JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18866
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: Modly Lied About Number of People Crozier Sent Email

Post by old salt »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 6:48 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:22 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:14 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:06 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 4:55 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 4:34 pm
CU77 wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 3:49 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 2:01 pm Not surprisingly, another Trump official has been caught lying to the American people.

Turns out that former Acting Navy Scumbag Modly lied and exaggerated the number of people to whom Crozier sent the email.
Well he was already a proven liar, so this is no surprise.
Only fools swallow the WP's weasel words without closer examination. You left out this part :

But while the attachment circulated widely, Crozier’s email did not.

The leaked content was the attachment. The email was just the cover document, showing original distribution. 3 action addressees, cc to 8 info addees.

Since it was improperly unclassified, the attachment went viral & (not surprisingly) leaked to the media in short order.
Unprofessional & too cute by half.
hmmm, so one of that small handful of gentlemen, all of whom have what level of classified clearance?, should have been expected to 'go viral' with the memo and ultimately leaked to the press...
Probably one of the 7 info addees, ...who could share it with others without fear of disclosing classified intel.
The Navy is investigating the leak, but since it was unclassified & sent to so many, they'ii likely never find out who leaked it.
Crozier didn't even mark it FOUO (For Official Use Only).
It should have been a TOP SECRET, OP IMMEDIATE message, sent [PERSONSAL FOR] :
-- the Strike Group Commander
-- 7th Fleet Commander
-- PAC Fleet Commander
-- CNO
-- Sec of the Navy
So, it didn't disclose classified intel?

And those captains should have been expected to share it with others?
Of course. With no classification or FOUO restriction, why wouldn't they ?
...share it with others does not mean call the media.
It disclosed classified info. As the originator, Crozier failed to classify the correspondence.
You are saying that those who passed it along didn't recognize that there was classified information contained?

I'm sure you realize that classified information is classified regardless of whether someone has stamped it such, right?

I agree, providing classified info to someone cleared for such is not the same as passing to those not cleared.
They might conclude that it has been declassified if the ship CO transmitted it as unclass info.
They should recognize it & not pass it along, but they're covered now.
I doubt that anyone will own up to leaking it to the media.
If I forwarded it via govt email or social media, I'd be uneasy if NCIS called.
I doubt that it will be pursued now that it's being widely reported.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 27106
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: Modly Lied About Number of People Crozier Sent Email

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

old salt wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 6:59 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 6:48 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:22 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:14 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 5:06 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 4:55 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 4:34 pm
CU77 wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 3:49 pm
DocBarrister wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 2:01 pm Not surprisingly, another Trump official has been caught lying to the American people.

Turns out that former Acting Navy Scumbag Modly lied and exaggerated the number of people to whom Crozier sent the email.
Well he was already a proven liar, so this is no surprise.
Only fools swallow the WP's weasel words without closer examination. You left out this part :

But while the attachment circulated widely, Crozier’s email did not.

The leaked content was the attachment. The email was just the cover document, showing original distribution. 3 action addressees, cc to 8 info addees.

Since it was improperly unclassified, the attachment went viral & (not surprisingly) leaked to the media in short order.
Unprofessional & too cute by half.
hmmm, so one of that small handful of gentlemen, all of whom have what level of classified clearance?, should have been expected to 'go viral' with the memo and ultimately leaked to the press...
Probably one of the 7 info addees, ...who could share it with others without fear of disclosing classified intel.
The Navy is investigating the leak, but since it was unclassified & sent to so many, they'ii likely never find out who leaked it.
Crozier didn't even mark it FOUO (For Official Use Only).
It should have been a TOP SECRET, OP IMMEDIATE message, sent [PERSONSAL FOR] :
-- the Strike Group Commander
-- 7th Fleet Commander
-- PAC Fleet Commander
-- CNO
-- Sec of the Navy
So, it didn't disclose classified intel?

And those captains should have been expected to share it with others?
Of course. With no classification or FOUO restriction, why wouldn't they ?
...share it with others does not mean call the media.
It disclosed classified info. As the originator, Crozier failed to classify the correspondence.
You are saying that those who passed it along didn't recognize that there was classified information contained?

I'm sure you realize that classified information is classified regardless of whether someone has stamped it such, right?

I agree, providing classified info to someone cleared for such is not the same as passing to those not cleared.
They might conclude that it has been declassified if the ship CO transmitted it as unclass info.
They should recognize it & not pass it along, but they're covered now.
I doubt that anyone will own up to leaking it to the media.
If I forwarded it via govt email or social media, I'd be uneasy if NCIS called.
I doubt that it will be pursued now that it's being widely reported.
Understood.
Did I miss it or have you already commented on Modly's mischaracterization, what's others have termed "lying", about how many people Crozier sent his memo to?
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18866
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: Modly Lied About Number of People Crozier Sent Email

Post by old salt »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:14 pm Did I miss it or have you already commented on Modly's mischaracterization, what's others have termed "lying", about how many people Crozier sent his memo to?
We don't know how many of the original addressees forwarded it to others.
Modly was not an addressee on the cover email. He probably saw the attachment second hand.

