SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: unclewest who wrote (43426)5/11/2004 12:09:26 PM
From: Mary Cluney  Read Replies (1) of 793696
 
<<<I do know with certainty that it goes far beyond six enlisted men and women.>>>

I would go so far as to say the enlisted personnel should not be the first to be prosecuted, if at all.

I don't know the chain of command well enough, but there has to be an officer that is in charge of 30 or 40 enlisted people. At a minimum, they are the ones that should be charged.

Those officers have to be guilty. They either had to know what the enlisted people under them were doing, or they were so negligient in their duties they have to be prosecuted.

The same has to be said for the officers in charge of 200 to 300 soldiers. With 200 or 300 soldiers under them, those commanders should know them by name and know a little about them - where they came from - what they are capable of doing - and know what their assignments are and know if they are doing them properly.

At a minimum those two levels of command have to be responsible. Officers have privileges and along with it goes resposnbilities. If anybody is responsible, those two levels are.

If at a minimum we charge those two levels, we will know if it goes any further than that.

You don't have to be a genius to know that those two levels are responsible. Going up the chain after that may get murky.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext