My review of the investigation is complete; I have taken final actions based on the report’s findings and forwarded my recommendations to the Chief of Naval Operations for additional actions to be taken by the Secretary of the Navy.
To summarize what has taken place to date, I was informed of the existence of the videos on 1 January and immediately directed a JAGMAN investigation. On 4 January, I detached CAPT Honors for cause from command of ENTERPRISE based on the indisputable facts of his involvement in the videos. A complete and deliberate investigation was conducted into every aspect of the production and viewing of the videos to determine who was involved, to what degree they were involved, who in the chain-of-command actually saw the videos and, after viewing them, what action was or was not taken. The investigation was completed on 4 February and forwarded to me for review and action.
The investigation documented that at least 25 videos containing inappropriate scenes were produced and shown to the crew of ENTERPRISE from October 2005 to December 2007. ENTERPRISE’s Executive Officers, as well as other officers and senior enlisted sailors, were prominently depicted in these videos, acting crudely or in sexually suggestive ways. The investigation further confirmed that CAPT Honors did in fact receive complaints regarding the content of the videos shown during “XO Movie Night”, but deliberately chose not to change or alter his inappropriate behavior. In fact, over time, the productions spiraled downward with increasingly offensive content.
CAPT Honors’ conduct and the actions, or lack thereof, by his immediate superiors during that period, were not in keeping with our core values and the standards we expect of officers in the United States Navy.
The statement I made to the media today (below) includes the specific actions I took based on facts uncovered by the investigation. I encourage you to read my statement in its entirety to understand the reasons behind my decisions.
I’ve also included a link to the P4 message I transmitted to ENTERPRISE this afternoon to inform her crew of the results of the investigation and my actions.
Today, ENTERPRISE is forward deployed and combat ready, carrying out her assigned missions.
All the best, JCHjr
Click here to read my P4 message to ENTERPRISE
ADMIRAL JOHN C. HARVEY, JR
STATEMENT ON ENTERPRISE VIDEO INVESTIGATION FINDINGS
3 MARCH 2011
GOOD AFTERNOON AND THANK YOU FOR COMING TODAY.
I AM ADMIRAL JOHN HARVEY, COMMANDER OF U.S. FLEET FORCES. I AM HERE TODAY TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRODUCTION AND BROADCAST OF INAPPROPRIATE VIDEOS ABOARD USS ENTERPRISE.
THAT INVESTIGATION IS NOW COMPLETE. I HAVE REVIEWED IT, TAKEN IMMEDIATE ACTIONS BASED ON ITS FINDINGS, AND FORWARDED TO THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS MY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.
THE INVESTIGATION DOCUMENTED THAT AT LEAST 25 VIDEOS CONTAINING INAPPROPRIATE SCENES WERE PRODUCED AND SHOWN TO THE CREW OF ENTERPRISE FROM OCTOBER 2005 TO DECEMBER 2007.
ENTERPRISE’S EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS OTHER OFFICERS AND SENIOR ENLISTED SAILORS, WERE PROMINENTLY DEPICTED IN THESE VIDEOS, ACTING CRUDELY OR IN SEXUALLY SUGGESTIVE WAYS.
THE INVESTIGATION CONCLUDED THAT THE PRODUCTION AND BROADCAST OF THESE VIDEOS REPRESENTED A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE FROM EXPECTED STANDARDS OF PERSONAL BEHAVIOR AND PROFESSIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE NAVY.
IN ADDITION THE INVESTIGATION CONFIRMED THE PROFOUND LACK OF JUDGMENT ON THE PART OF CAPT HONORS, THEN SERVING AS EXECUTIVE OFFICER ON USS ENTERPRISE.
THE BEHAVIOR EXHIBITED DURING THESE “XO MOVIE NIGHT” VIDEOS VIOLATES LONG-STANDING NORMS OF EXEMPLARY CONDUCT REQUIRED OF ALL NAVAL OFFICERS BY PUBLIC LAW AND U.S. NAVY REGULATIONS.