Recall my uncertainty about the nature of the correspondence when all we saw was the unaddressed attachment, which began with "BLUF" (Navy jargon for "bottom line up front" ). Used in power point presentation & informal memos/email, not in official naval correspondence.

No assurance that Modly had seen the cover email when he made his comments. He might have been estimating based on the number of people he heard from who had seen it. I'm still not sure if it was an official document. Crozier addressed "Fellow Naval Aviators" & signed off with "Chopper" -- his nickname/call sign in the carrier aviation community. I hope we see a readable copy of the email cover. The WP image is too small to read.

It's a nit picking msm fact check to quibble about Modly saying 20 or 30 rather than 11, as if that's significant.
By the time Modly made that comment, a lot more than 11 or 20 or 30 navy officials had likey seen a copy in their email in basket.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18866
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: Modly Lied About Number of People Crozier Sent Email

Post by old salt »

Even the WP acknowledged the following (long excerpt for non-subscribers) :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

Capt. Brett Crozier opened his March 30 message to three admirals by saying he would “gladly” follow them “into battle whenever needed.” But the skipper of the USS Theodore Roosevelt shifted to his concern that the Navy was not doing enough to stop the spread of the virus, and acknowledged being a part of the sluggish response.

“I fully realize that I bear responsibility for not demanding more decisive action the moment we pulled in, but at this point my only priority is the continued well-being of the crew and embarked staff,” Crozier wrote in previously unreported comments obtained by The Washington Post. “. . . I believe if there is ever a time to ask for help it is now regardless of the impact on my career.”

This account of the Roosevelt’s crisis is based on memos, emails and text messages obtained by The Post, as well as interviews with about two dozen people familiar with the case, including senior defense officials, sailors and their loved ones. Many of them spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issues and concerns about retaliation.

“There are 39 people in quarantine who stayed in a hotel where two people tested positive,” one sailor texted his mother on March 14, five days after leaving Danang.
“Our port calls are getting cancelled too,” another sailor emailed her mother. “It sucks, this was set up to be the coolest deployment and now everything is getting taken away. . . . Just an insane abundance of caution.”

As commanders considered where to take the Roosevelt, sailors began reporting flu-like symptoms. On March 24, Crozier wrote to family members with alarming news, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Post.
“Yesterday evening, a few sailors did the right and brave thing, reporting to medical they were experiencing flu-like symptoms,” he wrote. “These sailors were tested . . . and this morning the results of the tests indicated positive results for coronavirus.”

Crozier cautioned the families not to talk publicly about the situation on the ship, highlighting the Navy’s delicate balance between keeping the public informed and not revealing vulnerabilities to potential adversaries.
“Operational security regarding both ship movements and our medical readiness is sensitive information and should not be made public,” he wrote.
Crozier also imposed on the crew a communication lockdown commonly known as “River City,” eliminating access to phones and Internet for much of the crew.
But some sailors managed to send messages to family members that day.

As Crozier wrote to Roosevelt families, Modly announced the ship’s first cases the same day at the Pentagon. He said that three positive cases had been discovered, with the patients flown off the ship and those who had come into contact with them quarantined.
“This is an example of our ability to keep our ships deployed at sea, underway even with active covid-19 cases,” Modly said.

Defense officials weighed several options, including sending some sailors to Japan, as the carrier continued to Guam. But they struggled to settle on a plan, said several people familiar with the process.

The carrier arrived at Naval Base Guam on March 27, and sailors slowly began to come ashore. Senior Navy officials said that they were working to secure hotel rooms in Guam but that doing so was a logistical challenge, considering that hotel employees had been laid off because of the pandemic.

Crozier spoke with at least one senior Navy admiral in Washington on March 28, and with Robert Love, Modly’s chief of staff, on March 29, said a senior defense official who declined to identify the admiral.
Love told Crozier that Modly was interested in visiting the ship and wanted to know how he could help. Crozier responded that he could host the acting secretary, but that it would be a distraction and come with some risk of exposure to the virus. The secretary’s office decided to wait, and Love conveyed that Crozier could contact Modly’s office directly, the senior defense official said.

Love reached out to Crozier again on March 30. Modly’s office didn’t know it yet, but Crozier already had sent his email, which left off Modly’s and Gilday’s staffs.

'Doing the best they can'
Crozier transmitted his email in a manner that some Navy officials found inappropriate, and nearly all considered unconventional.

He addressed it to Rear Adm. Stuart Baker, his immediate commanding officer; Adm. John Aquilino, the top commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet; and Vice Adm. DeWolfe Miller, the officer overseeing all naval forces in the Pacific.

Crozier copied the message to seven Navy captains but left off Vice Adm. William Merz, who oversaw the Roosevelt as commander of the Navy’s 7th Fleet. It arrived in the continental United States late March 29 due to the international date line, a point that has been confused in some accounts.

Crozier and each of the 10 men who received the email either declined to comment through spokespeople or did not respond to a request to speak to The Post.

Friends of Crozier’s have described him as calm and unlikely to have sent the message unless he thought it was necessary. Medical staff on his ship had warned that if they didn’t get the virus under control quickly, dozens of sailor could die, a detail first reported by the New York Times.

Crozier’s friends have said that the captain pushed “send” after several days of the Navy struggling to settle on a plan that would remove sailors quickly. A senior defense official acknowledged that Crozier wanted to remove sailors more quickly but said his effort wasn’t immediately realistic.

“The problem was there was no place to put them at that time,” the senior defense official said. “The governor of Guam had started working with the hotel industry to get the hotels reopened. But that doesn’t happen overnight.”

The official added that if Crozier wanted to make an urgent point as a commander, the Navy has a way to do so. He could have sent a “personal for” message, known colloquially as a “P4,” to senior service leaders. That would have flagged the discussion as sensitive and important without opening it up to a relatively large group of people, the official said.

Crozier, in his email, said that military officials at Naval Base Guam were “doing the best they can” but that they did not have adequate facilities, and that the crew couldn’t wait much longer.
“While I understand that there are political concerns with requesting the use of hotels on Guam to truly isolate the remaining 4,500 Sailors 14+ days, the hotels are empty, and I believe it is the only way to quickly combat the problem,” Crozier wrote.

Crew members, meanwhile, grew increasingly anxious and worried that they were being forgotten in Washington.
“Very little can be done on our ship to prevent the spread of COVID 19,” one sailor texted a family member on March 31. “A lot of us want to just go home, we are all pretty stressed.”
“Everything is pretty upside down at the moment,” he added. “We are not prepared for COVID and the GOVT doesn’t care.”

The memo attached to Crozier’s email was leaked and published in the San Francisco Chronicle within a day of the captain sending it.
The public attention was an embarrassment to Pentagon leaders, who had taken pains to project calm and poise.

The following day, more than 1,000 sailors were moved off the ship, some of them into hotel rooms in Guam.
Modly, traveling in California, was blindsided by the article.
As the controversy grew, the Navy’s leaders announced the start of an investigation of communication breakdowns during the response to the virus. But before they got very far, Modly decided Crozier had to go.
“He sent it out pretty broadly, and in sending it out pretty broadly, he did not take care to ensure it couldn’t be leaked,” Modly told reporters.

Modly knew the decision would be controversial, according to one current and one former senior defense official aware of his thinking. But after Trump’s direct intervention in other military issues, including war-crimes cases last year, he thought relieving the captain of command was the best thing he could do to keep order and respond to what he considered Crozier’s panicking, the officials said. Trump initially agreed.
“I thought it was terrible, what he did, to write a letter. I mean, this isn’t a class on literature,” Trump said.

However, as pressure built following Crozier’s removal, Modly acted out of character, the officials said. After spending the better part of a day flying from Washington to Guam to visit the Roosevelt, he delivered a 15-minute profanity-laced speech over a loudspeaker in which he said without evidence that Crozier either had written the memo to be leaked to the media, or was “too naive or too stupid to be a commanding officer of a ship like this.”

A senior defense official who agreed with Modly’s decision to oust Crozier said Modly’s use of profanity was unusual for him.
Modly resigned a day later, even as other senior administration officials at the Pentagon suggested that he apologize and let the issue blow over.

Crozier, meanwhile, is in isolation with the virus, as the number of confirmed cases continues to rise. More than 4,000 sailors had been removed from the ship as of Thursday — leaving just a few hundred more than Crozier recommended. About 80 percent of the ship has been cleaned, the Navy said.

The senior defense official said leaders are still considering Crozier’s fate. They could uphold his removal, reinstate him as captain, or bring him back and give him another command.
“My gut is they’re not going to punish him any more,” the official said.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 27106
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: Modly Lied About Number of People Crozier Sent Email

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

old salt wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:43 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:14 pm Did I miss it or have you already commented on Modly's mischaracterization, what's others have termed "lying", about how many people Crozier sent his memo to?
We don't know how many of the original addressees forwarded it to others.
Modly was not an addressee on the cover email. He probably saw the attachment second hand.

