29110
Post by: AustonT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/11/29/dakota-meyer-medal-of-honor-bae-systems_n_1119253.html
Dakota Meyer, Medal Of Honor Recipient, Sues BAE Systems
AP | Nov 29, 2011 3:41 PM EST
Comments (16)
SAN ANTONIO -- A U.S. Marine given the nation's highest award for valor is suing a defense contractor that he says ridiculed his Medal of Honor, called him mentally unstable and suggested he had a drinking problem, thereby costing him a job.
Dakota Meyer received the Medal of Honor in September, two years after the young corporal saved 36 lives during a six-hour ambush in Afghanistan. He the third living recipient of the award for actions in Iraq or Afghanistan. After the medal was approved, President Barack Obama waited to call until Meyer's lunch break because the 23-year-old worried about taking a call on the job.
In a defamation lawsuit filed in Texas, Meyer alleges that his former employer, BAE Systems OASYS Inc., ruined his chances at landing a new job by telling a prospective employer that he was a poor worker during a three-month stint earlier this year.
A BAE Systems manager said Meyer "was mentally unstable, that Sgt. Meyer was not performing BAE tasks assigned and that Sgt. Meyer had a problem related to drinking in a social setting," according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, seeks unspecified damages.
BAE Systems spokesman Brian Roehrkasse told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the company was grateful to Meyer for his bravery but strongly disagreed with his claims. He called Meyer's actions in Afghanistan "heroic" and wished him success.
Attorneys for Meyer did not return a phone message Tuesday.
Meyer was working construction in his home state of Kentucky when he was awarded the Medal of Honor. In September 2009, Meyer was just 21 when, defying orders from his commanders, he charged five times in a Humvee into heavy gunfire and provided cover for his team, allowing many to escape likely death. He killed at least eight Taliban insurgents.
According to the lawsuit filed Monday, BAE hired Meyer in March but the relationship quickly soured. Meyer said he became dismayed in April upon learning that BAE had pursued sales of weapons systems to Pakistan, and sent an email to his supervisor expressing his disapproval.
Meyer wrote that it was "disturbing" how U.S. troops were being issued outdated equipment when better, advanced thermal optic scopes were being offered to Pakistan.
"We are simply taking the best gear, the best technology on the market to date and giving to guys that are known to stab us in the back," Meyer wrote in the email, according to the lawsuit.
Roehrkasse, the BAE spokesman, said it is the State Department and not BAE that makes the decision on which defense-related products can be exported.
"In recent years, the U.S. government has approved the export of defense-related goods from numerous defense companies to Pakistan as part of the United States' bilateral relationship with that country," Roehrkasse said.
Meyer claims his supervisor began berating and belittling him after sending the email, at one point allegedly taunting him about his Medal of Honor by calling it Meyer's "pending star status." That supervisor, Bobby McCreight, is also named in the lawsuit and is still employed by BAE. Roehrkasse said McCreight is a former decorated Marine sniper.
Meyer resigned from BAE in May. He then tried obtaining a job at a former employer, San Diego-based Ausgar Technologies, but the lawsuit claims the opportunity fell through after McCreight characterized Meyer as a poor employee during a conversation with a manager who had to approve new hires.
"Bottom line, it was determined that ... you were not recommended to be placed back on the team due to being mentally unstable and no performing on OASYS tasks assigned," according to an email from an Ausgar manager included in the lawsuit.
Somebody is wrong here...don't know who.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Can't say. We don't have all the information. If all the internal emails are made public, then perhaps we can say. For all we know this company had dozens of documented complaints about him being a wacko.
But I hope things work out for him, either way.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Its a defamation on him.
"was mentally unstable, that Sgt. Meyer was not performing BAE tasks assigned and that Sgt. Meyer had a problem related to drinking in a social setting," according to the lawsuit.
If they left it as "Not performing BAE tasks" and instead of shotgunning him with the "problem related to drinking in a social setting" could have gone with "personnal outside influence was effecting his performance at work. They would have been alright.
What they went with is a personnal attack on his character/integerty.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
If they really said "mentally unstable" then they have a big problem. Employers don't get to toss around unqualified medical opinions like that.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Yeah, you just CAN'T say things like that about a former employee.
Not legal, and not cool.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
To be fair you can win the medal of honour and be a douchebag. A good mate of mine won the Military Cross (Matt Croucher) and Ive known several lads get gongs for their actions, and they could have gone to other people just as deserving.
It seems more luck than judgement you get a medal these days. And look at Johnson Beharry, what did he do to earn a VC?
The fact a bloke has a MoH means little to me, he could still have questionable moral character lets be honest here. Soldiers get gongs for being good soldiers, not good blokes.
Regards the rest of it, well, I dont know how the law works, but it does seem silly to mention his drink problem, couldnt they just fire him and be done with it?
And on another level, what about if during the trial (he is going to sue them) they prove that he was indeed bad at his job and he does indeed have a drink problem?
29110
Post by: AustonT
mattyrm wrote:The fact a bloke has a MoH means little to me, he could still have questionable moral character lets be honest here. Soldiers get gongs for being good soldiers, not good blokes.
A thousand times this. The CMH MEANS a great deal to me, the guy's a hero who did something I probably couldn't. It doesn't make him a saint. I just really want to see how it shakes out.
221
Post by: Frazzled
mattyrm wrote: To be fair you can win the medal of honour and be a douchebag. A good mate of mine won the Military Cross (Matt Croucher) and Ive known several lads get gongs for their actions, and they could have gone to other people just as deserving.
It seems more luck than judgement you get a medal these days. And look at Johnson Beharry, what did he do to earn a VC?
The fact a bloke has a MoH means little to me, he could still have questionable moral character lets be honest here. Soldiers get gongs for being good soldiers, not good blokes.
Regards the rest of it, well, I dont know how the law works, but it does seem silly to mention his drink problem, couldnt they just fire him and be done with it?
And on another level, what about if during the trial (he is going to sue them) they prove that he was indeed bad at his job and he does indeed have a drink problem?
