quote:

Now a superior 27-year veteran with distinguished service is tried and convicted before he even sets foot into the court martial.

Sorry Mark, but I would have to disagree with that.... if convicted it will be on the evidence presented about this case.. not our BS meaningless opinions....

By the way, I know nothing about this, other than what I have read here.. but I would be willing to bet money he did not get busted on a "CG" random urinalysis...

Wray...

Recently, the Coast Guard Pacific Area issued a press release about a USCG Captain accused of using cocaine and obstructing justice. The Captain may or may not have used cocaine. If he did, he should be held accountable. Frankly, that is not the most important issue here. The core of the issue is that the Area public relations department, blessed by senior officers at the Area and in the Coast Guard, publicly humiliated an officer though he has not yet been found guilty. The very fact that some consider it a fore-gone conclusion indicates the bias imparted.

Some feel that because the charge goes against our Core Missions it is more egregious and, therefore, he deserves it. However, this public humiliation before the hearing and court martial can take place violates our Core Value of Respect. Worse, it precludes justice from the proceeding because it potentially taints the very pool of people that will determine his guilt or innocence.

One official claimed the press release was disseminated because of “rumors floating around.” However, as a Service, we do not universally publicize rumors in press releases. For instance, amid rumors of an inappropriate relationship and sexual harassment an admiral abruptly left the Service and was allowed to retire despite inadequate time in grade. More recently, another admiral was allowed to retire in the face of rumors of sexual harassment. Where were the embarrassing press releases on these senior officers?

There is no requirement to publish a press release. In this case, senior officials chose to release a statement regardless of the impact on the accused’s family, life, and his very innocence through jury pool tainting. We do not know the facts. The Captain may be found guilty. But what if he is innocent? He will leave the Service guilty in the minds of many who read the article and did not know the man.

Hold people accountable, but treat them with respect!

And THAT, navyflea, is an example of how every officer wearing blue should respond. You stick with the Coast Guard, and thank you for the post.

quote:

Now, having said that, the accusation is what it is, and no one on this board created it; however, if the accusation is true whether you are a Captain, an Admiral, a Master Chief or a Seaman, it should have been handled with discretion. We should have never heard about it, and the fact that we did indicates a lack of integrity among certain members of the officer corps who were made aware of the allegations or who brought charges forward. What ever happened to the long, blue line?

I really have a difficult time trying to justify your comments and Navyflea's as well.

So if I read your posts while acknowledging that use of cocaine and obstruction of justice are illegal, you advocate keeping it hush hush? Are you castigating someone for (probably following orders from the area commander who approved the press release) releasing the truth? In my opinion that is an egregious lack of integrity. Rumors are more vicious then the truth.

I'm the Chief Steward for my union local. We are federal law enforcement officers. While we often are embroiled in heated union issues with management - often disagreeing with them - we do not condone illegal activity by our members.

There has been too many "cover-ups" for too long; like it or not, release of this type of information is legal; he has been charged and it will be investigated - nothing wrong with announcing that - it is done everyday.

A thin blue line? To cover-up the truth?

I'm certainly all for protecting people's privacy and reputation. But I'm not sure we should be having "secret" Article 32 hearings. I understand that this basically the equivilant of a grand jury, but grand juries normally aren't conducted in secret are they?

No, for my money, I think once things get to Article 32 stage, it needs to be in the open and clear. Otherwise, we might as well have the trial in secret also. That way, if the person is acquited, no harm - no foul.

quote:

A thin blue line? To cover-up the truth?

The "thin blue line" of the Coast Guard was probably broken in the 1980s when the business model usurped the military leadership model within the service and the ethic deteriorated into "each person for him/her self".

quote:

because it potentially taints the very pool of people that will determine his guilt or innocence.

Elizabeth, the key word there is POTENTIALLY......

This was not a "rumor floating around" The Captain was charged with using cocaine. I hardly think this was a charge handed out without sufficient, or at least more than reasonable assurance the charge would stick.

Don't think for a minute the CG (or any other military service) minds dishing out all the humiliation they want. Do you really think they care about a person's "feelings"... Think again.

Wray...

I think you are misunderstanding my point.

I don't condone illegal activity. I also don't condone secret Article 32 hearings. As far as I know they are part of the public record and should be. The charges are also part of the public record and so is the verdict. And, as navyflea said, people should be held to account for their actions.

I also don't condone cover ups. In this instance the consequences of using illegal drugs are well known to everyone in the Coast Guard. If you do it and urinalysis proves it your career in most cases is over.

Using drugs illegally is not headline news. Issuing a public relations statement sensationalizes the charges in this case, especially to other Coast Guard members. The average Joe could care less if someone got arrested for using cocaine. How many other people in the Coast Guard do you know who used cocaine, alcohol, or some other drug and were discharged? Was a press release issued?