Recall my uncertainty about the nature of the correspondence when all we saw was the unaddressed attachment, which began with "BLUF" (Navy jargon for "bottom line up front" ). Used in power point presentation & informal memos/email, not in official naval correspondence.

No assurance that Modly had seen the cover email when he made his comments. He might have been estimating based on the number of people he heard from who had seen it. I'm still not sure if it was an official document. Crozier addressed "Fellow Naval Aviators" & signed off with "Chopper" -- his nickname/call sign in the carrier aviation community. I hope we see a readable copy of the email cover. The WP image is too small to read.

It's a nit picking msm fact check to quibble about Modly saying 20 or 30 rather than 11, as if that's significant.
By the time Modly made that comment, a lot more than 11 or 20 or 30 navy officials had likey seen a copy in their email in basket.
Thanks for answering.

I find your answer unsatisfying though.

Modly made quite that accusation about how many Crozier sent it to. If he didn't know the number he sure as shooting shouldn't have said any #. And he darn well shouldn't have said double or more the actual (according to WP 10 people, but 11-12 is half of 20-30 at best.

I'll call it a mischaracterization. whether that was just sloppy or on purpose is another question.
runrussellrun
Posts: 7583
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:07 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by runrussellrun »

These are the same type of chowderheads that decided Navigation 101 wasn't really super necessary to teach at Annapolis. Computers will handle it. What could go wrong? Weasly lil snitches. Heard morse code and semaphore are bye bye also. What replaced them? Resume building and how to land that DoD contract after your service years are over?

Like a Warrant Officer, tons of respect for a 30 year vet, who "only" makes it to 0-6. That means he cares more about the job, than the career. Salute to you sir.
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 34144
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: Modly Lied About Number of People Crozier Sent Email

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

old salt wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:43 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:14 pm Did I miss it or have you already commented on Modly's mischaracterization, what's others have termed "lying", about how many people Crozier sent his memo to?
We don't know how many of the original addressees forwarded it to others.
Modly was not an addressee on the cover email. He probably saw the attachment second hand.

Recall my uncertainty about the nature of the correspondence when all we saw was the unaddressed attachment, which began with "BLUF" (Navy jargon for "bottom line up front" ). Used in power point presentation & informal memos/email, not in official naval correspondence.

No assurance that Modly had seen the cover email when he made his comments. He might have been estimating based on the number of people he heard from who had seen it. I'm still not sure if it was an official document. Crozier addressed "Fellow Naval Aviators" & signed off with "Chopper" -- his nickname/call sign in the carrier aviation community. I hope we see a readable copy of the email cover. The WP image is too small to read.

It's a nit picking msm fact check to quibble about Modly saying 20 or 30 rather than 11, as if that's significant.
By the time Modly made that comment, a lot more than 11 or 20 or 30 navy officials had likey seen a copy in their email in basket.
Maybe Modly forwarded it along....he may even by lying but who cares about lying.
“I wish you would!”
User avatar
youthathletics
Posts: 15855
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by youthathletics »

runrussellrun wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 9:13 pm These are the same type of chowderheads that decided Navigation 101 wasn't really super necessary to teach at Annapolis. Computers will handle it. What could go wrong? Weasly lil snitches. Heard morse code and semaphore are bye bye also. What replaced them? Resume building and how to land that DoD contract after your service years are over?

Like a Warrant Officer, tons of respect for a 30 year vet, who "only" makes it to 0-6. That means he cares more about the job, than the career. Salute to you sir.
Celestial Nav is still a thing. What’s old is new. Biden proves that.
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy


“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” -Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18866
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: Modly Lied About Number of People Crozier Sent Email

Post by old salt »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 9:06 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:43 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:14 pm Did I miss it or have you already commented on Modly's mischaracterization, what's others have termed "lying", about how many people Crozier sent his memo to?
We don't know how many of the original addressees forwarded it to others.
Modly was not an addressee on the cover email. He probably saw the attachment second hand.

Recall my uncertainty about the nature of the correspondence when all we saw was the unaddressed attachment, which began with "BLUF" (Navy jargon for "bottom line up front" ). Used in power point presentation & informal memos/email, not in official naval correspondence.

No assurance that Modly had seen the cover email when he made his comments. He might have been estimating based on the number of people he heard from who had seen it. I'm still not sure if it was an official document. Crozier addressed "Fellow Naval Aviators" & signed off with "Chopper" -- his nickname/call sign in the carrier aviation community. I hope we see a readable copy of the email cover. The WP image is too small to read.

It's a nit picking msm fact check to quibble about Modly saying 20 or 30 rather than 11, as if that's significant.
By the time Modly made that comment, a lot more than 11 or 20 or 30 navy officials had likey seen a copy in their email in basket.
Thanks for answering.