Doesn't matter really. Any references about an employee can only be based on their work performance, at work or a work related activity.
19370
Post by: daedalus
I agree with you guys completely, but that still doesn't change the fact that you can be the biggest jackass on earth at your last job, and they can't say you were "mentally unstable", if it was indeed stated.
39274
Post by: Steu
Frazzled wrote:mattyrm wrote: To be fair you can win the medal of honour and be a douchebag. A good mate of mine won the Military Cross (Matt Croucher) and Ive known several lads get gongs for their actions, and they could have gone to other people just as deserving.
It seems more luck than judgement you get a medal these days. And look at Johnson Beharry, what did he do to earn a VC?
The fact a bloke has a MoH means little to me, he could still have questionable moral character lets be honest here. Soldiers get gongs for being good soldiers, not good blokes.
Regards the rest of it, well, I dont know how the law works, but it does seem silly to mention his drink problem, couldnt they just fire him and be done with it?
And on another level, what about if during the trial (he is going to sue them) they prove that he was indeed bad at his job and he does indeed have a drink problem?
Doesn't matter really. Any references about an employee can only be based on their work performance, at work or a work related activity.
I agree the way it works is if he was a bad employee they refuse to give a refrence which starts to ring bells at the new company. You should never bad mouth someone to another company.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Mattrym
Its not about his work ethics that on the job. Its the personnel attack on his character...
Hard to explain
Would come up with a military example but damn...we're a bit screwed up on and off duty
If a civilian (no idea what the military is) calls you in reference for a mate of your that left service. Would you stick with his exemplery job performance while he was on duty?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Steu wrote:Frazzled wrote:mattyrm wrote: To be fair you can win the medal of honour and be a douchebag. A good mate of mine won the Military Cross (Matt Croucher) and Ive known several lads get gongs for their actions, and they could have gone to other people just as deserving.
It seems more luck than judgement you get a medal these days. And look at Johnson Beharry, what did he do to earn a VC?
The fact a bloke has a MoH means little to me, he could still have questionable moral character lets be honest here. Soldiers get gongs for being good soldiers, not good blokes.
Regards the rest of it, well, I dont know how the law works, but it does seem silly to mention his drink problem, couldnt they just fire him and be done with it?
And on another level, what about if during the trial (he is going to sue them) they prove that he was indeed bad at his job and he does indeed have a drink problem?
Doesn't matter really. Any references about an employee can only be based on their work performance, at work or a work related activity.
In fact, many companies won't give a reference at all, other than the employee worked from such to such period of time.
I agree the way it works is if he was a bad employee they refuse to give a refrence which starts to ring bells at the new company. You should never bad mouth someone to another company.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
At the company where I work the limit of a reference is a letter confirming the dates during which you worked at the company.
However this isn't about references, it is about defamation.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
daedalus wrote:I agree with you guys completely, but that still doesn't change the fact that you can be the biggest jackass on earth at your last job, and they can't say you were "mentally unstable", if it was indeed stated.
Thing is though, it says the guy emailed the other prospective employer and said "Dont employ him because X"
I'm sorry, but the employment laws are fethed up! I know it is hard to sack people these days, but Jesus. If a guy works for me and he is totally fething usless, is rude, drinks too much and never shows up for work on time, why am I NOT allowed to tell people?! 
Isnt it your moral responsibility to basically say to anyone else asking about him "Dont hire that guy, he's a total feth head!"
50512
Post by: Jihadin
You know...you can be sued for glossing a former employee who doesn't perform as expected at a new job. Ones best bet is just confirmed the time spent that he/she worked there
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Jihadin wrote:You know...you can be sued for glossing a former employee who doesn't perform as expected at a new job. Ones best bet is just confirmed the time spent that he/she worked there
Yeah well, my missus just explained the basic employment laws to me.. 
They need changing! If I own a restaurant and I fire a guy because he had a habit of sprinkling his pubes into the food due to some bizarre sexual fetish, and then a fortnight later I get a phone call off Wendy's, why the feth cant I scream from the rooftops "He jacks off in the soup!"
What am I supposed to say? "We found him simply to be unsuitable?"
No wonder there are so many idiots working ... well.. everywhere! 
1206
Post by: Easy E
mattyrm wrote:daedalus wrote:I agree with you guys completely, but that still doesn't change the fact that you can be the biggest jackass on earth at your last job, and they can't say you were "mentally unstable", if it was indeed stated.
Thing is though, it says the guy emailed the other prospective employer and said "Dont employ him because X"
I'm sorry, but the employment laws are fethed up! I know it is hard to sack people these days, but Jesus. If a guy works for me and he is totally fething usless, is rude, drinks too much and never shows up for work on time, why am I NOT allowed to tell people?!
Isnt it your moral responsibility to basically say to anyone else asking about him "Dont hire that guy, he's a total feth head!"
You don't put it in writing.
Every good businessman knows that. You need plausible deniability.
You tell them; "he was employed between this date and this date. At this time he is not eligible for re-hire per our policies."
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Mattrym
All the our time in uniform we come up with unique ways to get our point across
Jack off in the soup....pluuuusseeeee
it'll be
"Well Sir/Ma'am I maintain a standard hygiene rule in place....."
29110
Post by: AustonT
Jihadin wrote:Would come up with a military example but damn...we're a bit screwed up on and off duty
I can provide.
I'm a PSG and I notice SSG Numbletard has a hard on for PFC Asshat. Constantly berating him and counseling him everyday.
I move PFC Asshat to SSG Jollygood's squad. Instead of simply transferring PFC A's counseling to his new supervisor SSG Numbletard shreds that gak and personally tells Jollygood that his new soldier is a total feth up. He can't find his ass with both hands a map and a self correcting course, he puts his bolt carrier in backwards, and takes exhaust samples of five tons with his mouth...
