• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

Flash said:
On who's part, the lawyer or the Admiral? The lawyer? Likely not, as their ethical regulations seem to often be whatever they want them to be. The Admiral? He bypassed his chain of command to directly offer his advice and counsel to a person soon to be the senior civilian in the Department of Defense, which may or may not have 'violated an ethical regulation' but likely violates several Defense and Navy regulations and rules with the whole bypassing the CoC thing.

The fact that you seem to have no problem with what occurred certainly says...something.
Click to expand...
I have a problem with our shitty media reporting half-truths and cherry-picked facts more than anything ADM Caudle may or may not have done.

If there's an ethical violation here, it's the journalist's obligation to research it and point it out. It's not like this is overly difficult - interview some senior JAGs anonymously. If the author did that, ADM Caudle probably would have resigned already because there's an actual Article 92 violation to pursue.

Yet in over 1,000 words... nothing. Just a bunch of 'I'll let you connect the dots' in an article written with a nefarious tone. It's written as if ADM Caudle commissioned last year and immediately ascended to CNO because he made a phone call.

So that leads me to believe there wasn't one. The author clearly thinks there was wrong-doing, yet is unable to point out exactly what that wrong-doing was. If you're going to publish an article in the NYT accusing someone of something, implicitly or explicitly, you need to have more than "he may or may not have violated a DoD regulation."

I honestly wish publications were successfully sued more frequently for articles like this.
 
Last edited:
Spekkio said:
I have a problem with our shitty media reporting half-truths and cherry-picked facts more than anything ADM Caudle may or may not have done.

If there's an ethical violation here, it's the journalist's obligation to research it and point it out. It's not like this is overly difficult - interview some senior JAGs anonymously. If the author did that, ADM Caudle probably would have resigned already because there's an actual Article 92 violation to pursue.

Yet in over 1,000 words... nothing. Just a bunch of 'I'll let you connect the dots' in an article written with a nefarious tone. It's written as if ADM Caudle commissioned last year and immediately ascended to CNO because he made a phone call.

So that leads me to believe there wasn't one. The author clearly thinks there was wrong-doing, yet is unable to point out exactly what that wrong-doing was. If you're going to publish an article in the NYT accusing someone of something, implicitly or explicitly, you need to have more than "he may or may not have violated a DoD regulation."

I honestly wish publications were successfully sued more frequently for articles like this.
Click to expand...
Sued for what? It's not a courtroom. He doesn't have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt, only that the things he says happened, happened. I'm sure he has more than one source corroborating said phone call.

If journalists waited until they had ironclad evidence of malfeasance, we'd never know anything. As long as the underlying facts are true, these are public figures, playing in the big leagues. They have to expect some degree of scrutiny.
 
I would imagine that the bar for libel for a public official like CNO would be extraordinarily high. Of course, it's a ridiculous proposition on its face. I think we can file this example of "things I don't like are libel" in the same file drawer as "things I don't like are communism" and "things I don't like about war are war crimes and/or genocide."
 
Brett327 said:
I would imagine that the bar for libel for a public official like CNO would be extraordinarily high. Of course, it's a ridiculous proposition on its face. I think we can file this example of "things I don't like are libel" in the same file drawer as "things I don't like are communism" and "things I don't like about war are war crimes and/or genocide."
Click to expand...
Suing a newspaper - let alone one with deep pockets and lots of attorneys, like the NYT - almost never goes well for the plaintiff.
 
I also think Ruport Murdoch should owe Obama like $500,000,000 for the natural born citizen bullshit they ran on loop. Especially when his 2008 opponent was the actually questionable candidate, but since McCain was white and a veteran no one was going to dig into that.

Thankfully, McCain's trainwreck of a campaign made the GOP stop the "it's my turn now" bullshit with Presidential candidates... the Democrats still have to catch up on that one.
 
Last edited:
taxi1 said:
Suing leads to discovery. Guess who now gets direct access to what is behind the curtain?
Click to expand...
That's not really a gotcha. I welcome transparency.

My entire point is that if there was a law broken, the news has an ethical obligation to report it. If a law wasn't broken, then the news should not speculate about it.

Step 1 is citing the law / regulation in question that was broken, which is notably absent from this article.
 
Brett327 said:
I would imagine that the bar for libel for a public official like CNO would be extraordinarily high. Of course, it's a ridiculous proposition on its face. I think we can file this example of "things I don't like are libel" in the same file drawer as "things I don't like are communism" and "things I don't like about war are war crimes and/or genocide."
Click to expand...
But things I don't like are still woke.
 
Spekkio said:
My entire point is that if there was a law broken, the news has an ethical obligation to report it. If a law wasn't broken, then the news should not speculate about it.
Click to expand...
Something can be completely wrong and deserving of exposure and yet totally legal.

Our laws are the gutters in the bowling alley of society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top