I find your answer unsatisfying though.

Modly made quite that accusation about how many Crozier sent it to. If he didn't know the number he sure as shooting shouldn't have said any #. And he darn well shouldn't have said double or more the actual (according to WP 10 people, but 11-12 is half of 20-30 at best.

I'll call it a mischaracterization. whether that was just sloppy or on purpose is another question.
You're welcome. I find your question petty & uniformed about naval communications.
Apparently I'm not the only one who considered the logical possibilities.
https://www.businessinsider.com/thomas- ... ort-2020-4

It is unclear whether or not Crozier distributed his warnings beyond the email The Post obtained or whether or not Modly may have been referring to the continued distribution of the email after Crozier sent it.
Navy now thinks TR's virus was brought aboard via COD flight(s) rather than DaNang visit.
USS Bunker Hill, which also visied DaNang, has no cases.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/uss-theodo ... 1586981891

U.S. military officials are increasingly certain that the coronavirus outbreak last month aboard the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt was sparked by the vessel’s flight operations, rather than a result of the ship’s port visit to Vietnam.

That view comes as officials work to find the cause of an outbreak that forced the aircraft carrier to interrupt a deployment in Asia and divert to port in Guam, ...The suspicion that the outbreak originated from trips made by the carrier’s flight crews points to the role that normal carrier operations played in the transmission of the virus, and suggests the U.S. Navy’s decision to curtail port visits may not alone stop coronavirus infections.

The Theodore Roosevelt carried out a long-planned visit to Da Nang, Vietnam, from March 4 to March 9. After leaving Vietnam, sailors on board began displaying symptoms of the illness and testing positive for Covid-19.
However, no crew member among the nearly 5,000 aboard the carrier appeared to contract the virus until March 24 or March 25, military officials said, more than two weeks after the Da Nang visit. Given the incubation periods for Covid-19, the two-week time span all but eliminates the port visit as a source... Instead, the timing points to a more likely source in the series of flights conducted by the carrier air wing, several officials said, after cargo flights, known as carrier on-board delivery, or COD, between the vessel and Vietnam, Japan and the Philippines, officials said.
The first cases of coronavirus on board the Roosevelt were among members of the carrier’s air wing, officials said.

Among other indicators of the source of the outbreak, 30 sailors had stayed at a hotel in Da Nang where two British nationals later tested positive for the virus. Before departing, the Navy tested those sailors, and all the tests came back negative.

Additionally, officials said, crew members of the USS Bunker Hill, a guided missile cruiser that was also making a port visit, also had gone ashore. But no sailor from that ship contracted the disease...
As the Navy investigates the outbreak of the coronavirus, officials say they may never learn its true origins. “We just don’t know,” one official said.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18866
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

Now on the Big Stick :
-- 350 of the 650 +'s are asymptomatic
-- 80% of bleach-a-palooza ship's cleaning complete.

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/16/83651809 ... bout-coron
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 27106
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: Modly Lied About Number of People Crozier Sent Email

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

old salt wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:29 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 9:06 pm
old salt wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:43 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:14 pm Did I miss it or have you already commented on Modly's mischaracterization, what's others have termed "lying", about how many people Crozier sent his memo to?
We don't know how many of the original addressees forwarded it to others.
Modly was not an addressee on the cover email. He probably saw the attachment second hand.

Recall my uncertainty about the nature of the correspondence when all we saw was the unaddressed attachment, which began with "BLUF" (Navy jargon for "bottom line up front" ). Used in power point presentation & informal memos/email, not in official naval correspondence.

No assurance that Modly had seen the cover email when he made his comments. He might have been estimating based on the number of people he heard from who had seen it. I'm still not sure if it was an official document. Crozier addressed "Fellow Naval Aviators" & signed off with "Chopper" -- his nickname/call sign in the carrier aviation community. I hope we see a readable copy of the email cover. The WP image is too small to read.

It's a nit picking msm fact check to quibble about Modly saying 20 or 30 rather than 11, as if that's significant.
By the time Modly made that comment, a lot more than 11 or 20 or 30 navy officials had likey seen a copy in their email in basket.
Thanks for answering.

I find your answer unsatisfying though.

Modly made quite that accusation about how many Crozier sent it to. If he didn't know the number he sure as shooting shouldn't have said any #. And he darn well shouldn't have said double or more the actual (according to WP 10 people, but 11-12 is half of 20-30 at best.

I'll call it a mischaracterization. whether that was just sloppy or on purpose is another question.
You're welcome. I find your question petty & uniformed about naval communications.
Apparently I'm not the only one who considered the logical possibilities.
https://www.businessinsider.com/thomas- ... ort-2020-4

It is unclear whether or not Crozier distributed his warnings beyond the email The Post obtained or whether or not Modly may have been referring to the continued distribution of the email after Crozier sent it.
.[/i]
[/quote]

petty and uninformed?