TO DOCUMENT THE RESPONSIBILITY AND ASSURE PROPER ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THESE VIOLATIONS OF EXPECTED STANDARDS OF PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR, I HAVE TAKEN THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS:
• I HAVE FORWARDED TO THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS MY RECOMMENDATION THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY ISSUE SECRETARIAL LETTERS OF CENSURE TO THE FOLLOWING OFFICERS:
- CAPTAIN OWEN HONORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ENTERPRISE FOR THE PERIOD JULY 2005 TO SEPTEMBER 2007;
- CAPTAIN JOHN DIXON, EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ENTERPRISE FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 2007 TO JUNE 2009;
- REAR ADMIRAL LAWRENCE RICE, COMMANDING OFFICER OF ENTERPRISE FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 2005 TO MAY 2007;
- REAR ADMIRAL RON HORTON, COMMANDING OFFICER OF ENTERPRISE FOR THE PERIOD MAY 2007 TO MAY 2010
• I HAVE ALSO REQUESTED THAT A COPY OF THE INVESTIGATION, ALONG WITH A COPY OF MY ENDORSEMENT, BE PLACED IN EACH OF THESE OFFICERS’ PERMANENT MILITARY RECORD.
• I HAVE ISSUED NON-PUNITIVE LETTERS OF CAUTION TO REAR ADMIRAL RAYMOND SPICER AND VICE ADMIRAL DANIEL HOLLOWAY, THE STRIKE GROUP COMMANDERS EMBARKED IN ENTERPRISE DURING THE SHIP’S 2006 AND 2007 DEPLOYMENTS, AND I HAVE ALSO REQUESTED THAT A COPY OF THE INVESTIGATION, ALONG WITH A COPY OF MY ENDORSEMENT, BE PLACED IN EACH OFFICER’S PERMANENT MILITARY RECORD.
• I HAVE COUNSELED REAR ADMIRAL GREGORY NOSAL AND REAR ADMIRAL CLIFFORD SHARPE, THE CARRIER AIR WING COMMANDER AND DESTROYER SQUADRON COMMODORE EMBARKED IN ENTERPRISE DURING THE SHIP’S 2006 DEPLOYMENT
• I HAVE ISSUED NON-PUNITIVE LETTERS OF CAUTION TO 32 OFFICERS AND SAILORS WHO DEMONSTRATED DEFICIENCIES IN PERSONAL BEHAVIOR OR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT RELATED TO THE PRODUCTION AND BROADCAST OF THESE VIDEOS.
IT IS FAIR TO ASK HOW THIS SERIES OF EVENTS COULD HAPPEN OVER SUCH AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME WITHOUT THE KEY LEADERS ABOARD ENTERPRISE TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION.
THE INVESTIGATION DETERMINED THE PROBLEM STEMMED FROM THE FACT THAT THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF ENTERPRISE, THE OFFICERS PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSISTING THE COMMANDING OFFICER IN MAINTAINING GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE AND ENSURING EXEMPLARY CONDUCT, WERE THEMSELVES THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM.
VULGAR LANGUAGE, INSENSITIVE AND SEXUALLY-TINGED ATTEMPTS AT HUMOR SUCH AS THAT DISPLAYED IN THE ENTERPRISE VIDEOS IS NOW AN EVERYDAY PART OF OUR POPULAR CULTURE AND ENDLESS EXAMPLES CAN BE FOUND ON CABLE TELEVISION AND IN THE MOVIES.
RECOGNIZING THIS FACT OF LIFE, SOME HAVE QUESTIONED THE ACTIONS I HAVE TAKEN THUS FAR AND HAVE ALSO CHARACTERIZED THE VIDEOS AS HARMLESS ATTEMPTS TO RAISE CREW MORALE DURING A PERIOD OF DEMANDING OPERATIONS.
I CANNOT DISAGREE MORE STRONGLY!
NAVY LEADERS ARE NOT POPULAR ENTERTAINERS, BUT PROFESSIONALS VESTED WITH EXTRAORDINARY MILITARY AUTHORITY WHO MUST BE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD AND MAINTAIN THEIR CREDIBILITY IN THE EYES OF THEIR SUBORDINATES UNDER THE MOST DIFFICULT, EVEN POSSIBLY LIFE-THREATENING, CIRCUMSTANCES.
