Navy Investigation Over Lewd Videos Expands To Offender's Superiors

In response to the revelation that U.S. Navy Captain Owen Honors produced a series of lewd videos while serving as the executive officer on board the U.S.S. Enterprise, the Navy has cashiered him. And swiftly at that: 48 hours after the videos went viral on the internet, Honors was relieved of duty, despite the fact that the Enterprise's departure for Afghanistan was imminent.

But that shouldn't be the end of the story. As the executive officer, Honors was merely second-in-command at the time the videos were produced. According to the Washington Post's Greg Jaffe, the scrutiny has extended to the men who served as Honors's superiors at the time of the incident:

[U.S. Fleet Forces Commander, Admiral John C.] Harvey will lead a broader investigation into whether other senior Navy officials knew about the four-year-old videos, which aired on the ship's closed-circuit television, and why they failed to take disciplinary action against Honors. The probe is likely to focus on whether Rear Adm. Lawrence Rice, who was captain of the ship in 2007, and his immediate commander, now-retired Rear Adm. Raymond A. Spicer, had seen the videos or received complaints about them.

At issue is the whole "what did Rice/Spicer know and when did they know it" thing. As Rice was the commander of the vessel, and these videos were broadcast on "the ship's closed-circuit television," the answer seems to be a pretty academic, "everything and immediately." But even if Rice somehow remained unaware of what was going on, it may not matter. From what I understand of the specific culture of command that the Navy (as well as the U.S. Coast Guard) has enshrined for itself, the commander of a vessel ultimately bears responsibility for everything that happens on board, whether he or she was standing at the watch or not. Will that remain the standard as this investigation expands? We're going to find out.

RELATED:

Senior military officials are trying to determine not only which navy leaders knew about the videos, but whether Honors was reprimanded at the time the videos were discovered, the Associated Press reports [WATCH]:

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[CFRMediation]

08:33 PM on 01/13/2011

People complained at the time and nothing was done. The Navy, although an arm of the military, is an employer and workplace like any other. As a result this really is a workplace conflict issue that occurred three to four years ago and was not addressed in a timely manner by management­: Navy Leadership­. Now the issue comes to light and they had no choice but to sacrifice Capt. Honors' career.

http://cfr­mediation.­com/workpl­ace-confli­ct-case-st­udy-the-na­vy-capt-ow­en-honors/

If the navy had acted proactivel­y in response to the complaints back when the videos aired - the issue could have been addressed appropriate­ly as a workplace issue and conceivabl­y Capt. Honors could still have been commanding the USS Enterprise as it left port today.

[JeremiahA]

01:20 PM on 01/07/2011

I wonder how many people commenting here have actually seen any of the videos in their entirety. Not just clips.

I believe the number of viewers to be very few due to the type of comments being made, and especially considering how clear it is that Captain Honors was spoofing stereotypes. You may not like the stereotypes and find them offensive...but what about freedom of expression?

It's interesting how many in the media who supported "Piss Christ" and called it an issue of artistic freedom and freedom of speech are now self-righteously condemning Captain Honors' works.

[onasphere]

11:40 PM on 01/06/2011

Honors was anti-gay when that was the policy of the Navy. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner when it was legal. This guy is a crappy actor and comic, but he is probably better than anyone at driving that ship.

[freddychef]

09:21 PM on 01/06/2011

video shows two male Navy sailors standing in a shower stall pretending to wash each other, and two female sailors pretending to shower together to conserve water; sailors parading in drag; some language that has been described as homophobic slurs; and there are scenes of simulated masturbation and a simulated rectal exam.

When officers higher in the chain of command became aware of Honors' videos in 2007, he was instructed to cease their production but no further action was taken.

As related in the New York Times:

Adm. John C. Harvey Jr., the commander of the United States Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk, said in a statement released Tuesday afternoon that Captain Honors was removed for demonstrating poor judgment. “The responsibility of the commanding officer for his or her command is absolute,” Admiral Harvey said in the statement. “ While Captain Honors’ performance as commanding officer of U.S.S. Enterprise has been without incident, his profound lack of good judgment and professionalism while previously serving as executive officer on Enterprise calls into question his character and completely undermines his credibility to continue to serve effectively in command.”

Admiral Harvey also said in the statement that after viewing the videos, he had lost confidence in Captain Honors’ ability to lead effectively.

Honors was reassigned to an administrative role. The admiral said the Navy continues to investigate the case of the videos from 2006 and 2007 and will look into what other officers aboard the USS Enterprise knew about them.

[crsn22]

08:54 PM on 01/06/2011

I am so sick of hearing about this story in the news, it was 4 years ago and nobody had a problem with it then!

[sleeperd]

08:39 PM on 01/06/2011

Anti-gay slurs!?..in the Miltary??? How can this be true??
The military is waiting with open arms to welcome openly gay folks...I know this is true because all the polls said so...