Modly, not me, said that Crozier sent it to 20 to 30 people.
Did Modly know this to to be true?

If not, it was either sloppy or a lie.
Could have been sloppy.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18866
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

Nearly 700 of 1716 crew members in the Charles de Gaulle carrier group test +, with results of 1/3 of the tests administered still pending.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN21Z1QM

Today's odds : 60:40 that Crozier will be reinstated when he comes out of isolation & is healthy.
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18866
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

old salt wrote: Fri Apr 17, 2020 2:40 pm Nearly 700 of 1716 crew members in the Charles de Gaulle carrier group test +, with results of 1/3 of the tests administered still pending.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN21Z1QM

Today's odds : 60:40 that Crozier will be reinstated when he comes out of isolation & is healthy.
Update : 40 % of Charles de Gaulle carrier group crews test +

https://www.france24.com/en/20200417-fr ... r-covid-19
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18866
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

Here's the addressees on Crozier's email which I've been able to confirm :

To : Commander Pacific Fleet
Commander Strike Group
Commander Naval Air Forces (not in Crozier's operational CoC)
CC:
TR's XO (Executive Officer -- his second in command of the ship)
CAG (Commander Air Group -- the operational Commander of the several embarked aircraft squadrons)
DCAG (Deputy CAG)
DESRON (Destroyer Squadron Commander -- a Surface Warfare Officer, the operational commander of the 5 destroyers in the strike group, embarked upon the TR, not in Crozier's CoC.)
TR's Senior Medical Officer
Commander Naval Air Forces Chief of Staff (not in Crozier's operational CoC)
Commander Pacific Fleet's Executive Assistant.
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 34144
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

old salt wrote: Sat Apr 18, 2020 1:31 pm Here's the addressees on Crozier's email which I've been able to confirm :

To : Commander Pacific Fleet
Commander Strike Group
Commander Naval Air Forces (not in Crozier's operational CoC)
CC:
TR's XO (Executive Officer -- his second in command of the ship)
CAG (Commander Air Group -- the operational Commander of the several embarked aircraft squadrons)
DCAG (Deputy CAG)
DESRON (Destroyer Squadron Commander -- a Surface Warfare Officer, the operational commander of the 5 destroyers in the strike group, embarked upon the TR, not in Crozier's CoC.)
TR's Senior Medical Officer
Commander Naval Air Forces Chief of Staff (not in Crozier's operational CoC)
Where was Maddow and Don Lemon?
“I wish you would!”
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18866
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... statement/

Prior to sending the email, Crozier reportedly contacted an unnamed admiral in Washington as Roosevelt sat pierside in Guam. The following day, March 29, the captain emphasized the urgency of the rapidly evolving situation in a conversation with Modly’s chief of staff, Robert Love.

Unwilling to stall any longer, Crozier fired off his email just as Modly and Navy leadership were debating which course of action would expedite the safe removal of the carrier’s crew.

“While I understand that there are political concerns with requesting the use of hotels on Guam to truly isolate the remaining 4,500 Sailors 14+ days, the hotels are empty, and I believe it is the only way to quickly combat the problem,” Crozier wrote in the email obtained by the Post.

A senior defense official, meanwhile, suggested that Crozier’s plan of immediate evacuation was unrealistic.

“The problem was there was no place to put them at that time,” the senior defense official told the Washington Post. “The governor of Guam had started working with the hotel industry to get the hotels reopened. But that doesn’t happen overnight.”

Crozier, meanwhile, is not being ruled out for potential reinstatement as the skipper of his former crew.

Gilday, who is currently reviewing the results of the Navy’s investigation, is expected to make a decision this week regarding Crozier’s future.

Speaking Thursday to NBC’s Today show, Defense Secretary Mark Esper would not rule out the possibility of restoring Crozier to his previous role, one currently held on a interim basis by the ship’s former commanding officer, Rear Adm. Select Carlos Sardiello.

“I’ve got to keep an open mind with regard to everything,” Esper told NBC’s Today. “We’ve got to take this one step at a time, let the investigation within the Navy conclude ... and we’ll take things as they can, and we’ll make very reasoned opinions and judgments as this progresses.”

Gilday echoed those sentiments last week in a call with reporters, saying, “I am taking no options off the table as I review that investigation. I think that’s my responsibility — to approach it in a way that’s with due diligence to make sure that it’s completely fair and as unbiased as I can possibly make it.”
My hunch -- Crozier will be reinstated if the Strike Group Commander, RADM Baker was on good terms with Crozier & is sympathetic, even after Crozier blindsided Baker by sending the email without consulting him. If Baker vouches for Crozier, indicates he has confidence in Crozier & assures the CoC he can work with him the rest of the cruise, Crozier might return.