That seems equitable.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Actually seen someone try to put a bolt carrier in backwards.....which is about as bad as the same person loading his rounds in backwards in the magazine
29110
Post by: AustonT
The problem isn't if they ATTEMPT to put it in backwards...it's if they succeed. Then I have a red tagged weapon on my bench next to "closed in Bradley ramp" except one is negligence and one is epic stupidity.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
You didn't get a M4 that was run over by a RTCH did you? Afghanistan
29110
Post by: AustonT
No, I only worked in depot on loan (it are not my job) and then only at Stewart DOL.
I DID have the dubious pleasure of driving up to Stewart from Hunter to assist a sister BN who were qualifying on their BRAND NEW M2s. When I showed up one was jammed on a ring mount on top of an LMTV. in the intervening hours I fell of the truck...my fault should have dismounted it. And discovered
1. These donkey-caves had only used WD 40 to lubricate
2. The bolt swelled and bent the receiver
3. 2 of the 8 brand new barrels were thread stripped already.
4. that this BN was composed solely of idiots
5. Of four factory new guns I deadlined 3 and told them not to use the 4th until I got back. called my Top and let him deal with them.
6. Forgot tuis should be 2. That hadn't even looked at the TM or any other COEI they received...you know like the can of typewriter oil they were supposed to be using.
I can't imagine having to depend on those guys...
50512
Post by: Jihadin
See the red sheet on the one guy that used a 50 cal round to beat in a locking pin on the turret mount for the M2 year and half back?
19370
Post by: daedalus
mattyrm wrote: Thing is though, it says the guy emailed the other prospective employer and said "Dont employ him because X"
I'm sorry, but the employment laws are fethed up! I know it is hard to sack people these days, but Jesus. If a guy works for me and he is totally fething usless, is rude, drinks too much and never shows up for work on time, why am I NOT allowed to tell people?!
Isnt it your moral responsibility to basically say to anyone else asking about him "Dont hire that guy, he's a total feth head!"
I think "...and is not elligible for rehire per our policies" (which I assume is legit, but I'm not in HR/legal so I can't say 100%) says more than enough. As far as moral responsibility goes, it depends. Was he drinking on the job? Unless he's coming into work slushed or too hungover to work, it shouldn't matter what he does on his off hours in a "social setting". We don't know if he's useless, rude, or doesn't show up on time. We do know he's been accused of being "mentally unstable", "not performing BAE tasks assigned", and that he "had a problem related to drinking in a social setting".
Only one of those things has any relevance to job performance, at least, without knowing what the "social setting" was or if the new job mandates a psych evaluation.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Jihadin wrote:See the red sheet on the one guy that used a 50 cal round to beat in a locking pin on the turret mount for the M2 year and half back?
Yes.
The one that freaked me out was in...08? The armorer attempting to safe an AT4 in the arms room that crispy frittered himself...chilled me. Had just finished running an AT4 range with training and live systems the week before.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Makes me think of the story I heard a good time ago about the guy who replaced some automobile fuses with .22 rounds. Not a shining moment for humanity.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Thats bad really really bad. We had two pilots at Ft Campbell come off the 9mil range and while outside the arms room one mange to shoot the other in the ass
40132
Post by: ArbeitsSchu
Has it been established whether he actually IS the things his old boss says he is? He did get the MoH after disobeying orders, which rather implies that he may not always do what his boss asks him to do.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Jihadin wrote:Thats bad really really bad. We had two pilots at Ft Campbell come off the 9mil range and while outside the arms room one mange to shoot the other in the ass
How?
1185
Post by: marv335
I work for BAE out in Saudi.
BAE Systems company policy is to not provide a reference. Good or bad, they say nothing (officially)
That said, the defence industry is a small world and many people know each other, and talk.
However, CMH notwithstanding, this guy sounds like a bit of a dick.
Sending ranting emails about the companies customers?
Not condusive to continuing employment.
Another point, BAE hasn't been a British company for years.
It's like BP, It's a global company (4th largest defence contractor in the US IIRC)
50512
Post by: Jihadin
The one behind the "victim" just then cleared his weapon...and cleared it badly.....two officers mind you  Automatically Appended Next Post: Marv your a contracter out there?
1185
Post by: marv335
Yup.
It's a hard life (tax free) but someone has to do it...
50512
Post by: Jihadin
My experience with contracters out there is more to the buddy system. I was Contract Oversite for the 401st AMC
514
Post by: Orlanth
In the defence industry whether someone is mentally stable or not is very relevant.
40132
Post by: ArbeitsSchu
Orlanth wrote:In the defence industry whether someone is mentally stable or not is very relevant.
Which is a little disturbing, given what people are playing with.
40950
Post by: Paul
mattyrm wrote:Jihadin wrote:You know...you can be sued for glossing a former employee who doesn't perform as expected at a new job. Ones best bet is just confirmed the time spent that he/she worked there
Yeah well, my missus just explained the basic employment laws to me..
They need changing! If I own a restaurant and I fire a guy because he had a habit of sprinkling his pubes into the food due to some bizarre sexual fetish, and then a fortnight later I get a phone call off Wendy's, why the feth cant I scream from the rooftops "He jacks off in the soup!"
What am I supposed to say? "We found him simply to be unsuitable?"
No wonder there are so many idiots working ... well.. everywhere!
The reason they are the way they are, in the uk at least, is that too often companys would use bad refrences to either feth over someone who left in disagreement with the company or stop someone leaving. What your talking about would be a ciminal offense. If the emploee commits a criminal offense then they will find it hard to get a job. If not that is what probation periods are for.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Has it been established whether he actually IS the things his old boss says he is? He did get the MoH after disobeying orders, which rather implies that he may not always do what his boss asks him to do.
Nothing has been established.
ATM there is a claim by this guy that someone told someone else something, who supposedly emailed it to him.
48860
Post by: Joey
For Americans out there, BAE systems are corporate scumbags with influence in the popular press and very highly paid lawyers.
I'd bare that in mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_SYSTEMS#Corruption_investigations
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Here we go.
