed. Somebody needs to do some research on cyber-mutiny. That is what this is, nothing less. The problem is becoming, more and more, the failure of the military leadership to stand up and say — “FUCK NO”. There was once a time — “Revolt of the Admirals” where men were actually men, and not Eunuchs like Moon and his cabal.

  48. Ama Goste says:

    It seems those defending the videos have trouble seeing the difference between a couple of O-5s (feel free to insert others of equal ranks) blowing off steam in private (no puns intended) and a ship’s #2 giving this great example of officership to all the subordinates in his crew.

  49. Socrates says:

    How about “JAG-offs”?

    Its a term that nicely slurs a whole group of people…not gays, but with a slight sexual innuendo.

  50. Christopher Mathews says:

    Ah, Charlie, you know I don’t put you in the same boat as LTC Lakin’s first lawyer. You actually have some sense.

    I don’t think much of the captain’s judgment: he clearly failed the “CNN test.” If he’s a good skipper, though, and I assume he is, a quiet chat about not being stupid on station — or at least, not being the village idiot on videotape — should cure all ills.

    Either way, though, I don’t see a court-martial in his future. If he wants to be loud and proud and defiant, I’m sure the Navy has some important billet he could fill tending to the coastal defense of Wyoming.

  51. Charles Gittins says:

    I think homosexuality is anathema. Notwithstanding my personal preferences, I have done some good work for people afflicted with that affliction. This is not about social approval — it is about a warrior ethos that must transcend social experimentation so that we are always successful. One terrorist attack that is successful is unacceptable. We have no time for BS social experimentation — this is war– and we need to wage it like warriors, not social experimenters. When our non-warrior class leaders figure this out, we’ll be a lot better off. President — no military experience. Sec Def — Captain USAF intel officer — that says all you need to know. C-CJS – surface warfare officer (chances of close combat –forgetabout it –actual combat — NONE). This is not the class of people we need to have leading the US in a war. And that is all I have to say about that.

  52. Anonymous says:

    Charlie,

    We used to see plenty of your clients at the appellate division. Didn’t seem to work out so well for them.

  53. Charles Gittins says:

    Chris:

    Lakin tried to hire me before he hired Puckett. I declined in light of the BS position he was taking that I felt had no possibility of being credible, much less successful. I told him he needed to fire the other guy. That said, he apparently came to his senses and Puckett did a great job getting him a 6 month sentence.

  54. Charles Gittins says:

    Anonymous —

    Most of my clients don’t get to the appellate system. What rock did you crawl out under? Name one you have first hand knowledge of.

  55. Socrates says:

    But Ama, “Movie Night” IS blowing off steam. In context, these videos were infrequent, and do not reflect all of the “officership” that won the Big “E” all of those awards. Besides, I understood this string to about whether these videos constituted a “firing offense,” (or even worse, a criminal offense), not whether they reflect fine “officership.” The video skit that I saw reflected two different (imaginary) “sides” of the XO. I saw the video somewhat like the scene in Animal House when the imaginary devil and angel talk to the pledge about the pros and cons of having sex with the passed-out girl. Funny. (Unless someone wants to do a rant about how Animal House is not funny…and the movie should be added to the banned list. Art 120 violation…making light of rape…PC…and all that.)

  56. Anonymous says:

    Thanks for sharing your biases Charlie. We’d love to hear what other groups of people you hate.

  57. Charles Gittins says:

    Anonymous —

    I don’t think you answered the question. I definitely have a bias against cowards. If you are such a puss you can’t answer because you want to be PC, feel free to e-mail me at cgittins@aol.com. I’ll patiently await your e-mail. And if I don’t hear from you, I’ll be confident that you should be Judge Advocate General. Sheesh. I am so glad I don’t have to deal with cowards like those on active duty these days.

  58. Active And Well says:

    Enlisted Sailors are awarded “Good Conduct” for obedient service within the bounds of the UCMJ. Good Conduct is expected of all Officers and rightfully not awarded. Therefore the XO is at fault his judgment and conduct are not becoming of Superior Officer. Capt Honors seems like a fun animated guy but is not the right leader for our military.

  59. Anonymous says:

    The most offensive thing about this video was how unfunny it was.

  60. Anonymous says:

    I am so glad I don’t have to deal with cowards like those on active duty these days.

    I think it’s pretty good you aren’t on active duty as well. So we can come to some agreement after all.

  61. Draco says:

    Let’s fire everybody and teach everybody a lesson.

    Can we also implement something akin to the windfall of the “exclusionary rule” and pay reparations for all enemy equipment damaged by the ENTERPRISE during his tenure? After all, our missiles were tainted by homophobia. And revoke the awards…they, too, are sadly tainted. These strong actions would demonstrate true remorse.

    Too bad ADM Mullen couldn’t borrow President Obama’s picnic table at the White House and have a beer summit with CAPT Honors and some gay rights group to make peace, turn this into a “teachable moment,” allow a graceful apology for any hurt feelings, etc. I just do not think these videos, especially given the passage of time, quite rise to the level of a firing offense. Give him a low-mark on EQUAL OPPORTUNITY!

