ABCNews.com is running a story on Michael De Kort, the Lockheed whisteblower that’s drawing a bunch of attention. for airing his complaints about the company’s shoddy Coast Guard work for on YouTube. The network website was silly enough to quote yours truly about the subject.
Noah Shac[h]tman, editor-in-chief of DefenseTech.org, which monitors military happenings both at home and abroad, says it’s necessary to ensure the public’s ability to blow the whistle.
“I think it’s never been easier for people to call B.S. on the shenanigans of their employers or their government,” said Shachtman. “Whether it’s soldiers from Abu Graib slipping out pictures and getting them to the press, or whether we’re talking about bloggers reporting from the front lines. Digital media has really made it incredibly easy for people who want to get their message out and bring questionable practices to light.“
Shachtman says there are many examples of these kinds of defense contract scandals — though he says he’s unsure if this is one of those cases. He says the promise of digital media is fulfilled when people like Michael De Kort can be heard.
“There are plenty of honest people working at the nation’s defense contractors and there are a lot of very hard working, very smart people,” Shac[h]tman said. “Unfortunately, when there are abuses, it can be awfully difficult for someone to penetrate the corporate walls and the government walls that surround them.“
Tell that to Michael De Kort — if you can catch him in-between interviews.
“They [the people] need to know the level of incompetence and the decisions that were being made,” De Kort said. “Your ethics — especially after 9/11 — cannot be decisions of convenience — they can’t be decisions of economics.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Any chance we can get a registration procedure for the comments, so we don’t have to put up with this crap anymore?
Ummm, so whats his complaints?
This is just a new version of what has been a familiar story for ships and their crews for centuries, the thread of which nowadays involves the numerous shipyards that compete for contracts to perform Regular Overhaul (ROH) upon the vessels of the U.S. Navy, and those in authority on board, the SupShip reps at the shipyards monitoring the overhauls/repairs, and, inevitably, the Propulsion Examining Board and numerous other NAVSEA/NAVSHIPS responsibles with oversight and qualification responsibilities for ships being requalified for at-sea operations, not the least of which is the almost total turnover in personnel on board from the time ROH begins until the ship returns to the fleet for duty. he ship was ready to report to GITMO for final crew training (although training is never complete in the USN).
The overhauls are periodic as the U.S. Navy Ops requirements and the ship’s availability for overhaul may permit. At that time 5 years was about the average duration from ROH to ROH.
In summary, in 1978, I had just reported at NOB Norfolk as the ship’s Engineer Officer and, therefore, as also the Ship’s Repair Officer responsible to the CO for the conduct of repair and upgrade of ship and systems as well as battle repair at sea should that happen. She was a Knox Class frigate; a very good ship with an outstanding crew, in my opinion, from SA/FA to the CO’s under which I served during my years at sea.