Case Stirs Criticism of Naval Academy Chief

<p>Hey USNA69 - I hope this is not your one and only post! It's good to see you here. The perspective of the alums is so interesting.</p>

<p>Hey shipmate! How's it going?</p>

<p>About time you got here! :D</p>

<p>Yeah, we've got a few uppity Woops here, but we keep them (mostly) under control). </p>

<p>BTW, you and I can only have our friendly debates over at the other place, OK? ;)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Back in the ‘60s when I did it, we did not march. It was a mass cluster. An informal pep rally. Interaction with the locals. Cheering with the other fans. We gaggled to the stadium, Heck, our little brothers, sisters, and girlfriends “marched” with us.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No kiddin'? :eek:</p>

<p>Wow. Wasn't like that in my day. We marched in formation. It was a parade without the rifles, but with songs thrown in. A bit more relaxed, but not much.</p>

<p>Ya learn something new every day. :)</p>

<p>As for taunting, I don't remember ever booing anyone but a referee. Taunts were done, but with the fewest and rarest examples, they were all in pretty good fun. To throw golfballs at the opposing side simply would never have occurred to us.</p>

<p>"Wow. Wasn't like that in my day. We marched in formation. It was a parade without the rifles, but with songs thrown in. A bit more relaxed, but not much."</p>

<p>Zap, probably a relaxed formation for a '91er and a total cluster for a '69er are the same thing. Sorry, couldn't resist a little levity. We formed up but didn't necessarily march in step. All I remember it that as a plebe for the first time I was totally shocked. I can still picture the Company staff kind of winding their way through the streets with us following loosely along. I could relate totally to what little I watched of the video.</p>

<p>"The Navy is not a marching service."</p>

<p>Hey, that's what I told my cadet when he said the mids couldn't march. I also told him there's not much call for marching on a ship.</p>

<p>"that would be rubbing things in, kind of akin to the sour grapes of perceived marching abilities."</p>

<p>I believe the thread was started by a Navy member, and that they are the most disappointed with the mid's performance. So how is that sour grapes?</p>

<p>"Also, one of the woop "defendants" stated that it was acceptable to taunt ones opponents."</p>

<p>There were no "woop" defendants for the incident at the tunnel, so just who are you referring to, squid?</p>

<p>Oh, and yeah, I believe there's no good natured taunting on the part of the mids at the Army Navy game. It's all, "Nice game cadet, and good effort cadet". In fact that's what everyone else says too.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Zap, probably a relaxed formation for a '91er and a total cluster for a '69er are the same thing. Sorry, couldn't resist a little levity. We formed up but didn't necessarily march in step. All I remember it that as a plebe for the first time I was totally shocked. I can still picture the Company staff kind of winding their way through the streets with us following loosely along. I could relate totally to what little I watched of the video.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not if I'm understanding you correctly. When we marched, we were all in step. The two relaxed standards were the songs and the fact we didn't all keep our eyes in the boat (well, the upperclassmen didn't, anyway). What you are describing is VERY different.</p>

<p>Zap, buddy, It has been 40 years. I spent half my time at the Academy bringing up the rear, ebbing and flowing, trying to keep our interval. Someone in this thread mentioned passing out candy. I certainly was not shocked at what little I watched of the video. Actually, the "marching" portion brought back pleasant memories. I do remember the absurdity of an occasional rant to the plebes about staying in step and don't actually remember whether I was on the giving or taking end of it.</p>

<p>I did notice on the video that a Marine Company Officer was accompanying his staff and they seemed to be chatting, so he obviously did not consider it out of line. </p>

<p>The point I was trying to make is, I hope you will agree, that it is absurd to judge a Superintendent by a football game transit from Bancroft to the stadium.</p>

<p>WPSON:
"Hey, that's what I told my cadet when he said the mids couldn't march. I also told him there's not much call for marching on a ship."
So, drop it. It is a mute point in the enjoyment of a great fall classic.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The point I was trying to make is, I hope you will agree, that it is absurd to judge a Superintendent by a football game transit from Bancroft to the stadium.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Solely? I agree wholeheartedly.</p>

<p>"So, drop it."</p>

<p>Ummm, USNA69, you were the one who declared you joined this forum specifically to respond to this, possibly "the most amazing thread you have ever read." So when your response is challenged you declare, "So, drop it." Yeah; we're a rough and rowdy bunch here in the unruly CC Service academies forum.</p>

<p>For the record, and not to be misinterpreted as me dropping anything, I agree completely with your point about judging the Sup by a football game transit. I also wasn't surprised at the walk to the stadium being a fun event and a time to let off steam; I would expect the Cadets would have done the same if they were walking distance to the stadium. But as for the drill performance in the stadium; well that is up to you Navy folks to agonize over. I doubt anyone on the army side gives a care.</p>

<p>"I doubt anyone on the army side gives a care."
That is what I ascertainied from your previous post. So I have dropped it.</p>

<p>A few weeks ago there appeared, as a post to USNA-At-Large, a copy of a letter written by Peter Optekar which he had sent to the Superintendent. He reminded the Superintendent of the conversation that he had with him at a dinner at his home. I quote part of his letter:</p>

<p>"While you were at my home, I asked you why you took this (the Owens case) to General Court Martial. You said, "Peter, I had no choice. If I didn't, we'd have every feminist group and the ACLU after us."</p>

<p>I was shocked. I just could not believe that a Vice Admiral in the United States Navy would allow such crass political fears to interfere with his important judicial responsibilities. I felt so strongly that I addressed a letter to the Chief of Naval Operations. I quote part of my letter:</p>

<p>"I am incredulous and dismayed that he would allow his political cowardice to interfere with his sacred responsibilities to be scrupulously fair in the application of his naval justice responsibilities. I am absolutely confident that this disgraceful performance under Admiral Burke would have earned him a new billet as Commander Alaska Sea Frontier or worse."</p>

<p>Editorial in the Annapolis Capital:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2006/12_22-16/OPN%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2006/12_22-16/OPN&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
There was disturbing news recently about a crucial piece of evidence in a rape case against a Naval Academy midshipman. It was another indication that the academy superintendent and his prosecutors are undermining their own credibility by pushing flawed cases.</p>

<p>An expert witness at a hearing in the case against Midshipman 1st Class Kenny Ray Morrison indicated that the two female midshipmen he allegedly raped had been given the date-rape drug gamma-hydroxybutyrate, or GHB. Prosecutors, to their credit, sought a second opinion from a highly respected French laboratory. It found no exposure to GHB....

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Published in today's Washington Compost:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801791.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801791.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
A Navy commander affirmed a jury's decision to clear former Naval Academy star quarterback Lamar S. Owens Jr. of raping a female midshipman and spare him any punishment for convictions of conduct unbecoming an officer and violating a military protective order....

[/quote]
</p>