POOR JUDGMENT AND BEHAVIOR THAT UNDERMINES THAT CREDIBILITY THREATENS GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE AND, OVER TIME, JEOPARDIZES THE CREW’S FAITH IN ITS LEADERSHIP. THAT MEANS WE CANNOT SIMPLY IGNORE ACTIONS SUCH AS THE PRODUCTION OF THESE VIDEOS THAT CLEARLY CALL INTO QUESTION A NAVY LEADER’S JUDGMENT, CHARACTER, AND FITNESS TO COMMAND.
TO BE TRUE TO OUR NAVY’S CORE VALUES OF HONOR, COURAGE AND COMMITMENT, OUR LEADERS ARE REQUIRED TO ENSURE THE WELL-BEING OF OUR PEOPLE, SHOW RESPECT TOWARD ALL, AND TREAT EACH INDIVIDUAL WITH DIGNITY.
THOSE INVOLVED IN THE PRODUCTION OF THESE VIDEOS AND THOSE THAT DID NOT TAKE SUFFICIENT ACTION TO STOP THEM FROM BEING PRODUCED DID NOT MEET THAT HIGH STANDARD.
OUR SAILORS ARE TRULY REMARKABLE INDIVIDUALS, THE FINEST YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN OUR COUNTRY HAS TO OFFER, AND THEY DESERVE PRINCIPLED LEADERSHIP. THESE EVENTS ON ENTERPRISE WERE UNFORTUNATE AND AN ABERRATION.
FORTUNATELY, OUR NAVY IS A LEARNING ORGANIZATION, AND THE SIGNIFICANT LESSONS LEARNED (AND RE-LEARNED) FROM THIS INVESTIGATION ARE ALREADY BEING STUDIED, DISCUSSED AND INCORPORATED INTO APPROPRIATE LEADERSHIP TRAINING CURRICULA.
THANK YOU.
27 comments:
Bravo Admiral, and THANK YOU for having the guts amidst the controversy to get to the core problems and hold a standard we can be proud of!!!! Great words for a well-deserved crew on Big E!!
V/R Jonah
Bravo Zulu!
Now let's all suit up and go fix the Naval Institute before those six rogue directors destroy it completely. NO on the change to mission statement; AGAINST Directors Waters, McCormack, Brennan, and the 3 retired navy flags.
This Navy that John Harvey represents and that Navy that the Institute has stood for since 1873, they're the same Navy and let's not let either be diminished.
I would like to know why
REAR ADMIRAL LAWRENCE RICE
REAR ADMIRAL RON HORTON
REAR ADMIRAL RAYMOND SPICER
AND
VICE ADMIRAL DANIEL HOLLOWAY
have not been relieved of thier commands as well, since they had to have given overt approval for all of those videos to have been made AND THEY WERE IN COMMAND AT THE TIME. As such they are just as guilty, if not more so.
D.J. Baird
USN, rtd
Pathetic end to something that should have been handled with "These videos do not portray the message of the United States Navy and we will learn from them and become better. This happened over four years ago and many senior officers did not find them offensive or worth taking action which tells me we have work to do. The Enterprise needs to cruise with their Captain and we are moving forward and will learn from this event and not take corrective action on so many fine personnel who have dedicated their life to serving our country." The saddest thing of all is that the spineless Flag Officers all suffered from a "loss of memory". I miss our leadership that possessed the fortitude and qualities to be leaders and made you want to follow them in combat. Bull Halsey should be turning over in his grave. Admiral Harvey, it is time for you to go.
What a horrendous end to so many that gave their lives to their country and to the Navy. Why have we turned in to a "no defect" Navy and think it is appropriate to go back years and punish those who were doing their best to maintain morale and keep their personnel focused on serving and protecting their country. Shame on the spineless Flag officers for "forgetting or never seeing those videos". Admiral Harvey you have just demonstrated to all the young officers and enlisted personnel that the Navy will love them as long as they do everything right but throw them under the bus if they get off the path. Its a sad day for the Navy and time for a complete exodus of our Four stars who obviously have let the Navy get so badly off track. Thank you Captain Honors for serving your country for 31 years, spending 10 years away from your family while you served your country, and being a true leader that the navy so desperately needs.
