This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Author: Hondo

  • Battalion Commander Killed at Fort Bragg

    Multiple reports on this today, but complete details are not yet available.

    Apparently a Battalion Commander at Fort Bragg, NC,  was shot and killed yesterday by another soldier during a safety briefing.  (Other reports indicated that the unit involved was the 525th Battlefield Surveillance Battalion Brigade and that all injured and killed were from that unit.) The gunman reportedly broke ranks, pulled a handgun, and fired, killing the Battalion Commander.  The gunman then shot himself, but survived and is in custody in “serious” condition.  A third soldier was injured. The incident is currently under investigation by CID.  Names of the injured and killed do not appear to have been publicly released.

    Condolences to the surviving family.

  • SVA Decision – Link

    Here’s the text of the decision.  The server’s getting hammered right now due to the release of the health care reform decision at the same time, so it may be a while before it’s easily viewable.

    Will defer to TSO for detailed analysis, but wanted to get this link up pronto.

  • Sings the Craven? “Nevermore!”

    Well, at least not on “America’s Got Talent.”  It looks like Timothy “The Craven” Poe has been cut from the show.

    “I don’t know that he holds up to other singers on this show at all,” said judge Howie Mandel while evaluating Poe.

    I can understand that.  I’d guess it’s hard to sing your best when you’re looking over your shoulder all the time.  Or when you can’t look anyone in the audience in the eye.

    Karma can be a bitch sometimes, Timmy-poo – can’t it?

    Now, let’s wait and see see what your FOIAs from the NPRC and MN ARNG say when we they come back.  They’re currently in the works.

  • ‘Kelly Temps’ In Uniform

    Yeah, I’m about to get a bit long-winded – and some might say, “wax ignorant” – again. And this article is somewhat (but not exclusively) Army-specific, so read on at your own risk. (smile)

    Much of the readership here at TAH has a military background. (Duh!) But even within the military, experiences and commitments vary. There’s a huge difference in terms of experiences, careers, and commitments between those who on active duty and those who serve “part time” – e.g., in the Reserve Components.

    That dichotomy is largely by design, and is to be expected. So is a substantial back-and-forth banter – and at times, some animosity – between the Active and Reserve Components. The roles are different, and what’s required and expected of each is different. The Active Component is there 24/7/365, and provides the primary military response in times of crisis.  The Reserve Component, by design, is there to augment the active forces when required.

    At least, there’s a difference during peacetime service. During wartime, when serving together those distinctions blur. My background is Army, so I’ll discuss the Army; other services may be different.  When you serve on active duty and deploy to a combat zone, the uniform says “US Army”; it doesn’t say “Active Army”, “Army Reserve”, or “Army National Guard”. So when it hits the fan, so to speak, the distinctions fade. Mission and imminent threat forces that.  But the distinctions resume when one redeploys.

    There’s no argument that the Active Component forces have the harder role. They’re required to be fully ready 24/7/365, and to deploy and fight on much shorter notice than the Reserve Components. They train more, and suffer more as a result – e.g., earlier casualties, more time away from family due to training, more peacetime training injuries, etc . . . . They’re doing their job full time; it’s their livelihood and (for many) their career. Yes, the Active Component forces have a more comprehensive support infrastructure. So? They’re serving full-time, after all. The Reserve Components aren’t.

    That was once clearly true. But is that really quite true any more – particularly for the Army?

    Time for a historical sidebar. And yes, it is related – though it might not initially seem relevant. (more…)

  • Another Now Rests at Peace

    Can’t add much to Jonn’s excellent prior post here.  Except to say we’ve brought another home.

    Captain Clyde W. Campbell, USAF, was lost in Laos on 1 March 1969.  His remains were found by a Joint US-Lao recovery team in 1997.  Additional personal equipment, including his pistol, was recovered on a later trip 2009-10.  His remains were finally positively identified.

    Captain Campbell was buried in Arlington National Cemetery yesterday.

    Welcome home, Captain.  We wish we’d been able to bring you back to rest among your brothers in arms sooner.  But you’re home now.  Rest in peace.

  • Equadorian Holiday for Julian?

    Looks like our good “friend” Julian Assange has tired of British food and weather, and has decided to seek out a different climate.  He’s applied for political asylum  in Ecuador.  Seems his native Australia wouldn’t lift a finger to help him out of his little European legal jam.

    Personally, I kinda hope he gets what he’s asking for – then pisses off the Ecuadorian government.  Ecuadorian laws are rather . . . different.  In Ecuador you can be sent to jail for 2 years for insulting the President, and for 3 months for insulting other government officials.  I’m thinking that it would be only a matter of time before Assange did exactly that.