[p23435]

08:05 PM on 01/06/2011

Keep the facts straight....CAPT Honors was not "cashiered", he was not court martialed, he has not been kicked out of the Navy. He was relieved of his command (a not insignificant action) and indeed, even if no other action were taken against him, relief is likely enough to signal the end of any chnace of promotion or assignment to a significant leadership position during the time before he is required to retire at 30 years of service. Yes, it is possible additional action could be forthcoming after investigations are complete, but that's not where things are at this time.

[Curious Black]

07:13 PM on 01/06/2011

Not bilging my shipmate! Don't recall Honors, must have been in "22" I never went there.

[siamao]

05:32 PM on 01/06/2011

REACTION FORMATION

Of psychologi­cal defenses which all humans use to protect their psyches from being
flooded with overwhelmi­ng anxiety, reaction formation is perhaps the most difficult
for lay folks to understand­.  It's a complicate­d psychologi­cal shift of gears.

When you hear anyone protest too much, it's likely that they're using reaction formation.
The guy who is having conniption fits over another's foul language in the presence of
women is likely defending against his own cruelty towards women. The big protest
keeps his own hostile feelings snugly tucked away or compartmen­talized, while his
energy is diverted through seemingly appropriat­e channels of bashing the other guy.


We've all seen this over and over in cases of prominent clergy who have ranted against
promiscuit­y or homosexual­ity only to be outed by their own embarrassi­ng encounters
which tell the truth about their own impulses to be promiscuou­s or involved with
same-sex partners.

A mental health profession­al suspects the existence of a reaction-f­ormation rather than
a 'simple' emotion when we see exaggerati­on, compulsive­ness and inflexibil­ity. For example,
if you've ever read commentary on HP which is overly saccharine to the point that it's too
good to be true--as well as inappropri­ately sweet for the setting--s­uspect that the person
is defending against underlying hostility which will be expressed obliquely.  And beware!

The defense of reaction formation is usually easily detected because it is overdone,
extravagan­t, showy, and affected. Whereas lay folks might superficia­lly see such a person
as as just excessivel­y "nice", a profession­al will wince at the showy affectatio­n, aware of
the intense hostility which is being denied. (Denial is always the bedrock of all defense
mechanisms­.)

Another feature of a reaction formation is its compulsive­ness. A person who is defending
against anxiety can't stop him/her self  from expressing the opposite of what he really feels. 

With reaction formation, there is a rigid quality to the expression of love or affection
which isn't selective as normally occurs with love (in reality, we each don't love everyone
we meet).  The reaction formation love is also exhibition­istic, as though it must be
constantly on display, since even the slightest departure might allow the opposite
feeling (hostility­) to surface.

So what does my primer on reaction formation have to do with the Navy's lewd videos?
Does the conduct of those involved in making the videos meet the criteria for reaction
formation?  If so, what were the warded-off emotions that these Naval personnel were
defending against?  Can you guess, or at least make a stab at some speculatio­ns?

I leave that up to you!”

[capercaper]

05:37 PM on 01/06/2011

Those power-seeking, reactive-compulsive progressive just can't help themselves, can they?

Or is there a cure,oh wise one?

[AZLibDem]

06:03 PM on 01/06/2011

It would be impossible to make such an assesment from a few minutes of staged video; such speculation is useless.

[capercaper]

06:06 PM on 01/06/2011

Agreed.

[Vikingdave]

03:54 PM on 01/06/2011

How IRONIC is this. A homophobe CO of the enterprise is demoted,,,,,,, not even 3 weeks after repeal of DADT.

[siamao]

05:13 PM on 01/06/2011

It's called "reaction formation" (i.e. homophobe CA making lewd vids).
See my post on the issue.  I may re-post it.

Great that you caught the irony (reaction formation).

[roberttsf]

01:46 PM on 01/06/2011

The central issue here is a question of judgement. The recent DADT repeal makes a wonderful backdrop for this sensationalist courtmartial but has no bearing on the subject. Fact is the military by in large doesn't care about the sexual orientation, creed or color of a service member. The metrics by which you are judged are as follows: 1. Can you do your job? 2. Can you follow the rules? If yes to both there would be no issues.
I think many Service Members expect a certain level proffessionalism from their leaders, especially one as senior as Captain Honors. These videos may be entertaining to some, offensive to others, but across the board anyone who sees them, has to question this man's decision making given the PC climate of today's service.

[capercaper]

02:40 PM on 01/06/2011

What court
marshall?

Links, please.

[AZLibDem]

12:32 PM on 01/06/2011

From a Military Justice blog:

"I was Chief of Military Justice in a very slow jurisdiction until September 2010. Our last GCM sent a SPC to Leavenworth for 7 years for smuggling 138 lbs of marijuana. He had a long list of people who were willing to testify as part of his Good Soldier defense. (sort of the flipside of the deployed justice he wanted all of these people returned from theater to testify).

