Stand by for high seas, heavy rolls in NSW and JAGC

[Hotdogs]

That’s a bullshit analogy. In your scenario, the drinking compromises the pilot’s ability and competence. Taking a picture with a dead terrorist doesn’t compromise a SEAL’s ability or competence to perform his mission.

What's the underlying reason for regulations prohibiting what he did?

Alcohol has a clear and measurable detriment to anyone's skills, and judgement. Using it on duty even without getting in the air would destroy trust in a pilot or member of a flight crew to perform their duties safely and bring into question what other times does this person ignore the rules?

Similarly, what effect does breaking an established rule have on the perception of Gallaghers judgement and his superiors trust in him? Sure it doesn't make him any less able to kill, but it does cast doubt on his ability to carry out a mission to the best results including how the world sees it when the dust settles or what other rules might be conveniently forgotten when it suits him.

I recall being told once that we aren't paid for our skills, were paid for our judgement. I bet that applies to the NSW community too

Missions that the white SOF community often preform aren’t always direct actions where they are kicking the door down and shooting people in the face. HAL’s ignorance of SOF is showing because he doesn’t even know what missions SOCOM preforms. Depending on the area it’s most likely some sort of FID, IW, CA, or other stability op. Clearly a lot of those missions involved working with indigenous personnel. So yes, posing with a dead corpse that may or may not be a part of the community would absolutely call into question his judgment to preform some of these mission sets.

POTUS made his decision, and that’s about all that’s left to be discussed. I would bet the President is not winning a lot of friends in the Pentagon over the last year or two.

 

[xj220]

Spot on.

 

[Brett327]

That’s a horrible analogy.

But if you’re asking if the pilot could end up flying again...the answer is yes. It’s a long hard road, but there’s already a process in place for that pilot to do so. Google HIMS.

And it could also happen regardless of POTUS’ political party.

Focus here. I’m not asking whether there’s a process for redemption. I’m asking whether POTUS has the authority to arbitrarily override the FAA administrator simply by virtue of being the head of the Executive Branch. It’s a very precise question.

 

[xj220]

The only difference I would say is that POTUS is also listed explicitly as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces giving him more direct oversight of the military vice the FAA.

 

[SlickAg]

Focus here. I’m not asking whether there’s a process for redemption. I’m asking whether POTUS has the authority to arbitrarily override the FAA administrator simply by virtue of being the head of the Executive Branch. It’s a very precise question.

Don’t know, don’t care. That’s not the situation at hand. Clearly you seem to know the answer, since you’re the one who posited the scenario. Why don’t you tell us since, as usual, you’re smarter and more knowledgeable than the rest of us.

I DO know that he is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Are you saying he’s arbitrarily overriding NSW in this case? What about the two soldiers he just pardoned? Were those also cases of arbitrary presidential involvement? Because whether or not YOU think it’s arbitrary really doesn’t matter.

 

[Rugby_Guy]

Depending on the area it’s most likely some sort of FID, IW, CA, or other stability op. Clearly a lot of those missions involved working with indigenous personnel.

To be fair, in your example, since the whole team posed, not just the Chief, I bet the locals weren’t getting too spun up over whoever the dead enemy was.

 

[Brett327]

Don’t know, don’t care.

Cool, TYFYS.

 

[SlickAg]

Cool, TYFYS.

 

[Hotdogs]

To be fair, in your example, since the whole team posed, not just the Chief, I bet the locals weren’t getting too spun up over whoever the dead enemy was.

You never know who is watching and if they are your friend (including host nation/green forces) So yeah probably a valid point in a pretty kinetic environment for that situation, but not always the case for other environments. Judgement is critical for isolated teams with regards to military conduct, so there should be no question. Like I’ve stated before, hundreds if not thousands of service members have been in similar iliar situations before and they’re no exception to policy. What’s that old popular saying? Special Forces doesn’t mean special privileges.

 

[Rugby_Guy]

Submitted without comment

Despite Trump Objection, Navy Moving Forward With Disciplinary Plans Against Gallagher

The secretary of the Navy and the admiral who leads the SEALs vowed to resign if the president halted plans to expel Edward Gallagher from the elite unit.

slate.com

 

[Mos]

Submitted without comment

Despite Trump Objection, Navy Moving Forward With Disciplinary Plans Against Gallagher

The secretary of the Navy and the admiral who leads the SEALs vowed to resign if the president halted plans to expel Edward Gallagher from the elite unit.

slate.com

 

[insanebikerboy]

Focus here. I’m not asking whether there’s a process for redemption. I’m asking whether POTUS has the authority to arbitrarily override the FAA administrator simply by virtue of being the head of the Executive Branch. It’s a very precise question.

I tried to research this as it’s an intriguing question. There are a ton of FARs and it makes me realize I’m glad I’m not a lawyer.

The FAA is a function of the executive branch but there are a lot of FARs and other laws in play that don’t necessarily have corollaries in military law (and vice versa).

The other piece, the Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the military but obviously didn’t say anything about the FAA. The same applies to pretty much the rest of the departments/agencies that are a function of the executive branch.

As someone else alluded to earlier, if the pilot violated some FAR and was subsequently criminally convicted, the President could pardon him. I don’t think that means he could reverse the decision of the FAA. The best the President could do, as far as I can tell, is to fire the head of the FAA.

Yet another analogy as an answer, the President doesn’t have the authority to just establish a random Victor airway, or create some new approach procedure, and he similarly doesn’t have the authority to override the FAA decision.

 

[Brett327]

My sense is that SECNAV wants the process to play out for the benefit of the NSW community - good order and discipline, etc. Since this is (as I understand it) somewhat of a peer-based process, that may carry some weight when SECNAV discussed this w/ POTUS. Selling it as "something the troops want" may provide some bargaining strength, and regardless of the outcome, it's the right thing to do. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that POTUS has reversed course after being properly advised by his team.

 

[Brett327]

As someone else alluded to earlier, if the pilot violated some FAR and was subsequently criminally convicted, the President could pardon him. I don’t think that means he could reverse the decision of the FAA. The best the President could do, as far as I can tell, is to fire the head of the FAA.

Yet another analogy as an answer, the President doesn’t have the authority to just establish a random Victor airway, or create some new approach procedure, and he similarly doesn’t have the authority to override the FAA decision.

Agreed. It is an interesting issue, and while the military isn't an exact analogy for the FAA, there are enough similarities to make the discussion worthwhile. I can look at it in terms of whether an order is lawful or not. Just as POTUS couldn't randomly create/alter part of the National Airspace, or restore a duly revoked license (akin to an unlawful order), one must wonder whether POTUS' power within the DoD might have similar restrictions.
It's a question for the lawyers and policy wonks to work through, but I would argue that the issuance or revocation or a warfare qual may fall outside of POTUS' authority as CinC. He could no more designate Ivanka as a Naval Aviator (or TOPGUN graduate) than he could designate her as an FAA ATP qualified pilot. If he couldn't arbitrarily designate a warfare qual, how could he arbitrarily reinstate a duly revoked qual?

 

[Dontcallmegump]

My sense is that SECNAV wants the process to play out for the benefit of the NSW community - good order and discipline, etc. Since this is (as I understand it) somewhat of a peer-based process, that may carry some weight when SECNAV discussed this w/ POTUS. Selling it as "something the troops want" may provide some bargaining strength, and regardless of the outcome, it's the right thing to do. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that POTUS has reversed course after being properly advised by his team.

Is there any precedent for a Cabinet level official/Service Secretary or flag officer to (allegedly) threaten resignation over an implicated (or actual) Presidential order?