    I also think a couple of years in an Ecuadorian jail would do him a world of good.  If he survived, of course.

    Well, OK – not really.  Assange is IMO such an ass he’s probably beyond help as this point.   But seeing him spend a couple of years in a South American jail would do me a world of good.  (smile)

  • Deja Vu

    After Poetrooper’s article earlier today concerning “Fast and Furious”, I’m a bit hesitant to post this.  I generally try to stay mostly away from politics unrelated to the military here at TAH.  But today I feel compelled to make an exception.

    “I don’t give a shit what happens.  I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover-up or anything else, if it’ll save it – save the plan.”

    No, the above isn’t a quote from any official of the current Administration about “Fast and Furious”.  But it sounds like it could be.

    I doubt this is news to most TAH readers, but the current Administration is now claiming “executive privilege” regarding documents relating to “Fast and Furious”.

    I’m not going to debate the merits of “Fast and Furious”, or the possible motivations (political or otherwise) which led to that DOJ operation.  Nor am I going to opine on whether “Fast and Furious” was a good idea, or was executed competently.  I’ll leave that to others.

    But the claim of executive privilege for “Fast and Furious” is, well, IMO bullshit.  And it’s also highly dangerous bullshit.

    Under certain conditions executive privilege can indeed be legitimately invoked by the POTUS.  But it’s generally limited to matters of national security or diplomacy.  It can’t be invoked to hide matters that are merely criminal or embarrassing.  No Administration should ever invoke a claim of executive privilege for such reasons.

    But the current Administration has yet to make the case why Fast and Furious qualifies for a claim of executive privilege.  And absent such justification, they’re essentially making a claim that all, regardless of political leanings, should find deeply disturbing and dangerous.  Essentially, they’re arguing for unlimited application of executive privilege – that is, they are arguing that executive privilege should be allowed whenever desired by the POTUS and/or senior Administration officials, and about matters that do not involve national security or diplomacy.  Because Fast and Furious is not a national security or diplomatic matter.  It’s a law enforcement operation gone awry.

    Allowing such unrestricted claims of executive privilege essentially places a serving POTUS above the law.  And if extended to other senior officials, it would similarly render serving senior officials above the law as well.

    In short, it would render the President a King, answerable to no one, and his senior officials untouchable nobility.  That’s not something I ever want to see in this nation.  Do you?

    And in case you’re wondering:  yes, you’ve indeed heard the above quote before.  That was Nixon – speaking to some of his senior advisors about Watergate.

    Nixon’s claim of executive privilege was a transparent attempt to obstruct investigation of Watergate.  It was absolutely wrong, and was slam-dunked by the SCOTUS.  And unless the current administration makes a far better case than it has to date, the same needs to happen today.

     

  • Brady Score – Meaningful Metric, or Misleading BS?

    This article by Jonn and the comments to same got me to thinking about the subject of gun control again.  It also reminded me of something I originally wrote a couple of years ago for a site that no longer exists and which wasn’t published before the site folded.  And  I also never got around to sending it elsewhere for publication.  So here goes.

    Fair warning:  this article is a bit longish, and there’s some math involved.  (smile)

    Introduction

    Fairly recently (late 2009/early 2010) the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (hereafter referred to the “Brady Campaign”) published its evaluation of US state firearms laws. It defined in this evaluation a measure it called the “Brady State Scorecard.”  This Brady State Scorecard yields a single numerical value for the state’s firearms laws – the state’s “Brady Score”.  The higher a state’s Brady Score, the more restrictive that state’s firearms laws.

    The Brady Campaign’s thesis is that laws restricting gun and ammunition purchase and ownership promote public safety, presumably by reducing gun-related crime.  They’ve been working to promote more restrictive firearms laws for literally decades.

    However, with the introduction of the Brady Score the Brady Campaign has allowed a test of their thesis. This article will do exactly that.

    Specifically, this article will provide a statistical test indicating whether there is reasonable evidence for a direct cause and effect relationship between restrictive gun laws and a state’s overall murder rate, a state’s  firearm murder rate, and that state’s percentage of murders committed using firearms – or, in plain terms, whether gun control works to reduce gun violence.  If there is indeed a strong a cause and effect relationship between restrictive firearms laws (as measured by the Brady Score) and lowered gun violence, that should be both apparent and obvious on examination of the data.

    The Brady Campaign – Background

    The history and mission the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is illustrative. Here is the Brady Campaign’s history: (more…)