  62. Christopher Mathews says:

    Let’s fire everybody and teach everybody a lesson.

    That’s just crazy talk, son.

  63. Anonymous says:

    Charlie,

    I want to thank you. Now when my clients ask me what I know about you, I can say “he’s a bigot who publicly belittles military leadership and has no sense of propriety or decorum.”

  64. Ama Goste says:

    Socrates, I’m pretty certain that officership has something to do with whether an individual should be placed in command and whether his/her superiors lose confidence in one’s ability to command in the future. There’s also this neat little thing called Article 133 of the UCMJ that comes into play in this situation.

  65. Charles Gittins says:

    Anonymous — don’t forget to add “he gets good results for his clients whether he likes them or not.” That is how performance is measured, not by how PC a lawyer can be. Anytime you want to come out of hiding and face me like a man and say what you have to say with your name attached to it, I am standing by. I didn’t have any e-mail from you this morning. But, I am not surprised. Keep skulking in the shadows.

  66. Anonymous says:

    Hypothesize that the Navy decides to take CAPT Honors to mast or even a court-martial. I’m not saying that it should or will, but only saying so for discussion purposes. I wonder, in light of the previous discussion about whether the services should be joint for military justice purposes as a possible cost-savings move, if cultural differences between the services present a challenge in this particular case? Is this case a bit different than say a 112a? A UA? A rape? A homicide? Would cultural differences have any impact on a 133 charge?

  67. anon says:

    Can’t mast him, it’s over 2 years.

  68. Cheap Seats says:

    Anon 1253, statute of limitations could be waived by the accused. He’s not outside statute of limitations for court-martial. Could always prefer changes and then offer deal at NJP with SOL waiver. Also, we don’t know if there was any Art. 107 in the preliminary inquiry. Let’s wait this thing out for a little while.

  69. Anonymous says:

    “he gets good results for his clients whether he likes them or not.”

    So do plenty of TDS counsel every day, whether they like their clients or not. I mean what do you want a cookie for doing your job? You are supposed to get good results for your clients whether you like them or not. What’s the acceptable alternative?

    It’s like the old Chris Rock joke about dads who are proud because they take care of their kids.

  70. Charles Gittins says:

    I am confident my record will stand on its own. There is a reason military personnel hire me to supplement their military counsel. 25 years of success speaks for itself.

  71. Anonymous says:

    If it speaks for itself, why are you posting about it?

  72. Anonymous says:

    I am confident my record will stand on its own.There is a reason military personnel hire me to supplement their military counsel.25 years of success speaks for itself.

    Yeah, there’s also a reason certain really bad civilian counsel get hired again and again, because they advertise and because many Soldiers et al. don’t even realize that military attorneys went to law school. It’s why we have to put our diplomas on the wall.

    I’ve worked with many civilian counsel when I was in TDS, some great, some ok, some absolutely horrid. I didn’t see one that got a substantially better result than your average TDS counsel could have gotten.

    What I did see is counsel who got worse.

    The best places for civilian counsel IMO are:

    1. capital trials. clearly experienced civilian capital attorneys are preferred to military counsel most of the time if not all of the time there.

    2. really complex cases for which a civilian counsel is particularly experienced in but are rarely seen in military jurisprudence.

    I’ll caveat that by saying civilian counsel are certainly preferred if it’s a high public/media trial. They generally handle the media better than military counsel, who generally handle the media by avoiding them.

    Otherwise, other than the pocket book getting lighter, I see little civilian defense counsel do that can’t be done by your average military defense counsel.

  73. publius says:

    Civilian defense counsel sell peace of mind. If an accused relies solely on detailed defense counsel, and the end result stinks, the accused might wonder whether the detailed defense counsel was up to snuff. Or worse, whether the whole thing was rigged from the beginning. Civilian defense counsel may or may not be any good, but at least- from an accused’s perspective- they are less likely to be influenced by a command.

  74. Anonymous says:

    “The best places for civilian counsel IMO are: 1. capital trials. clearly experienced civilian capital attorneys are preferred to military counsel most of the time if not all of the time there.”

    Your statement is a generalized opinion, I understand. And, I think that argument is made in some form or another quite frequently as to why reform is needed in military death penalty cases. But, it seems interesting that in the past 5 years, death sentences have been adjudged in three cases: Akbar, Witt, and Hennis. All three were represented by civilian defense counsel. However, there have been capital courts-martial during the same time period (including rehearings) where death has not been adjudged: Hill, Martinez, Quintanilla, Murphy, Kreutzer, and Walker (any others?). I believe most of these accused were represented by military defense counsel.

  75. Charles Gittins says:

    Anonymous 6:31:

    In 25 years I have learned more about MJ that you will learn in your entire life. I can cite you 100 occasions where I corrected a Military Judge or cited him to the rule when he already ruled against me and I stood up to him/her. Ruling changed because civ counsel know the rules inside and out and can cite to them on his feet without looking at the RCMs/MRE. Military accused’s hire CDC because they understand that CDCs generally (and I know there are plenty of pretenders out there) are the most experienced lawyers in the court room — to include the military judge. I have tricked military judges into reversible error on numerous occasions. That is what CDC get paid to do.