Not that I care about BAE or whatever
We do know that the insurgents do acquire uniforms from like....Ranger Joe...US Cav....equipment from same source....oh and our conexs that go through Karachi gets broken into and all kinds of US equipment is stolen. Best one yet was SAIC sent a mobile arms room with a full set of US weapons M4/16's ,240's, 249's, MK19, 50 cals and 9mils from Karachi....and got hijacked along the way. No freaking lie. I had to track that container...it belonged to our contracters. NVG's are a hot item for them. They have plenty of russian and chinese made NVG's....and over 2,000 US NVG's thats already been stoling from another contracter that sent it through Karachi....of course batteries are in competition with either NVG's or IED's...Another good one...101st sent a Kiowa Warrior in a 40 ft container....stolen enroute
46
Post by: alarmingrick
American Hero v. British Company who's the dick? British Co.
make the whistle blower look worse than the reported wrong doing.
and while i agree an a-hole could still win a medal, i think the odds are greater
that a good person would do the deeds that win them medals.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
I agree with alarmingrick.
To me, risking your life to save others isn't an indication of good character in a person.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
A person's post-war conduct does not alter their wartime achievements, and their wartime achievements do not mitigate bad behaviour in later life, no matter how big a hero they were. I really don't see what baring his war record has upon his later employment record other than a suggestion of general good character.
Furthermore, winning a medal during wartime doesn't mean you can't be mentally unstable at a later time in your life. Hell some of the saddest stories are from highly decorated soldiers that are fethed up by all they have been through.
So really, we can't comment on this story, you don't know the truth of what happened.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
We all come out of theater with some mental issue. One year in the box is not a vacation. Besides...he get picked up...the Veteran Bill was Passed
5534
Post by: dogma
Why would he cite BAE if he thought the reference would even be suspect? Did he not have other options? I mean, he could have simply put "COH recipient" in "other qualifications" and probably gotten the job.
This reeks of either stupidity on the part of the soldier, or malfeasance on the part of BAE.
51842
Post by: mstersmith3
I read an article on Yahoo that sited sorces from his previous employer at a not for profit vetrans aid center. They said he was a model employee who came up with inventive and insightful ways to help veterans dealing with PTSD. They also stated he would talk with many of the veterans personally and let them know it gets better and that together we can continue to serve the scociety we defended and love. Doesnt sound like a bitter drunk to me. I am also a Marine and you can spot the ones who are bitter and on off the wagon. Also Dogma he is a Marine not a soldier.
5470
Post by: sebster
Jihadin wrote:Its a defamation on him. "was mentally unstable, that Sgt. Meyer was not performing BAE tasks assigned and that Sgt. Meyer had a problem related to drinking in a social setting," according to the lawsuit.
If they left it as "Not performing BAE tasks" and instead of shotgunning him with the "problem related to drinking in a social setting" could have gone with "personnal outside influence was effecting his performance at work. They would have been alright. What they went with is a personnal attack on his character/integerty.
Except defence contractors don't employ CMH winners for their astute knowledge of modern engineering. They employ them because they want the contracts and prestige that comes with having a nationally recognised hero in their company. And that means the guy needs to turn up at loads of social gatherings, shake hands and drink beers. If he drank too much at these events, then he failed to do what was likely a major part of his job. Automatically Appended Next Post: Joey wrote:For Americans out there, BAE systems are corporate scumbags with influence in the popular press and very highly paid lawyers.
I'd bare that in mind.
For sure, BAE are total dickholes. Automatically Appended Next Post: alarmingrick wrote:American Hero v. British Company who's the dick? British Co.
make the whistle blower look worse than the reported wrong doing.
and while i agree an a-hole could still win a medal, i think the odds are greater
that a good person would do the deeds that win them medals.
Except the virtues needed to be a battlefield hero are not the virtues needed to do a good job for a defence contractor. Heroism, physical ability and a level head in an extremely high stress situation are wonderful virtues, and almost certainly held in high amounts by every CMH winner. But they're of little value at all when your job is meet and greet politicians and senior businessman. It isn't only possible that a person could be earn a CMH but be crappy in a civilian job, it'd have to be as common as the opposite.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Sebster....he's a marine sniper......worked in BAE High Tech sniper scopes..has a US security clearence to boot to.
edit
Marine snipers are trained quite well to operate their scopes.
29408
Post by: Melissia
dogma wrote:Why would he cite BAE if he thought the reference would even be suspect? Did he not have other options? I mean, he could have simply put "COH recipient" in "other qualifications" and probably gotten the job.
This reeks of either stupidity on the part of the soldier, or malfeasance on the part of BAE.
My guess is the latter. BAE is well known for their dickery. Hiring people to spy on anti-arms trade organizations, bribes and other corruption in South America, and similar corruption in the middle east. For all we know, the guy could have been a bastion of honesty and integrity, but because of this he fit in with BAE about as well as the Russian space station fits into a two car garage.
40132
Post by: ArbeitsSchu
For contrast: One of the "Black Hawk Down" heroes was a nonce. Might be a medal winner but he still has an unhealthy interest in children. Probably not going to get any mint jobs in promotion, I would have thought.
I don't doubt for a minute that many other people who have won medals have also done terrible, illegal or unpalatable things.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
For contrast: One of the "Black Hawk Down" heroes was a nonce. Might be a medal winner but he still has an unhealthy interest in children. Probably not going to get any mint jobs in promotion, I would have thought.
WTF? Randy Shugart and Gry Gordon was killed in Action at Mogadishu....killed 3 Oct.....1993
edit
@Sebster (woul gotten back with you sooner but knucklehead above me was a bit far fetch
Regulations specify that recipients of the Medal of Honor are allowed to wear the uniform "at their pleasure" with standard restrictions on political, commercial, or extremist purposes; other former members of the armed forces may do so only at certain ceremonial occasions
29110
Post by: AustonT
Jihadin wrote:For contrast: One of the "Black Hawk Down" heroes was a nonce. Might be a medal winner but he still has an unhealthy interest in children. Probably not going to get any mint jobs in promotion, I would have thought.
WTF? Randy Shugart and Gry Gordon was killed in Action at Mogadishu....killed 3 Oct.....1993
Probably talking about John Stebbin, Silver Star, who was convicted of child sodomy and rape. However I doubt he knows the difference between a SS and CMH in terms of status and prestige (and employability as a "face")
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Thanks for the clarification Auston
29110
Post by: AustonT
No problem...mind like a steel trap.