Sir,
Life at sea is challenging, and taking the time to laugh is critical to maintaining a bit of sanity. However, that doesn't justify poor conduct or ignoring our core values, no matter how bad the situation. Thank you for doing the right thing in spite of all the scrutiny.
V/R
A Junior Officer
I thought long and hard about separating in June of last year. Working for Capt Honors again on the Enterprise was one of the main reasons I even considered it. Thankfully I decided to get out and spend time with my family.
It makes me sick that our country appears to be driven by the agenda of a biased media trying to break a story. How many complaints did Capt Honors get on the videos? I'm sure it was an inconsequential number when put in the context of the 4000 other sailors who enjoyed them.
The most frustrating aspect of the entire ordeal is that the beginning of each movie had a disclaimer to not watch if you were easily offended. We had a few guys not watch the videos in my berthing but they had no issue with anyone else enjoying them.
I'm disappointed about how this has unfolded and the way this typifies our country's shift to a society of mentally soft people.
BZ, Admiral and thank you very much for the outstanding communications!
To the critics who can't understand why this was an issue in the first place, I would counter with this: would those videos be just as innocent if made by the President of the United States? The expectations of those holding the position of XO and CO of Naval Warship is high. Naval Officers must rise to meet those expectations rather than the positions lowered to satisfy pop culture. Being an XO or CO is not about morale or popularity - it's about spirit and combat effectiveness.
Sir,
I still have a problem with reaching back four to punish any one after they were apparently counseled. Navy Time quoted you with the following:
“Admiral O’Hanlon took exactly the right actions, with exactly the right people, and did exactly the right thing – what I would have expected a flag officer to do,” Harvey said. He said O’Hanlon raised the issue with the strike group commander and the ship’s commanding officer, telling them “in very strong terms that these were ‘unsat’ and need to stop now.”
So, if Capt Honors stopped, which I can't tell from any released timeline, why wasn't O'Hanlon's intervention enough? Why the double jeopardy? Since we are reaching back in time, why don't we open up Tailhook again, or the Iowa investigation? Or the Cole? Just asking?
A wise old lieutenant commander helped this young ensign understand the job: "Ducky, the naval officer's job is to establish standards."
Good to see that hasn't changed.
Comment number 4 above (from Anonymous) sounds like a statement CAPT Honors himself would make. "The ENTERPRISE should have sailed with her CAPTAIN." Come on O. P., that's not being too Anonymous.
Admiral-
I once had a CO tell me it takes moral courage to do what is right, no matter what the criticism may be from others.
I hope this case proves to all naval personnel, regardless of rank, that what the videos did was not raise morale, but instead degrade the image of the Navy.
I was an MWR officer at one point, and I understand that it is tough out at sea. You have to find alternatives to make the mundane better.
V/r,
Another JO
Everything about this story just plain stinks from top to bottom. This whole thing should've been handled with one statement. "This happened over 4 years ago and it was addressed internally some time ago."
Only in a country this desperate to be PC.
I am a fan of what Admiral Harvey has done at Fleet Forces for the most part but what i see here is not the leadership i have grown to expect from Adm. Harvey.
Honors carreer is effectively over while the senior officers that were promoted partly based on the good job Honors did, will get a slap on the wrist.
When Spicer, Holloway, Horton, and Rice have their Commands taken from them, then i will take Adm. Harvey at his word that this was such unacceptable behavior.
Our Nation just forfeited a good serviceman and leader not because he did a bad job, but because he hurt someones feelings.
PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii (March 3, 2011) - Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, removed from command Rear Adm. Ron Horton, Commander, Logistics Group, Western Pacific, today for loss of confidence in his ability to command.
http://www.cpf.navy.mil/media/news/articles/2011/mar/mar3_CLWP.shtml
Admiral, of all the banter back and forth, the one thing we have failed to thank you for is keeping this issue within Navy Lifelines. I am certain, had you not taken this high profile incident to account so quickly and decisively, SECDEF would have assumed the role of adjudicator. From a proud Naval Officer, thank you for your steadfast courage to take on the difficult and solemn task of preserving the decency and professionalism of Navy leadership. From a Father, thank you for restoring the faith that Navy Flag Officers who fail to lead in a decent and professional manner will be held to account for their action/inaction when charged with the awesome responsibility of leading our sons and daughters. V/R
All I can say is that I am sorry and disgusted by ADM Harvey's action. The sheep have take over the Navy.
