Culturemisconductpoliticallycorrectmilitary

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 06:48 AM

Dereliction of Duty in the Persian Gulf (it pains me to post this)





On the evening in which the capture by Iran of the crews of two U.S. Navy boats hit the news, I happened to be in the company of three retired high ranking military officials. The reaction of all three was the same: the crews were derelict in their duty; heads should roll.

The Navy, having wrapped up its investigation of the matter, has reached the same conclusion. Its report finds that the crews of the boats took an unauthorized shortcut through Iranian territorial waters because they were in a hurry. Moreover, they were not prepared to resist or evade the Iranian naval ships that surrounded them off the coast of Iran’s Farsi Island.

The report concludes: “The RCB boat captains and crews were derelict in performing their duties to expected norms and standards.” In announcing the report’s findings, Adm. John Richardson, the chief of naval operations, said: “Our actions on that day in January did not live up to our expectations of our Navy.”

Three officers have already been fired from their jobs because of the incident. Six other service members will likely face disciplinary action, the Navy says.

The boats and 10 crew members were captured without any shots fired. Iranians boarded the U.S. boat, forced the U.S. sailors to kneel with their hands behind their heads and replaced the U.S. flag on the vessel with an Iranian flag, according to the report.

The crew was interrogated by the Iranians, who attempted to intimidate them by slapping the table and threatening to take them to the mainland, but did not physically harm them. The Iranians also collected passwords to the U.S. sailors’ personal phones and laptops.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/dereliction-of-duty-in-the-persian-gulf.php

44 replies, 2395 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 44 replies Author Time Post
Reply Dereliction of Duty in the Persian Gulf (it pains me to post this) (Original post)
Gunslinger201 Jul 2016 OP
Bob the Bilderberger Jul 2016 #1
Daves Not Here Man Jul 2016 #4
i verglas Jul 2016 #5
Gunslinger201 Jul 2016 #7
i verglas Jul 2016 #36
Gunslinger201 Jul 2016 #37
LeeCPTINF Jul 2016 #38
Gunslinger201 Jul 2016 #8
Daves Not Here Man Jul 2016 #13
Bob the Bilderberger Jul 2016 #14
Daves Not Here Man Jul 2016 #17
kcci Jul 2016 #18
Banshee 3 Actual Jul 2016 #23
kcci Jul 2016 #25
Banshee 3 Actual Jul 2016 #30
kcci Jul 2016 #32
Banshee 3 Actual Jul 2016 #33
Banshee 3 Actual Jul 2016 #35
kcci Jul 2016 #39
Banshee 3 Actual Jul 2016 #40
kcci Jul 2016 #41
Banshee 3 Actual Jul 2016 #42
kcci Jul 2016 #43
Banshee 3 Actual Jul 2016 #44
Gunslinger201 Jul 2016 #16
kcci Jul 2016 #19
Gunslinger201 Jul 2016 #20
kcci Jul 2016 #21
Gunslinger201 Jul 2016 #22
kcci Jul 2016 #24
Gunslinger201 Jul 2016 #27
kcci Jul 2016 #29
kcci Jul 2016 #26
Gunslinger201 Jul 2016 #28
kcci Jul 2016 #31
Gunslinger201 Jul 2016 #34
Bob the Bilderberger Jul 2016 #15
Gunslinger201 Jul 2016 #6
rampartb Jul 2016 #2
Gunslinger201 Jul 2016 #10
Daves Not Here Man Jul 2016 #3
Banshee 3 Actual Jul 2016 #9
_eek Jul 2016 #11
Currentsitguy Jul 2016 #12

Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 07:01 AM

1. This isn't your father's navy

I had said when this happened that the crew's actions were outragious. I was a member of a 6-man repel boarders team on a U.S. warship (USS Patrick Henry SSBN-599). Our standing orders were to wave away any small boats that attempted to come alongside. If they refused to move away or attempted to board, we were to open fire with our Thompson sub-machine guns. No foreign military was to be allowed to board the ship. Period. No U.S. vessel was to be surrendered without a fight to the last man. This isn't your father's navy.

?resize=600%2C386



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bob the Bilderberger (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 07:57 AM

4. Yea, it's a real shame they didn't open fire and then get slaughtered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daves Not Here Man (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:06 AM

5. and create a serious international incident

 

that somebody else would have had to de-escalate ... or that could have started that shooting war with Iran that some seem so anxious for.

Damn them, eh?

Imagine doing something wrong and then not doing something wronger to cover your ass, and just taking what was coming to you for doing what you did. What were they thinking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:25 AM

7. How many years were you in the military?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #7)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 11:03 AM

36. where did you study international law?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #36)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 11:28 AM

37. Doing circles off the Coast of Iran

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i verglas (Reply #36)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 12:40 PM

38. Norwich

Next quration?

Navy officers violated their sacred trust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daves Not Here Man (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:27 AM

8. Yes they should have

And when this is over they will wish they had

I will never surrender of my own free will, if in Command I will never surrender the lives of my men while they still have the means to resist



I don't see any blood on that deck

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #8)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 09:28 AM

13. Meh. Talk is cheap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daves Not Here Man (Reply #13)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 10:03 AM

14. You obviously never served

Men volunteer to fight and die. You don't get to change your mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bob the Bilderberger (Reply #14)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 10:44 AM

17. As per usual...you'd be wrong, Bobby!



I love it when people just pull shit assumptions outta their ass. Wishing fellow military brothers died needlessly isn't a qualifier for serving. It just makes you an keyboard warrior. And nobody volunteers to die. Just to fight for their country. The idea is you don't die, it makes for a better military force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bob the Bilderberger (Reply #14)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 01:01 PM

18. When did you fight?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #18)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 07:47 PM

23. When did you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #23)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:08 PM

25. I'm not the one criticizing American POWs

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #25)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:37 PM

30. POW's ? when did we declare war on Iran?

Does Obama know we are at war with Iran

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #30)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:52 PM

32. Being held by uniformed members of a foreign nation is covered under Prisoner of War laws

 

in the Geneva Convention.