19370
Post by: daedalus
AustonT wrote:No problem...mind like a steel trap.
Rusted shut? 
15594
Post by: Albatross
Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?
Oh wait, now I remember - in American national mythological narratives, the British are the effete and nefarious villains, whilst the Americans play the part of of the gritty rebellious heroes.
I feel like we're being steered a little here. Be honest OP, you've already made your mind up, haven't you?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
what....no tomahawk practice?
29110
Post by: AustonT
Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?
Be honest OP, you've already made your mind up, haven't you?
Nope. Still waiting for more details.
I'm sure my overarching goal was to encourage anti-British American propaganda to incite war betwixt the nations.
/rollseyes.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?
Oh wait, now I remember - in American national mythological narratives, the British are the effete and nefarious villains, whilst the Americans play the part of of the gritty rebellious heroes.
I feel like we're being steered a little here. Be honest OP, you've already made your mind up, haven't you?
While the title is a bit misleading, it does not change the issue of BAE being a company notorious for questionable practices.
Blackballing an outspoken and decorated war veteran for speaking out about the idiocy of supplying Pakistan's military with equipment which is far better than that being deployed to Coalition military units when that Pakistani equipment is quite likely being funneled over to the opposition forces seems something right up their alley. I'd imagine that if allegations like that could be proven, the British would be just as upset as some of the US veterans posting here in this thread.
27391
Post by: purplefood
How outspoken does an internal complaint get?
1185
Post by: marv335
That's the thing about being an arms dealer.
You kind of want to sell your stuff.
As for dodgy practices, in the Middle East/South America, no-ones hands are clean when it comes to "Dodgy Practices"
Back handers and directorships are standard operating practice for the defence industry (as well as oil, energy, manufacturing etc...) BAE started getting flak from the US right around the time it started buying into some big interests over there.
Also, it's a "British" company that employs 52,000 people in the US, and by law all the main execs of the US division are US Citizens.
Of course, "American company vs American hero" isn't as good a thread title...
A point to note though, in the Saudi contract, BAE are actually the middle men.
It's a MOD contract that BAE are fulfilling, and was signed off on by HMG.
You know the investigation that got shut down?
By all accounts a certain ex PM had his name all over it
722
Post by: Kanluwen
"We are simply taking the best gear, the best technology on the market to date and giving to guys that are known to stab us in the back," Meyer wrote in the email, according to the lawsuit.
That's in the OP. Please read, Purple.
18698
Post by: kronk
A BAE Systems manager said Meyer "was mentally unstable, that Sgt. Meyer was not performing BAE tasks assigned and that Sgt. Meyer had a problem related to drinking in a social setting," according to the lawsuit.
All big no-no's when being asked about a former employee.
If the manager did say these things, he's out of line and could cast BAE some big bucks.
It doesn't mean Sgt. Meyer isn't a dick and isn't a drunk. Sending a scathing email like he did wasn't a smart move. He stood up for his principles, I guess.
But there are laws about this sort of thing. The Manager should have simply said that "Sgt. Meyer worked here from ___ to ___." If asked if he'd hire him back, he should say "Corporate policy would prevent it."
And left it at that.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Kanluwen wrote:Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?
Oh wait, now I remember - in American national mythological narratives, the British are the effete and nefarious villains, whilst the Americans play the part of of the gritty rebellious heroes.
I feel like we're being steered a little here. Be honest OP, you've already made your mind up, haven't you?
While the title is a bit misleading, it does not change the issue of BAE being a company notorious for questionable practices.
Blackballing an outspoken and decorated war veteran for speaking out about the idiocy of supplying Pakistan's military with equipment which is far better than that being deployed to Coalition military units when that Pakistani equipment is quite likely being funneled over to the opposition forces seems something right up their alley.
Are you saying a company shouldn't sell weapons to people because they might misuse them? Why do you hate the free market? And freedom? and AMERICA?!
I'd imagine that if allegations like that could be proven, the British would be just as upset as some of the US veterans posting here in this thread.
If they could be proven, perhaps. It really doesn't change the fact that the only real responsibility an arms company has is to generate profit for its shareholders via the legal sale of armaments. 'Guns don't kill people, etc.' and all that...
40132
Post by: ArbeitsSchu
AustonT wrote:Jihadin wrote:For contrast: One of the "Black Hawk Down" heroes was a nonce. Might be a medal winner but he still has an unhealthy interest in children. Probably not going to get any mint jobs in promotion, I would have thought.
WTF? Randy Shugart and Gry Gordon was killed in Action at Mogadishu....killed 3 Oct.....1993
Probably talking about John Stebbin, Silver Star, who was convicted of child sodomy and rape. However I doubt he knows the difference between a SS and CMH in terms of status and prestige (and employability as a "face")
The "status" of his award isn't really the relevant part. The point is that its entirely possible to do wonderful things militarily speaking, yet still be a nasty piece of work, or a bad employee or whatever. Hell, they used to hand out VCs to our army when it was made up almost entirely of drafted criminals.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Defamtion seems to be proven for SGT. Meyer. I do believe he probaly has the email traffic btween the two supervisors. Thats a done deal. Question now what would BAE do if they're high tech gear starts appearing in Afghanistan. Every scope has a serial number that can be linked with the/a sell and a movement control number to show date of shipment recieved of a set of scpes. Tension are high as it is and cmpounding it with evidence of Pakistan supplying war material to the insurgents is not going to be good. Torkam already shut down for awhile. Which leave Spin Badok open for convoy border crossing...ugh...nvm
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Albatross wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?
Oh wait, now I remember - in American national mythological narratives, the British are the effete and nefarious villains, whilst the Americans play the part of of the gritty rebellious heroes.
I feel like we're being steered a little here. Be honest OP, you've already made your mind up, haven't you?
While the title is a bit misleading, it does not change the issue of BAE being a company notorious for questionable practices.