Interesting the investigation did not mention the commanding officers and executive officers from the 6 squadrons that were embarked during the time of the airing of the videos. The commanding officers and executive officers of the squadrons had plenty of opportunity to "address their concerns" with the content of the videos. With them being COs and XOs in positions of leadership on board the aircraft carrier, why was senior leadership not interviewed as to what they did as leaders and included in the investigation???
NPLOC's can be effective instructional tools between a CO and a service member; however, they are also private personnel actions that are not intended to be announced publicly, especially not at a news conference or to the media. It would have been sufficient to declare that appropriate administrative action was taken after reviewing the investigation, particularly for the junior Sailors set to receive these letters.
Admiral,
This has blown out of proportion. The poster above has it right. The issuance of a NPLOC is considered to be private personnel action regarding performance. I still can't help thinking that the high profile publicizing of your actions is not really meant to keep the Navy informed. It is meant to placate the media. The media attention is really what the reasoning was behind all of this. That is why if the media attention had come about 4 years ago it would have been addressed then. And if it never had gotten the attention of the media we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Admiral,
Regarding my previous post, I forgot to add that it is to your credit that you are willing to hear opposing opinions on issues. Although I am disagreement with the final outcome, it does tell me that you considered all sides of the argument; something I am not used to seeing. Media attention certainly elevated this issue to a higher level.
To take to the Seas and exist in a World apart from what is on land - to be Sailors.
In this century, that world is not so much apart from on land. Too many cameras, too much easy of communication. The slightest perturbation can cause ripples across the whole of the mainstream media. Not an easy course to maintain.
At once, communication has to engage the Fleet and the public. An imbalance in this message can cause the whole of the discourse to fall apart.
Admiral, you comported the Navy well through this, given that there are no perfect solutions to this, and hurt feelings are inevitable.
However, in reading through the blogs commenting on this, one thing is clear. The message is getting washed up on the shoals in terms of Diversity.
There are some issues in the Navy that seem like were making incorrect decisions based on diversity initiatives. However, I do not see this as one of them. I don't assume to fully understand the position you approached your decisions from. However, I do believe that your message is being lost in an on going debate across the Navy Blogosphere. It may be important to acknowledge this trend in the discourse.
If not directly for this issue here. But, as part of the larger debate going on regarding diversity.
V/r
Well, I'll take the opposite line-you failed miserably in this investigation. I'm not surprised at the outcome, its much easier to these days to sell out good people, to appease a noisy few. Congratulations, the subliminal message you sent to the JO's , Chiefs, and enlisted was heard loud and clear-don't trust your leadership because they don't care about you. ( Unless you are gay or female).
I've read the investigation several times. You can cut the hypocrisy with a knife. The service today seems to prefer public whippings. I, for the life of me, don’t understand why. The Navy could have instead treated more gently-for what is essentially a mild, but localized distraction, while quietly ensuring it would not have happened again. Does short touring or letters of instruction not even happen anymore? How many carrier CO’s and XO’s are there? 22. The grapevine word would have gotten out.
It’s a telling commentary on the gutlessness of our senior naval leadership that they refused to stand up and back up one of their own.
It's not hard to see between the lines. Most of the crew probably liked it-a few well-placed female officers probably didn't, and whined. In the middle of the cruise it was noted-but there were probably more important things to worry about like making the flight schedule and making sortie count. Now 4 years after the fact-with a new "special minority to be appeased" its time to show the greater world we "get it". So hypocrites who should have more willingness to take care of their own, are more than willing to throw their shipmates to the wolves. Been there done that in the aftermath of Tailhook, where- there as now-good men got screwed to appease a noisy few.