The CAG's answer to those same questions will likely also factor into whether or not Crozier is reinstated. Do those 2 senior officers who must work with Crozier, on a day to day basis, making critical operational decisions (in close consultation) still have confidence in him & trust him ?

If CNO reinstates Crozier, it will be unprecedented (in my memory), but will demonstrate that the CoC's lessons learned from the Pac Fleet ship collisions are being heeded by Big Navy.

It will also demonstrate the power of the media & opposition party politicians to influence some of the most critical decisions that DoD leadership must make, just as the fear of Trump's potential interference prompted Modly's premature & intemperate actions.

Both Crozier & Modly should have put their decisions in the top desk drawer & slept on it overnight.

Had Crozier classified the content of his email & sent it as an official naval message, with [OP IMMEDIATE] precedence & [PERSONAL FOR] distribution, it would have gotten the crew ashore just as fast, without the controversy.
{all of the above is classified IMHO}
Trinity
Posts: 3513
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:14 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by Trinity »

Man am I glad I stayed out of this fight.
“I don’t take responsibility at all.” —Donald J Trump
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18866
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

Good article laying out the CNO's decision making matrix & the implications of each option.
https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/r ... ed-captain

I think CNO should offer Crozier Command of any Naval Air Station of his choice.
He's well suited to those assignments & would likely do an excellent job.
A gentle way to turn him out to pasture, without punishing him.
seacoaster
Posts: 8866
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by seacoaster »

Wasn't sure if, or where to post this one. It's pretty interesting. Note: I could not copy the graphical details, which are very interesting and important to the article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/worl ... ticleShare

"OFF THE COAST OF NORWAY — There could hardly have been a more terrifying place to fight a fire than in the belly of the Losharik, a mysterious deep-diving Russian submarine.

Something, it appears, had gone terribly wrong in the battery compartment as the sub made its way through Russian waters 250 miles north of the Arctic Circle on the First of July.

A fire on any submarine may be a mariner’s worst nightmare, but a fire on the Losharik was a threat of another order altogether. The vessel is able to dive far deeper than almost any other sub, but the feats of engineering that allow it do so may have helped seal the fate of the 14 sailors killed in the disaster.

The only thing more mysterious than what exactly went wrong that day is what the sub was doing in a thousand feet of water just 60 nautical miles east of Norway in the first place.

The extraordinary incident may offer yet another a clue to Russia’s military ambitions in the deep sea, and how they figure into a plan to leverage Arctic naval power to achieve its strategic goals around the globe — including the ability to choke off vital international communication channels at will.

Moscow has been unforthcoming about the Losharik disaster, and insists that the sub was merely a research vessel. The Norwegian military, whose observation posts, navy and surveillance aircraft track Russia’s Northern Fleet for NATO, refuses to say what it may have seen. The only civilian witnesses to the rescue that followed the fire may have been a ragtag band of Russians fishing illegally in the area.

But it was clearly a mission of the highest sensitivity, and the roster of the dead included some of the most decorated and experienced officers of the Russian submarine corps.

To understand why these men may have found themselves on a submarine that can dive to perhaps 20,000 feet — more than 10 times deeper than manned American subs are believed to operate — consider what crisscrosses the floor of the North Atlantic: endless miles of fiber-optic cables that carry a large fraction of the world’s internet traffic, including trillions of dollars in financial transactions. There are also cables linking the sonar listening devices that litter the ocean floor.

Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, and his commanders have increasingly stressed the importance of controlling the flow of information to keep the upper hand in a conflict, said Katarzyna Zysk, head of the Center for Security Policy at the Norwegian Institute for Defense Studies in Oslo.

No matter where in the world a conflict might be brewing, cutting those undersea cables, Professor Zysk said, might force an adversary to think twice before risking an escalation of the dispute.

“The Russian understanding is that the level of unacceptable damage is much lower in Europe and the West than during the Cold War,” she said. “So you might not have to do too much.”

Not just any submarine can do that — at least, not across nearly the entire expanse of the sea bottom.

But the Losharik is not just any submarine. Its inner hull is thought to consist of a series of titanium spheres holding the control room, the bunks, the nuclear reactor and other equipment. Its name, it appears, was taken from an old Russian cartoon character, a horse assembled from small spheres.

The spheres are cramped, and they are joined by even smaller passageways.

A common procedure when there is a fire on a sub is to close the hatches to slow its spread. If that was done on the Losharik, the crew members may have found themselves trapped in small, dim, smoke-filled chambers.