Blackballing an outspoken and decorated war veteran for speaking out about the idiocy of supplying Pakistan's military with equipment which is far better than that being deployed to Coalition military units when that Pakistani equipment is quite likely being funneled over to the opposition forces seems something right up their alley.
Are you saying a company shouldn't sell weapons to people because they might misuse them? Why do you hate the free market? And freedom? and AMERICA?!
When a company is making its money with defense contracts from nations who are attempting to stabilize a region, they should not be selling to a nation which is known to be the major source of destabilization within the region.
P.S., this has nothing to do with misuse of weapons. This has everything to do with potentially arming extremist groups with supplemental technology; in this case high-powered top of the line thermal imaging scopes.
I'd imagine that if allegations like that could be proven, the British would be just as upset as some of the US veterans posting here in this thread.
If they could be proven, perhaps. It really doesn't change the fact that the only real responsibility an arms company has is to generate profit for its shareholders via the legal sale of armaments. 'Guns don't kill people, etc.' and all that...
Legal sale of armaments also requires a legal responsibility to account for what those arms are being used for. If you're supplying a nation which regularly has shipments "disappearing"--you should not be allowed to be a defense contractor.
46
Post by: alarmingrick
Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?
I agree. Where the company hails from has no bearing in this, for me.
That said, I think a US company would have alot harder time at home trying to drag
the Veteran through gak though.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?
Continuity?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Kanluwen wrote:Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?
Oh wait, now I remember - in American national mythological narratives, the British are the effete and nefarious villains, whilst the Americans play the part of of the gritty rebellious heroes.
I feel like we're being steered a little here. Be honest OP, you've already made your mind up, haven't you?
While the title is a bit misleading, it does not change the issue of BAE being a company notorious for questionable practices.
Blackballing an outspoken and decorated war veteran for speaking out about the idiocy of supplying Pakistan's military with equipment which is far better than that being deployed to Coalition military units when that Pakistani equipment is quite likely being funneled over to the opposition forces seems something right up their alley. I'd imagine that if allegations like that could be proven, the British would be just as upset as some of the US veterans posting here in this thread.
Surely if the US government wanted its troops to have top class night vision gear they could buy it.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Kilkrazy wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?
Oh wait, now I remember - in American national mythological narratives, the British are the effete and nefarious villains, whilst the Americans play the part of of the gritty rebellious heroes.
I feel like we're being steered a little here. Be honest OP, you've already made your mind up, haven't you?
While the title is a bit misleading, it does not change the issue of BAE being a company notorious for questionable practices.
Blackballing an outspoken and decorated war veteran for speaking out about the idiocy of supplying Pakistan's military with equipment which is far better than that being deployed to Coalition military units when that Pakistani equipment is quite likely being funneled over to the opposition forces seems something right up their alley. I'd imagine that if allegations like that could be proven, the British would be just as upset as some of the US veterans posting here in this thread.
Surely if the US government wanted its troops to have top class night vision gear they could buy it.
Sure, if BAE didn't pursue contracts with Pakistan.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Actually. The US military maintains the leading edge in NVG's. We're 4th generation. Also fielded an enhance version that hit Afghanistan towards the end of '09. Durable and quite light. Not a lead weight on ACH's and the weight bag in back is smaller. Like a roll pennies but a bit smaller
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Kanluwen wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?
Oh wait, now I remember - in American national mythological narratives, the British are the effete and nefarious villains, whilst the Americans play the part of of the gritty rebellious heroes.
I feel like we're being steered a little here. Be honest OP, you've already made your mind up, haven't you?
While the title is a bit misleading, it does not change the issue of BAE being a company notorious for questionable practices.
Blackballing an outspoken and decorated war veteran for speaking out about the idiocy of supplying Pakistan's military with equipment which is far better than that being deployed to Coalition military units when that Pakistani equipment is quite likely being funneled over to the opposition forces seems something right up their alley. I'd imagine that if allegations like that could be proven, the British would be just as upset as some of the US veterans posting here in this thread.
Surely if the US government wanted its troops to have top class night vision gear they could buy it.
Sure, if BAE didn't pursue contracts with Pakistan.
Why would that stop BAE selling the same kit to the USA? Or if the US wanted exclusive rights, they could have paid for them.
That's just good capitalism.
49644
Post by: MrFlutterPie
Who cares what nationality is involved. This should have been settled the 40k way.
"You disobeyed direct orders and saved 36 lives as a result"
*Shoots him in the head"
"Let this be a lesson for the rest of you! Never waver in your loyalty to the Emperor!!!"
27391
Post by: purplefood
Kanluwen wrote:"We are simply taking the best gear, the best technology on the market to date and giving to guys that are known to stab us in the back," Meyer wrote in the email, according to the lawsuit.
That's in the OP. Please read, Purple.
It's still an internal e-mail though... unless i misread it...
722
Post by: Kanluwen
purplefood wrote:Kanluwen wrote:"We are simply taking the best gear, the best technology on the market to date and giving to guys that are known to stab us in the back," Meyer wrote in the email, according to the lawsuit.
That's in the OP. Please read, Purple.
It's still an internal e-mail though... unless i misread it...
Meyer is the one pressing charges against BAE.
After he sent that internal email, his manager started becoming harassing and confrontational.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Kanluwen wrote:purplefood wrote:Kanluwen wrote:"We are simply taking the best gear, the best technology on the market to date and giving to guys that are known to stab us in the back," Meyer wrote in the email, according to the lawsuit.
That's in the OP. Please read, Purple.
It's still an internal e-mail though... unless i misread it...
Meyer is the one pressing charges against BAE.
After he sent that internal email, his manager started becoming harassing and confrontational.
How does that make him outspoken?
15594
Post by: Albatross
Kanluwen wrote:Albatross wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?
Oh wait, now I remember - in American national mythological narratives, the British are the effete and nefarious villains, whilst the Americans play the part of of the gritty rebellious heroes.
I feel like we're being steered a little here. Be honest OP, you've already made your mind up, haven't you?
While the title is a bit misleading, it does not change the issue of BAE being a company notorious for questionable practices.