Admiral,
As a post-CO, I am still concerned about the time issue, but fully support your decisions. No one has said CAPT Honors had anything but the best of intentions, but that does not relieve him of the responsibility to set and maintain a standard. For those who see nothing wrong, review the video that is a prolonged, personal attack on one of his department heads and consider if you are a junior Sailor...how do you see her/him now? Same for the water conservation bits, which are clearly joked about later about being a means of sexual gratification to see. These are officers he was responsible for providing mentorship, and lacking that, a professional environment for. And the MC in the next XO's video...again, if the young petty officer doesn't have the maturity/experience to think it is a bad idea and may reflect poorly on how her peers view her, well the XO damn well should.
XOs should be setting, not lowering the standards, and our all our Sailors should be treated with dignity, not as "a lowest common denominator."
To Skippy-san:
You say, "The service today seems to prefer public whippings. I, for the life of me, don’t understand why."
Are you kidding me? These things are going public and viral because of mass and social media - in part because of guys like you, and CDR S, and Gahlran and all the other regular crowd in blogosphere. Don't get me wrong, I am an advocate of blogosphere and enjoy reading CDR S, Galhren and your comments. I get some interesting and good perspectives along with a lot of not-so-interesting perspectives. So, look in a mirror and cut the innocent routine - you contribute to the crescendo of noise that necessitates a public whipping. And if there wasn't a public whipping, many others would cry conspiracy and cover-up. It's a lose-lose for Admiral Harvey.
Luckily - he is centered on principles and did what he felt was right. That's why he has four stars and we do not. And it was a stroke of brilliance posting the investigation on the FFC FOIA page the day of his announcement. He put it all out there knowing full well there would be a cacophony of banter, but that it would quickly tapper down and die-off as blogophites moved on to the next shiny object.
Cheers -
Bubba
D.J. Baird said" I would like to know why
REAR ADMIRAL LAWRENCE RICE
REAR ADMIRAL RON HORTON
REAR ADMIRAL RAYMOND SPICER
AND
VICE ADMIRAL DANIEL HOLLOWAY
have not been relieved of thier commands as well, since they had to have given overt approval for all of those videos to have been made AND THEY WERE IN COMMAND AT THE TIME. As such they are just as guilty, if not more so"
If you didnt read the reports on the news,
REAR ADMIRAL LAWRENCE RICE- was supposed to retire Feb 1 but had to hold off pending investigation...he was recommended for LETTER OF CENSURE
REAR ADMIRAL RON HORTON- relieved of command, and recommended SECNAV letter of censure
REAR ADMIRAL RAYMOND SPICER- he retired years ago...how would he be relieved of command?
AND
VICE ADMIRAL DANIEL HOLLOWAY...ahhh...this one is tricky...he showed up (I was told) towards the end of the deployment...BUT I think that he should have received a more severe punishment since he was the highest ranking person there. If the CO didnt take proper action, it was his responsibility to do so. I agree with you on this one, he should be relieved of command if he was there during the airing/taping of any of the videos regardless if he was only there for a short period of time...
Skippy-san,
I am with SWO Bubba on this one 100%.
Admiral,
I recently read a Letter to the Editor in the Navy Times from a retired Navy officer, titled "Heads Should Roll." This article involves the harassment against a Navy ensign who was harassed by his squadron. Why are the people who were involved not being held accountable? Below is the article, and I absolutely agree with this retired officer.
It states, "Now that the inspector general has issued a finding that Ensign Steve Crowston's poor fitness report was indeed a reprisal, where is the hand-wringing, bloodletting and removals from positions of authority? When it came to light that Capt. Owen Honors, as executive officer of the carrier Enterprise, raised morale through some homemade videos that may have offended some sailors, he was relieved of command and there was a ripple throughout his former chain of command.
But in all fairness to Crowston and the rest of the Navy, should there not be similar reprisals over the treatment of Crowston by his then-commanding officer, Cmdr. Liam Bruen, and the rest of the squadron staff and officers? In this case, there was a definite pattern of harassment toward a single individual, where in Honors' case, someone might have been offended by the content of the videos.
As a retired limited duty officer, I personally find the treatment of Crowston offensive. I have never met, worked with or heard of an LDO who was so screwed up as to merit treatment such as this. Lt. John Almen (ret)
Post a Comment