posted on March 3, 2001 01:03:11 PM
Can someone explain to me the possible strategy in this? And what do you think about it?
Sounds suspicious to me.
"Navy lawyers on Friday were reviewing a request from attorneys for submarine Cmdr. Scott Waddle seeking 'testimonial immunity' for Waddle during the hearings."
posted on March 3, 2001 01:21:13 PM
haven't read that yet but assuming it is true I suspect that the guy is probably trying to salvage what remains of his life.
It's a given that his very promising military career has been flushed as a result of the incident. This in itself is probably devastating to the man. On top of that, however, there exists the real possibility of a jail term.
The Navy may prefer a full disclosure and admission of guilt to the negative publicity of a trial. It would make the whole thing go away much quicker were that to occur. Waddle likely recognizes that he does, at least, possess a bargaining chip.
He's willing to fall on his sword for the opportunity to start his life anew somewhere else. General Dynamics, I'd guess.
The way I see it now that I have had time to think about it, if this is true he doesn't appear to have good leadership traits in taking responsibility for the accident.
Granted a news report mentioned he was sorrowful about the incident but with military leadership training and so on, it just seems to me he is allegedly taking the wimpy way out.
If this is true then in my opinion he may be considered a "coward" in taking this possible strategy unless it is shown that he is doing it for the country and not for his own self interest.
posted on March 3, 2001 03:02:24 PM
In the Navy the Captain of a ship, or boat in this case, is responsible for all that occurs while he is in command. If something went awry while he was asleep in his berth it would be his fault according to long established traditions and military law.
He will not be considered a coward for taking this action. In fact, such a course will likely earn him the respect of his peers, most of whom probably think, "There but for the grace of god, go I". What civilans think is of little consequence. To take and accept responsibility is consistet with the highest standards of the service.
From what I've read of the guy, he was a popular commander, well liked by his crew and his fellow officers. I don't imagine he'll get much in the way of internal opposition from the Navy relative to his plan. Politics may demand its pound of flesh, however, in which case all bets are off.
"The way I see it now that I have had time to think about it, if this is true he doesn't appear to have good leadership traits in taking responsibility for the accident.
"Granted a news report mentioned he was sorrowful about the incident but with military leadership training and so on, it just seems to me he is allegedly taking the wimpy way out".
"If this is true then in my opinion he may be considered a "coward" in taking this possible strategy unless it is shown that he is doing it for the country and not for his own self interest".
Your comments about the captain's courage or cowardice or leadership are absurd.
You have forgotten, or never knew, that Waddle had previously used his rights not to testify a the Naval inquiry in matters which may incriminate him?
He is now offering to so testify if he may be immune from resultant criminal prosecution, thus giving up his fifth amendment rights on condition.
He is responsible whether he testifies or not, and by this offer to testify he is providing an opportunity to the board of inquiry to get whatever information he can give in their pursuit of the full truth of what happened causing the collision.
He couldn't get any "wimpy way out", testimony or not.