Blackballing an outspoken and decorated war veteran for speaking out about the idiocy of supplying Pakistan's military with equipment which is far better than that being deployed to Coalition military units when that Pakistani equipment is quite likely being funneled over to the opposition forces seems something right up their alley.
Are you saying a company shouldn't sell weapons to people because they might misuse them? Why do you hate the free market? And freedom? and AMERICA?!
When a company is making its money with defense contracts from nations who are attempting to stabilize a region, they should not be selling to a nation which is known to be the major source of destabilization within the region.
'Alleged', rather than 'known', and 'a' rather than 'the', I'd say. Plus, BAE is a company, not a government. It can trade with whomsoever it pleases, as long as no laws are broken. Is selling arms to Pakistan illegal?
P.S., this has nothing to do with misuse of weapons. This has everything to do with potentially arming extremist groups with supplemental technology; in this case high-powered top of the line thermal imaging scopes.
BAE is not arming those extremist groups. It has no responsibility for what is done with their products once they are sold, unless of course you want to hold Beretta responsible for every murder committed with one of their pistols.
Legal sale of armaments also requires a legal responsibility to account for what those arms are being used for. If you're supplying a nation which regularly has shipments "disappearing"--you should not be allowed to be a defense contractor.
I think you're making those rules up.
5534
Post by: dogma
Kanluwen wrote:
Legal sale of armaments also requires a legal responsibility to account for what those arms are being used for..
That's incorrect. Under ITAR, legal liability for the contractor in question ends after the initial transfer. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kilkrazy wrote:
Why would that stop BAE selling the same kit to the USA? Or if the US wanted exclusive rights, they could have paid for them.
.
Or, as is generally the case, simply prohibited the sales to begin with.
34906
Post by: Pacific
marv335 wrote:
A point to note though, in the Saudi contract, BAE are actually the middle men.
It's a MOD contract that BAE are fulfilling, and was signed off on by HMG.
You know the investigation that got shut down?
By all accounts a certain ex PM had his name all over it
Well I can take a good guess at who that is. Sometimes, I genuinely wish that hell exists, just because you don't like to think that someone can cause so much pain in their life but receive none in return.
On a side note, I was under the impression that BAE was heavily subsidised by the UK government. Is that not still the case?
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
We can't stifle good 'ol fashioned capitalism.
A paying customer is a paying customer...
514
Post by: Orlanth
George Spiggott wrote:Albatross wrote:Why does nationality have any bearing at all on this story?
Continuity?
Because like BP the people on site are Americans, so are their managers. Just as BAE system in the states also everyone to a man with direct connection to the Macondo well. However when there was a feth up the word British was bandied about, even though the name of the comopany no longer British (in either case). Obama called BP 'British Petroleum' enough times to be suspicious.
You add all this to the current US governments siding with Argentina over the Falklands and it doesn't look good. In fact half the time I wonder if we are getting backstabbed.
5534
Post by: dogma
Orlanth wrote:
Because like BP the people on site are Americans, so are their managers. Just as BAE system in the states also everyone to a man with direct connection to the Macondo well. However when there was a feth up the word British was bandied about, even though the name of the comopany no longer British (in either case). Obama called BP 'British Petroleum' enough times to be suspicious.
BAE is the result of the merger of two British corporations.
BP is held, primarily by British interests.
514
Post by: Orlanth
dogma wrote:Orlanth wrote:
Because like BP the people on site are Americans, so are their managers. Just as BAE system in the states also everyone to a man with direct connection to the Macondo well. However when there was a feth up the word British was bandied about, even though the name of the company no longer British (in either case). Obama called BP 'British Petroleum' enough times to be suspicious.
BAE is the result of the merger of two British corporations.
BP is held, primarily by British interests.
However on site decisions were made by mangement staff who were American citizens , BP is 60-40 UK/US owned. However the word British was frequently used with regards to culpability, including from the President who cannot claim not to know better. The entire disaster is known as the ' BP spill' and not just by the press even before blame has been formally parsed in the courts. I have severed doubts that BP will get fair treatment in US legal system, indeed Obamas lob sided handling of culpability which looks like 'blame those who have the cash' rather than 'blame those responsible' which may or may not be BP. I wonder if BP has a legal case that the US government has been prejudiced against the company.
BAE is a Brtiish company, however its US operations are strictly controlled by the US State department due to the nature of what they are trading and US based staff at most levels are US citizens, by law. The UK has 'close' ties with Pakistan, there is no choice in that; and the US blows hot and cold regarding Pakistan. If Meyer doesn't like trading with Pakistan he was in the wrong job.
5534
Post by: dogma
Orlanth wrote:
However on site decisions were made by mangement staff who were American citizens , BP is 60-40 UK/US owned. However the word British was frequently used with regards to culpability, including from the President who cannot claim not to know better
Well, yeah, its a company owned at 60% by British citizens with a history of being based in Britain. That places it over Cadbury in terms of Britishness.
Orlanth wrote:
I have severed doubts that BP will get fair treatment in US legal system, indeed Obamas lob sided handling of culpability which looks like 'blame those who have the cash' rather than 'blame those responsible' which may or may not be BP
I thought it was quite skillful, honestly. Blame the foreign nationals, who hold majority share of the company, instead of Americans.
Orlanth wrote:
BAE is a Brtiish company, however its US operations are strictly controlled by the US State department due to the nature of what they are trading and US based staff at most levels are US citizens, by law.
The controls are strict on paper, but considering how often ITAR is violated, and how often Boeing isn't shut down, there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of political will for enforcement.
Orlanth wrote:
The UK has 'close' ties with Pakistan, there is no choice in that; and the US blows hot and cold regarding Pakistan. If Meyer doesn't like trading with Pakistan he was in the wrong job.
That is clearly true.
514
Post by: Orlanth
dogma wrote:Orlanth wrote:
However on site decisions were made by mangement staff who were American citizens , BP is 60-40 UK/US owned. However the word British was frequently used with regards to culpability, including from the President who cannot claim not to know better
Well, yeah, its a company owned at 60% by British citizens with a history of being based in Britain. That places it over Cadbury in terms of Britishness.