One can only conclude by reading the press release that there is a lot more to the story and that drives even more rumor and innuendo. And you know what? If you want all the dirt it will be available through any FOIA request after proceedings have concluded, and I'm certain it will be in some future good order and discipline publication down the line regardless of the outcome.

It is one thing for an officer or anyone else to be investigated and charged with an offense. It is quite another to issue a press release for something where the consequences of this particular action are already very well known. Since virtually all of us reading this have been through urinalysis after urinalysis and have seen peers be discharged as a result, we already know with relative certainty the outcome of such a charge and for many who have posted here there's fresh, red meat to chew on.

Is this man the only officer in the Coast Guard who has ever been charged with such an offense as this?

I have witnessed and read about Court Martial proceedings that were far more serious than this and NEVER was a press release issued. I won't talk about them here, either.

Navyflea hit this on the head and understands the sensitivities involved in a charge such as this. I can name two high ranking officers who committed suicide, one because of a much more serious allegation which may or may not have been based upon fact, and the other, a Navy Admiral whose personal awards were in question.

So when I say game theory is involved, and someone defected, I mean this: in this case it may have been more important to immediately and permanantly defeat this Captain regardless of guilt or innocence, thereby creating a "win" for some other purpose. Maybe the win is a personal one for some other party or group of people, maybe an organizational win for the group against the one...I don't know.

What I do know is that the objective, in this case, is to investigate all charges and to reach a verdict. The person charged still loses regardless of the outcome. The difference is that one person's loss can still be achieved without proclaiming a "win". I read this in the prss release: "HEY! We're busting one of our own!" Does that make you proud?

These charges are not sensationalistic but for some reason they have become that.

I'm thinking back and don't know that I know this Captain or have run into him before. But I can certainly name other officers who did things much more serious than this and weren't vilified in the court of public opinion. Conversely, people can and do vilify others when they have meat to chew on. It's human nature.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: edgykatid,

quote:

Are you castigating someone for (probably following orders from the area commander who approved the press release) releasing the truth? In my opinion that is an egregious lack of integrity.

I'll give you a direct answer to this.

Yes.

If you want to question my integrity you may.

I'd also like to invite you to review the premise of the Prisoner's Dilemma, and compare the word "integrity" to "continence" and "incontinence".

Prior to development of the printing press Keeping secrets and other forms of knowledge from the public was a simple affair. Just about anything could be kept from the common person. Heck, even the bible was restricted to clergy and scholars only. As a result, it was easier to put the wool over the public's eyes and to sweep dirt under the rug.

Enter the printing press and knowledge previously restrict to a few elite became diseminated to anyone who could read and could afford the printed page.

Likewise, the explosion of Internet technologies has made it harder to keep things under the table than it was, say 15, 20 or more years ago. One very rarely, if at all, heard of COs and OINCs being relieved for cause. Admiral's Masts and courts martial of Officers was never common knowledge prior to the Web.

All that changed with development and expansion of the Internet.

In the early years of the Coast Guard Standard Workstation, devising computer security was a relative easy task as networks rarely went beyond the local area configuration. Again, SWS-III and interface with the Web changed everything. Having been retired for 15 years now (as of Sep 1, tomorrow), I can only imagine the problems of contemporary information security and that material that gets realeased unintentionally.

As the invention of the printed page forced a certain openess, so the development of telecommunication technologies forces an openess these days. I would NOT want to be a security officer these days!

For some reason or another, PACAREA Public Affairs put out a news release on this matter. As mentioned, I first heard this story of the Captain on a San Francisco all news radio station. This would have never happened prior to the mass availability to information enabled by the Internet.

A brave new world out there now and more difficult than ever to keep certain matters on the q.t. and off the grapevine.

mw

I must agree Mark, and you've said it very diplomatically.

What we don't see in our new 12 hour news cycle is resolution to one line stories such as this. I'll bet the outcome won't be on that radio station. The next sensationalistic piece of news will gladly take its place.

quote:

"HEY! We're busting one of our own!" Does that make you proud?

Edgy - no it doesn't make me proud - at all. Its rather sad that despite being a Federal Law Enforcement Agency that there are (among other things) positive urinalyses for illicit drug use.

A trend I've noticed in recent years is that the higher up in an organization (i.e. upper management and higher) the more likelihood that any transgressions or law-breaking will be covered up.

Perhaps calling it an egregious lack of integrity is too harsh and if anyone feels it was directed at them personally I apologize; however releasing the fact that someone is accused and charged with committing several crimes is something that is done quite regularly and I personally don't see anything wrong with doing it. If this person is found innocent I hope that that information is published like the charges; I'm willing to bet that the press release was approved by the Area Commander, perhaps with the tacit approval of the Commandant; I really don't think a LT/LCDR/CDR PAO/PIO for the Area would release this themselves.

