eagle1462010
Diamond Member
- May 17, 2013
- 70,315
- 35,344
- 2,605
OMFG..............might as well go out in the cold and Freeze to death then.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
(d)Nope..you're wrong..simple as that...perhaps it is YOU who don't understad how the chain works. The SecNav is under no military obligation to obey the CiC. None. He is not a serving officer. He serves at the pleasure of the President..and can be fired..but not ordered or compelled.So you spent 6 years in the Navy, and don't understand the chain of command???LOL..fuck off dipshit! I spent 6 years in the Navy...so kiss my ass. I do recall saying YOUR opinion means little as well..and now..even less than that.So thanks for saying your opinion doesn't matter...Here's the thing...there's a reason for peer review--only those who have been there..at the pointy end..are competent to judge---and if they have issues..not that I'm saying they do--it means something. Not in law..or to Gallagher's pension...but to his rep--if a President who has never served...must continue to ride to his rescue...even in the face of his peer's disapproval--well--that says a lot.The officers involved are definitely active duty, and the SecNavy (while NOT active duty) can be fired...
But tell the SecNavy not to worry... According to Vindman, Ukraine is hiring!!!
You see, your opinion..my opinion--even the President's opinion..means little to those who serve...but the opinion of their brothers and sisters-in arms--means quite a bit. IMO.
As a vet, I can respect that...
The CinC gives the orders, and the SecNavy (and the commanders) carry them out...
If they refuse, they do it at their own peril (according to the UCMJ, for service members)...
Actually..they are just seating a review board..they've taken no action..and it is within the realm of possibility that they would exonerate him.
no you didn't ....You stupid piece of shit..I acknowledged that 5 posts ago! Part of the chain of command..and serving military..are not the same thing.the SECNAV IS in the chain of command--military and otherwiseWTF ever....always yapping about minutia---and never about substance...total light weight.your post:***yawn*** stuck on this are you? It's not as cut and dried as you might think...but no matter. I was speaking of serving officers--of which he is not...the VP is in the chain of command
Any comment on the OP? Just curious...I know I'll be sorry I asked...LOL!
..you can't admit you are wrong...yes, it is cut and dried ..you were talking about the CHAIN OF COMMANDJust an informational note..the SecNavy is a civilian and is not in the military chain of command.
plain and simple
it's RIGHT THERE
your previous idiocy:Well, fair enough--I meant serving military
both of those have very different meaningsJust an informational note..the SecNavy is a civilian and is not in the military chain of command.
the VP is in the chain of commandWell, fair enough--I meant serving military..rather than the political elements. The President is commander in chief..but the Vice President..in NOT the vice commander in chief..now is he? LOL! More of a CiC in waiting...but you are correct--even if some of the political elements are more honorary...everyone kisses the SecNav's ass--and he rates a salute...but whether his orders would be lawful--when given to the Captain of a ship in wartime..during combat--would be a legal sinkhole.there is the chain of command--NOT the military chain of commandJust an informational note..the SecNavy is a civilian and is not in the military chain of command.
I think he is:
I was in the USMC --we had to know the chain of command
- President of the United States
- Vice President of the United States
- Secretary of Defense (SECDEF)
- Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV)
- Chief of Naval Operations (CNO)
- Chief of Naval Education and Training (CNET)
Navy Chain Of Command
Learn About the Navy Chain of Command and How It's Organized
- "The Commander in Chief, from whom you are sworn to take orders, has given you one: REINSTATE THIS OFFICER. To refuse to do so, is insubordination. Insubordination in the military is a punishable offense."-
and that's all there is to it.
- "The Commander in Chief, from whom you are sworn to take orders, has given you one: REINSTATE THIS OFFICER. To refuse to do so, is insubordination. Insubordination in the military is a punishable offense."-
and that's all there is to it.
The Vice President isn't a part of the Chain unless the President is unable to perform his duties.there is the chain of command--NOT the military chain of commandJust an informational note..the SecNavy is a civilian and is not in the military chain of command.
I think he is:
...the POTUS is not in the military [ a civilian ] --but he's definitely the top man who gives the orders
- President of the United States
- Vice President of the United States
- Secretary of Defense (SECDEF)
- Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV)
- Chief of Naval Operations (CNO)
- Chief of Naval Education and Training (CNET)
I was in the USMC --we had to know the chain of command
Navy Chain Of Commandmaintaining a civilian status
Learn About the Navy Chain of Command and How It's Organized
Commander-in-chief - Wikipedia
Navy secretary backs admirals in tussle with Trump over SEAL trident, report says
The Vice Admiral will be relieved of his command if he doesn't follow the orders of the CNC.........PERIOD........
They are covering the tracks of the Court Martial .........which via the powers of the President has pardoned.
Seems Trump is too lazy to offer an official order and it's being argued that a tweet is worthless.
HALIFAX, Nova Scotia (AP) — The secretary of the U.S. Navy said Saturday he doesn’t consider a tweet by President Donald Trump an order and would need a formal order to stop a review of a sailor who could lose his status as a Navy SEAL.
Secretary of Navy says Trump’s tweet is not a formal order
Trump wouldn't even have to do anything but sign it.
It's telling that Trump called for the death penalty for 5 black men before they were ever convicted of anything but isn't interested in holding the white man to answer for what he did.
He is too cowardly to put his name on it though.
It's telling that Trump called for the death penalty for 5 black men before they were ever convicted of anything but isn't interested in holding the white man to answer for what he did.
He is too cowardly to put his name on it though.
Instead of just spouting off like the troll you are, cite a specific link to your claim.
It's telling that Trump called for the death penalty for 5 black men before they were ever convicted of anything but isn't interested in holding the white man to answer for what he did.
He is too cowardly to put his name on it though.
Instead of just spouting off like the troll you are, cite a specific link to your claim.
I did .