And if they were in the chamber containing the battery compartment where the trouble appears to have started, they may have been battling flames raging in spaces as narrow as a couple of feet, said Peter Lobner, a former electrical officer on a United States submarine.

“That’s the creepiest place you ever want to be on a submarine,” Mr. Lobner said.

‘A Very Russian Story’

The Russian fishermen were out in a small boat, moving eastward, probably in restricted waters, when a submarine burst from the water in front of them, one later told a local newspaper in Murmansk, The SeverPost.

“We were heading towards Kildin,” a nearby island, the fisherman told a SeverPost reporter in a phone call, “and then, about half past nine in the evening, a submarine surfaces. Suddenly and completely surfaces. I have never seen anything like it in my life. On the deck, people were running around making a fuss.”

The submarine they saw was not the Losharik but a much larger vessel: its mothership. The Losharik is designed to fasten to its underside, so it can be carried along for servicing, transport over long distances or — as may have happened on July 1 off Norway — rescue.

Why Russia did not secure the area is unknown, but if the fisherman’s account is accurate, it appears they were the only outside witnesses to the secret rescue operation. They were fishing in a restricted area — but they decided to talk about what they saw anyway.

“This is a very Russian story,” said Jeffrey Mankoff, a senior fellow with the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The submarine sped away, but there was no immediate alert from Russia to the Norwegian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority about a possible nuclear incident in the Barents Sea, said Astrid Liland, head of the nuclear preparedness section.

TASS, the official Russian news agency, reported the accident the following day without mentioning that the submarine was nuclear powered. The SeverPost story appeared the next morning.

Russia and Norway, Ms. Liland said, have an agreement to notify each other in the case of incidents involving nuclear installations. “Unfortunately,” she said, “Russia interprets that agreement not to include military installations such as submarines.”

As convoluted as it is in so many ways, the tale of the Losharik, and the growing power of Russia’s Northern Fleet, begins with at least one very simple explanation, said Professor Zysk, the Norwegian analyst.

“There’s a special place in Putin’s heart for the navy,” she said. “That’s one of the key symbols of a great power.”

The Northern Fleet is at the top of Mr. Putin’s military budget, which included top-drawer items like the most advanced surface vessels and cruise missiles. In 2014, the Northern Fleet put the Arctic brigades under its command; soldiers equipped with the latest gear for cold climate warfare. New generations of ballistic-missile and attack submarines are also being deployed.

With all that naval power, the quickest way for Russia to surprise the United States would be to steam from the Arctic to the North Atlantic, said Heather A. Conley, senior vice president for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“It’s really becoming a much more dynamic area,” Ms. Conley said. “It does feel like we’re updating ‘The Hunt for Red October.’”

There is also an eye toward economic benefit, Ms. Conley said: Russia has made no secret of its desire to control a northern shipping lane through the Arctic as ice recedes because of climate change and to expand its oil and gas production.

Over the last five years, 14 airfields have been opened or rebuilt along the Northern Sea Route; three fully autonomous bases have opened on Arctic archipelagoes. Billions of dollars have been spent on fields for gas production on the Yamal Peninsula, where total volumes are estimated at almost 17 trillion cubic meters. The natural gas from the Yamal will ultimately feed the pipeline now being built through the Baltic Sea to supply Western Europe.

Still, with the extreme difficulty of recovering oil and gas north of the Yamal, and the unknowns of tourism and foreign shipping, the economics may not add up for another half-century — if then, said Andreas Osthagen, a senior research fellow at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, near Oslo, and author of “Coast Guards and Ocean Politics in the Arctic.”

Beyond Russia’s need to protect the nuclear deterrent itself, the key to understanding Russian’s keen interest in the Arctic, Professor Zysk said, is to bear in mind what Moscow does not want to do: become directly involved in any extended conflict with NATO. Russia knows it does not have the resources to win that kind of conflict, Professor Zysk said.

For that reason, no matter where a conflict begins, she said, “Russia would do anything to maintain the strategic initiative.” She said, “The information superiority comes here.”

Russian generals, for example, speak openly of sowing chaos in the government financial system of an adversary, Professor Zysk said, and disrupting seabed cables “would certainly fit into the objective.”
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 18866
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: The Politics of National Security

Post by old salt »

Now on the Big Stick :

The TR's crew will serve as the test group for a CDC study of herd immunity within a low risk population.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... unity.html

94 % of crew tested -- 3920 negative, 660 positive (60% of which are asymptomatic), 7 in hospital, 1 moved to ICU for shortness of breath, 1 death (who was not hospitalized, but found unresponsive in the morning). Over 80% of ship spaces are now cleaned & decontaminated.
Last edited by old salt on Mon Apr 20, 2020 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”