The bottom line is that if I chose to do something illegal then I better be able to withstand the consequences of my actions.

Back to basics... this issue is out, and we all know about it now. Does it really matter? not to me.. I don't know this Captain. I have heard nothing but good things about him, from many people that knew him well. (We all know about the one Ah $hit that wipes out 999 Atta Boys)

Personally I would like nothing more than for him to be found innocent of this, and those that charged him (I don't know if it was CG or local authorities) held accountable for their actions.

Regardless... it's all said & done.. the only thing keeping this alive is this thread....

I keep thinking about the statement above regarding humiliation... One that pops into my mind is: "During the course of this day you have been caused to suffer indignities, to experience humiliation."

followed up by:

"So this then is why you were caused to experience these things. You were subjected to humiliation to prove to you that humility is a good, a great, and necessary emotion, which cannot harm you, which in fact strengthens you. In the future, you will be caused to suffer indignities, to experience humiliation far beyond those imposed upon you today. Bear them with the dignity, with the same good grace with which you bore these today. "

Maybe we should let it rest..... The outcome does not rest with any of us, and I'm sure we will know it when it happens.

Wray....

quote:

I understand that this basically the equivilant of a grand jury, but grand juries normally aren't conducted in secret are they?

Federa Rules of Criminal Procedure:

III. GRAND JURY, INDICTMENT, INFORMATION > Rule 6. Prev | NextRule 6. The Grand Jury
(2) Secrecy.

(A) No obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with Rule 6(e)(2)(B).

(B) Unless these rules provide otherwise, the following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:

(i) a grand juror;

(ii) an interpreter;

(iii) a court reporter;

(iv) an operator of a recording device;

(v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony;

(vi) an attorney for the government; or

(vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii).



A person (other than those listed above) appearing before the Grand Jury is theoretically free to talk about their testimony. The proceedings that go on behind closed doors i.e. between the govt. attorneys and the grand jurors are secret.

There is a whole list of exceptions that revolve around sharing of GJ information with other levels of LE.

Full text: Rule 6e

Certainly can't argue that!

I think there's a fine line between covering things up and just not disseminating information whiles punishment is meted out.

Covering things up implies that it was okay to commit the illegal act. Bringing charges and reaching a verdict and sentencing which could end up being severe for the accused, while at the same time not advertising the fact, is not a cover up in my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by mabwood:

quote:

A thin blue line? To cover-up the truth?

The "thin blue line" of the Coast Guard was probably broken in the 1980s when the business model usurped the military leadership model within the service and the ethic deteriorated into "each person for him/her self".

I second that Mark. Things like TQM sorta ate at the CG from the top down. I can still remember in just recently (well not that recent) at TRACEN Petaluma.. the THEN CO always refered to the base as a "campus".. So, let the FRAT partys begin.. Which they did but nothing like when I was a student in 81. No EMI. No more "military drill", etc.. just send'em up to the "education specialist" for some "adjustment" then back they come to school..

quote:

Originally posted by markdietrich:
CAPT Sullivan was the finest officer I've served with. We all are in no place to judge. Our outcry shouldn't be toward the Captain--it should be toward PACAREA and their insane policies surrounding press releases. They claim they sent it to stop rumors. Now a superior 27-year veteran with distinguished service is tried and convicted before he even sets foot into the court martial.

CDR Dietrich, off topic here, but it's nice to see you popping your head in. I was assigned TAD to Seahawk WSES-2 in 1991 as an HS3 for the Hatian boatlift and still have fond memories of the great command and crew you ran. Would love to exchange some photos sometime. Feel free to PM me at rxjeffaz@gmail.com Thanks for adding Seahawk to your units, I started the page in hopes of reconnecting with some from that time period but it looks like you and I are it for now. Also my white whale for over a decade now has been to obtain a seahawk unit patch, got any spares hanging around? Sincerely, Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by markdietrich:
CAPT Sullivan was the finest officer I've served with. We all are in no place to judge. Our outcry shouldn't be toward the Captain--it should be toward PACAREA and their insane policies surrounding press releases. They claim they sent it to stop rumors. Now a superior 27-year veteran with distinguished service is tried and convicted before he even sets foot into the court martial.

Tried and convicted? That may happen if it goes to a Courts Martial; but I don't see him tried and convicted yet. Do people have opinions about it? Sure they do; what about all the civilians out there; do they have a right to know that a person who has the special trust of the public has been charged with committing two crimes?

I had a CDR CO of a Cutter who was dismissed from the service for something that was swept under the rug and kept quiet...to avoid scandelizing the service - and people should have known what happened...

quote:

Originally posted by Nobodyaskedmebut:

I had a CDR CO of a Cutter who was dismissed from the service for something that was swept under the rug and kept quiet...to avoid scandelizing the service - and people should have known what happened...

Everyone knew what happened in the case you mention Tim.