  76. Anonymous says:

    Charlie, your arrogance is astounding. Those of us who have seen you try cases know you are not 1/10th the lawyer you think you are. I agree you have achieved some success by bullying inexperienced military judges, but you have achieved just as much failure through lack of preparation and your abrasive demeanor. Only those who’ve never seen you practice before could possibly fall for your false bravado. Confidence goes a long way, but it can’t make up for your lack of legal skills.

  77. Anonymous says:

    Charlie, you may know the rules, but it sure would help if you interviewed the witnesses (both the government’s and your own) before your next trial or board.

  78. Anonymous says:

    “The best places for civilian counsel IMO are:1. capital trials. clearly experienced civilian capital attorneys are preferred to military counsel most of the time if not all of the time there.”Your statement is a generalized opinion, I understand.And, I think that argument is made in some form or another quite frequently as to why reform is needed in military death penalty cases.But, it seems interesting that in the past 5 years, death sentences have been adjudged in three cases: Akbar, Witt, and Hennis.All three were represented by civilian defense counsel.However, there have been capital courts-martial during the same time period (including rehearings) where death has not been adjudged:Hill, Martinez, Quintanilla, Murphy, Kreutzer, and Walker (any others?).I believe most of these accused were represented by military defense counsel.

    Akbar was represented primarily by military defense counsel, the civilians were on briefly and off about a year before trial. The two who were at trial and a year before trial were two majors.

    All the people you listed were retrials, all got the DP at trial originally, and then were overturned.

    Kreutzer and Murphy were not capital on retrial, there was in fact a plea in Kreutzer for life.

    So your facts are a little off.

  79. Anonymous says:

    Anonymous 6:31:In 25 years I have learned more about MJ that you will learn in your entire life.I can cite you 100 occasions where I corrected a Military Judge or cited him to the rule when he already ruled against me and I stood up to him/her.Ruling changed because civ counsel know the rules inside and out and can cite to them on his feet without looking at the RCMs/MRE.Military accused’s hire CDC because they understand that CDCs generally (and I know there are plenty of pretenders out there) are the most experienced lawyers in the court room — to include the military judge.I have tricked military judges into reversible error on numerous occasions.That is what CDC get paid to do.

    Anyone who does this much…manhood waving…is clearly compensating for something. The clear disdain you appear to have for military defense counsel and judges and apparently military attorneys in general is astounding.

    How’s it feel to be the smartest guy in the room? Just ask Charlie.

  80. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Anon 2205 wrote: “All the people [Anon 1831] listed were retrials, all got the DP at trial originally, and then were overturned.” Neither Hill nor Martinez was a retrial.

  81. Anonymous says:

    true, I missed those two, the other four were, and the Akbar case was not civilian counsel.

  82. Charles Gittins says:

    Anonymous: you seem to know alot about me and my practice. If you worked with me and had a complaint about me, you sure never brought it to my attention. Or are you just spouting BS hearsay from fellow trial counsel who have been on the other side of my cases? Failure? Not sure what you mean by that since my clients routinely refer others to me, including those in the brig. It really is pointless to argue with someone who lacks the courage to identify himself. I’ll take confidence/arrogance over cowardice/careerism every time.

  83. Anonymous says:

    “My clients routinely refer others to me, including those in the brig.”

    Fish in a barrel.

  84. Big Jim says:

    Mr. Gittins…your notions of your own value to your clients is astounding. Bottom line is you do a decent job, when you prepare, and act like a bully. There are, of course, exceptions like Nick Stewart and others where you were just out lawyered because of your own ego…but then again, you didn’t pay the price. He did.

  85. Ama Goste says:

    Returning to Hill and Martinez, weren’t they both acquittals, not just non-death sentences?

  86. Anonymous says:

    I’ll take confidence/arrogance over cowardice/careerism every time.

    I’d take humility over either. I’d also take respect for others. Two concepts you seem bereft of understanding.

  87. Anonymous says:

    Returning to Hill and Martinez, weren’t they both acquittals, not just non-death sentences?

    Martinez was, and it was a bad government case all around. I have no clue on Hill.

  88. Oldsalt says:

    Its a new Navy were Civilina Politics are ruining our service. this is in the same path as the cover of the all hands magazine were the MCPON and all Sailor of the Years are Female, how can that be if 80 percent of Sailors are Male, it makes me “Sick”. the navy has wraped it self in political correctness and Equal Opportunity that the upper Leader ship has forgoten in what really counts. Perfromance. Lets forget of all the awards and success of his tour and lets Hang him for using the Word FAGGOT and loose an outstanding officer. This Navy is going Down in Flames.

  89. Christopher Mathews says:

    the upper Leader ship has forgoten in what really counts. Perfromance.

    Like shooting sharks in a bathtub.

  90. anon says:

    Oldsalt, your screed might have more impact if you mastered grammar and spelling. Then again, even if it was correct in form it would still just be the rantings of someone pining for the Navy of the 1940s.