Stick with hiding comments, son.
Being clever just isn't your thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #32)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:58 PM

33. Chapter and Verse son, link or slink...

Which article of the Geneva Conventions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #32)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 11:01 AM

35. So that's a no You cant provide such an article of the Geneva Convention?

Quelle Surprise...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to kcci (Reply #39)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 02:41 PM

40. And you still fail AGAIN

We are NOT at war with Iran so they were NOT POW's

We are not even in a shooting confrontation with Iran,

So AGAIN You fail

And it is up to YOU to support your claim, Clausewitz, not me to do it for you.

The Crew of the USS Pueblo were not considered POW's even though they were held for 11 Months

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #40)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 02:47 PM

41. It's in the link.

 


Your inability to read or comprehend it isn't my problem, nor is your lack of common sense; Apparently, you think that American soldiers can be treated in any manner without any consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #41)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 03:03 PM

42. Again you fail in the most Obtuse manner possible

Obama and congress have not declared a state of War between the USA and Iran or declared them an Enemy

Now lets look at Article 4, Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, shall we?


Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power.

Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.


Sorry but I can help you with your lack of reading comprehension issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Banshee 3 Actual (Reply #42)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 03:18 PM

43. If you lack the ability to comprehend, that's perfectly fine....

 

But thank you for making it clear that you don't think that American troops should be afforded the Geneva conventions, in order to somehow prove that you aren't shitting on American troops that are taken prisoner by a foreign government.

Truly a remarkable feat, even for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #43)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 08:19 PM

44. Your lack of any comprehension amuses me no end.

When a B-17 landed at Shannon Ireland in 1942 and Uniformed Irish Soldier took over the plane (And general Truscott) were those US soldiers POW's?

Of course not, no one with common sense would believe that. They were detained for a time and then released

Same with Iran and these Sailors

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daves Not Here Man (Reply #13)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 10:30 AM

16. Yeah, it's not like they had 200 years of Honor to uphold or nothin'

A Fish Rots from the head down

Obama has no leadership integrity, he promotes Officers who toe his politically correct line and here's the result

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #16)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 01:02 PM

19. Thanks Obama.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #19)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 03:31 PM

20. He really is a Loser

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #20)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 03:41 PM

21. Bin Laden's dead and he beat Hillary.

 

One thing a conservative Commander in Chief failed spectacularly at and something another conservative is currently failing spectacularly at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #21)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 03:50 PM

22. He's refusing to acknowledge Islam is at War with us

His administrative lackeys have purged every reference to Islam from the training materials we are using to keep us safe

I am seriously wondering whose side he is on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #22)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:07 PM

24. The winning side.

 

So it makes sense you don't think he's on your side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #24)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:12 PM

27. You may be right

Looks like Islam is winning

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #27)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:36 PM

29. Aren't you easily intimidated?

 

Good thing most of us aren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #16)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:10 PM

26. Shitting on American POWs, just like Trump.

 

He's quite the Pied Pipper of your sort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #26)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:13 PM

28. Code of Conduct

You ought to read it sometime

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Reply #28)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:37 PM

31. I'm reading your comments, where you shit on American POWs

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcci (Reply #31)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 05:10 AM

34. You and aren't going to be friends

And that makes me sad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daves Not Here Man (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 10:05 AM

15. Oh well

That's the way it works sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bob the Bilderberger (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:24 AM

6. This ain't even MY Navy

They don't teach the Code of Conduct anymore

Just Gender Bias and Climate Change

It starts with putting women on Men O'War and ends with Men dressed like women

I just threw up a little in my mouth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 07:47 AM

2. if this is true (or even if not)

only the officers who ordered a "short cut" through iranian waters are responsible.

it is nice to know that those barbarian enhanced interrogation techniques "slapping hands upon the table" do not equal the scientific expertise of a civilized nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:35 AM

10. It's still name rank serial number

Not name rank and code to my iPad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 07:56 AM

3. Well, I suppose somebody had to get in trouble with this.

luckily, nobody was killed or injured in this whole mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:29 AM

9. I have to wonder what kind of Idiots bring Personal Laptops on a patrol

much less Cell phones

When we patrolled we kept a 20$ and our ID card and Dogtags. no wallets, no pictures, nothing violating PERSEC in case we were killed or captured.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 08:39 AM

11. Everything I read showed this was shit show from the beginning.

One guy fucking up you can blame on the troopie, or sailor in this case, all fucking up? that is a leadership problem.

Good to see that everyone is taking a bite of this, not one person on the boats, and in their CoC should ever see another day at sea under colours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gunslinger201 (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 09:18 AM

12. Shameful

These guys were well equipped to put up a fight. Their behavior brought shame to themselves, their uniform, the Navy, and the Flag. They ought to be transferred to cleaning heads in Antarctica.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Culturemisconductpoliticallycorrectmilitary