Nevertheless the people who made the mistakes that caused the oil spill were American. The closest to the feth up being British was the 'gaffes' of the then CEO, and his faults were entirely in relation to his media profile and the press had it in for him anyway. He was being played, especially by Obama, Heyward was the wrong man for a media campaign, though word has it he was better at his real job, which is why he had no problems getting further high profile work in the same industry.
dogma wrote:Orlanth wrote:
I have severed doubts that BP will get fair treatment in US legal system, indeed Obamas lob sided handling of culpability which looks like 'blame those who have the cash' rather than 'blame those responsible' which may or may not be BP
I thought it was quite skillful, honestly. Blame the foreign nationals, who hold majority share of the company, instead of Americans.
It was clever in that it outsourced fiscal responsibility for the clean up and ancillary expenses such as a drilling monatorium. However had it been a US company I doubt the same would hasve happened, especially not paying for all the other companies to have an arbitrary break.
dogma wrote:Orlanth wrote:
BAE is a Brtiish company, however its US operations are strictly controlled by the US State department due to the nature of what they are trading and US based staff at most levels are US citizens, by law.
The controls are strict on paper, but considering how often ITAR is violated, and how often Boeing isn't shut down, there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of political will for enforcement.
I wonder if the lack of political will extends beyond US companies, somehow I doubt it. Lookling at Concorde and TSR2 I very much doubt it. BAE is more closely controlled by US rather than UK proliferation policy. We may have been better off following the same model as the French in terms of how the armaments industry is organised and its connection with government. When the French are dictated to on terms of proliferation policy they have a tendency not to listen, and get away with it.
5534
Post by: dogma
Orlanth wrote:
Nevertheless the people who made the mistakes that caused the oil spill were American.
And the person that delayed Obama's recognition of the event was Rahm Emanuel, but the organization of which he was a part (the Obama Administration) will still, deservedly, receive blame.
Orlanth wrote:
It was clever in that it outsourced fiscal responsibility for the clean up and ancillary expenses such as a drilling monatorium. However had it been a US company I doubt the same would hasve happened, especially not paying for all the other companies to have an arbitrary break.
Of course not, but that's the beauty of international capitalism.
Orlanth wrote:
I wonder if the lack of political will extends beyond US companies, somehow I doubt it. Lookling at Concorde and TSR2 I very much doubt it. BAE is more closely controlled by US rather than UK proliferation policy. We may have been better off following the same model as the French in terms of how the armaments industry is organised and its connection with government. When the French are dictated to on terms of proliferation policy they have a tendency not to listen, and get away with it.
Well, yeah, no one is going to invade France. The reason behind the UK's tendency to listen to American demands is a mystery to me, probably related to private sector ties, though.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I'm all for free market, but at the same time, free market principles shouldn't apply to military-grade weapons.
"Sure, we're at war with them, but let's see them some ammo anyway!"
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Vast majority of personna military grade weapons either fires a 5.56mm or a 7.62mm. So selling ammo not a big issue. BAE was selling some serious high tech sniper scopes to the Pakistani's. Which is not really the issue either. If an insurgent gets caught with one of the scopes in Afghanistan that BAE sold to Pakistan then there's a serious lack of accountability. Also have to take in account the condition of the scope itself. How well maintain it was kept in. Since it was a sniper scope then we would take a look at the rifle itself. Just the weapon alone can tell you which country manufactered it.
On a side note......Russia screamed bloody murder about the Stinger missiles we gave to the Mujahideen when they were in Afghanistan
Refrain from using derogatory ethnic names and don't push it with the swear filter either.
40132
Post by: ArbeitsSchu
Kraft own Cadbury. Praise the lord they haven't started making American chocolate.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Ugh...you had to mention chocolet.....cannot bear the sight of chocolet for another 2 yrs
29408
Post by: Melissia
Jihadin wrote:If an insurgent gets caught with one of the scopes in Afghanistan that BAE sold to Pakistan then there's a serious lack of accountability.
Dude, this is pakistan we're talking about. I'm fairly certain that there's plenty of elements in their military that's willing to do just that.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
You don't think I know that. I handle enough insurgent EPW's and quite aware of the equipment they have. You can track the equipment from entry into country all the way to delivery. Just from that route alone you can have an idea of what Pakistani unit is shuffling the equipment onward.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
All shipment has RFID and a TCN on them
5470
Post by: sebster
Jihadin wrote:Sebster....he's a marine sniper......worked in BAE High Tech sniper scopes..has a US security clearence to boot to.
edit
Marine snipers are trained quite well to operate their scopes.
Yeah, sure. That's not got anything to do with what I'm saying. No-one is suggesting this guy is incapable of lining up a target, he's no doubt extremely good at that. But producing high quality scopes, and more importantly convincing various politicians that they should choose BAE scope above all others, is process that isn't dependant on having a gifted sniped on board. What you want is a dedicated war hero who can attend gatherings and say 'and that's why this scope is the most awesome of all' while sharing a few casual drinks. Being bad at that means being bad at the job he was hired to do, no matter how skilled and brave a soldier he might have been. I'm not saying that is what happened, because we just don't have the information, but it remains entirely plausible. The alternative, that BAE were being spiteful dickholes, is also an entirely plausible scenario. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kanluwen wrote:Meyer is the one pressing charges against BAE.
After he sent that internal email, his manager started becoming harassing and confrontational.
According to his complaint. Whether or not that matches the timeline of what really happened is something that will need more information.
29110
Post by: AustonT
I actually find myself wondering how he got his NAVCOM with V
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Same way Audie Murphey was awarded. I've 2 ARCOMS with "V" which are the same. Some of us know though you cannot be awarded twice for the same action. NAVCOM w/"V" was interim perhaps? Someone from the Marines of Navy perhaps need to clarify
29110
Post by: AustonT
It could have been interim, I just can't find ANY information on it. But the CMH society didn't remove it from his other awards after the CMH so who knows he could have gotten it separately.
|
|