In any event the actions the accused actually did scuttles there own defense and/or eliminates the credibility of the witness. The SFC that says “yes I still think he is a good Soldier, even knowing he smuggled 138 lbs of marijuana” has no credibility.

So too with defenders of CAPT Honors – this behavior has not been acceptable for 20 years – that none of them have picked up on it says more about them than the structure that releived him."

[capercaper]

12:53 PM on 01/06/2011

Smuggling marajuana is against the law in the US.

Honors didn't break any law.

[AZLibDem]

01:01 PM on 01/06/2011

Once again, deliberately or otherwise, you completely miss the point.

[AgathaX]

06:01 PM on 01/06/2011

He didn't commit a crime. One can break laws without committing a crime.

[trying2help]

12:25 PM on 01/06/2011

Look- this is and has been Navy humor. Change comes slowly but has to come from inside. This captain was trying to help the crew with humor- in 2006 things were a bit different.
On a boat that size morale is difficult to keep up. Everyone at home can get all PC and judgemental - guys in drag are for some distasteful and for others a funny tension relieving laugh.
Slurs are always wrong- but what do you imagine the crew thinks and says on their own? Acceptance is happening, integration openly is coming but will take time.
Trying to correct the past from 2006 isn't that helpful. The officer by all accounts was one who took a genuine interest in his crew which is what won him their loyalty. Not these videos.
So many people have fears and prejudices and in those days it was enshrined-legally- in military culture. Now we have reversed that. People need time and education to catch up.
Canada has integrated military forces. The most difficult integration are the navy ships- it is a closed environment, people go to sea in cramped quarters for months- and come from backgrounds not exactly liberal nor university degreed. Acceptance comes and again- slowly.

[T2inDC]

05:56 PM on 01/06/2011

Imagine your administrative officers doing this to improve morale at your work place. Please people this officer lacks good judgment and is responsible to lead thousands of servicemembers and control a nuclear arsenal. We expect our military leaders to be the best and the brightest, not immature frat boys. If he needs 'catch up' time to become more mature, then the military removing him from command is the proper decision.

[capercaper]

12:18 PM on 01/06/2011

In his recent Proceedings article, Professor Mack Owens discusses the concept of philia, Greek for why a soldier willingly gives his life in battle, not for country or glory, but for his comrades. Itis the essence ofthe warrior culture, a culture grossly misunderstood by our civilian leadership, and under attack bytheir socio-military experimentation.

This same leadership belatedly laments the wholesale flight of our mid-grade experienced pilots from Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy ready rooms ...

Quite simply, the essence ofthat warrior culture hasbeen severely diluted inthis decade. Politically inspired social edicts enforced since Tailhook '91 have rendered a ready room atmosphere so different now that it is nearly unrecognizable. The emphasis has shifted dramatically from howto administer death and destruction to the enemy, to how to "get along",,,

Pilots are hampered intheir ability to train as warriors bythe policies oftheir senior leaders. Theyare faced with social experimentation and double standards in training. Experienced pilots are forcedto qualify certain [female] trainees who may or maynot demonstrate established quality standards. This leads to distrust and resentment, two powerfully harmful factors interms of unit morale, and thus military effectiveness.

The flight ofour military aviators has ... much to do with the decline of their cherished military culture and traditions. ..

If we fail to reestablish an experienced cadre of warrior aviators in every squadron and air wing, we as a nation will feel the sting the next time we face a formidable adversary in battle.

Robert Stumpf, USN (Ret.)

[T2inDC]

06:05 PM on 01/06/2011

I fail to see the connection of this article to the Capt.being removed from command. If it implies that a 'warrior culture' not understood by civilians includes; simulated masterbation in a variety of different styles, crossdressing, gay bashing, simulated anal penatration, etc?? And here I was as a mere civilian thinking these warrior's were busy protecting our country.

[capercaper]

06:14 PM on 01/06/2011

Warriors are focussed on what they are protecting.

Think Border Collie.

Border Collies make horrific pets, but brilliant leaders in their field.

[capercaper]

07:01 PM on 01/06/2011

How sad and remise about our educational system:

Don't women and lgbt understand "warrior culture"?

[CTvoter]

10:16 AM on 01/06/2011

My first reaction to the video was the obvious repressed desires of this fellow and his mates. On further thought, I was deeply disturbed by this guy's fascination with the abuse of stuffed animals and the humiliation of others who happen to be his subordinates. I am not a psychologist, but if he lived in my neighborhood, I would keep a close eye on my pets.

This guy would never last a month in a workplace of private industry; in the military they make him an executive officer and captain. He'll end up working for an arms supplier, no doubt.

[capercaper]

01:30 PM on 01/06/2011

For him, a better gig than working for OUT or the Advocate!