backtop


Print 69 comment(s) - last by SlyNine.. on Nov 16 at 2:06 PM


"Medal of Honor: Warfighter"  (Source: itechbook.net)
They all received letters of reprimand and a cut of half their pay for two months

Seven U.S. Navy SEAL members are in hot water for participating in the making of the video game, "Medal of Honor: Warfighter."

Video game developer Electronic Arts (EA) recently paid seven active and retired U.S. Navy SEALs to help in the creation of "Medal of Honor: Warfighter" in order to make it as realistic as possible.

However, the Navy wasn't too pleased with this move. It said that their participation was a violation of Article 92, which basically states that members of the Navy SEALs cannot disclose classified material to anyone. The Navy believes that these members provided classified information to EA for the making of the game, but it is unclear what this classified information was.

Now, the seven SEALs are facing punishment, according to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). DOD said that a non-judicial punishment hearing was carried out on November 7 where the seven SEALs faced administrative proceedings. An NSW investigation is now being conducted to see if more members of the Navy were involved.

The seven Navy SEALs consist of two Senior Chief Special Operators and five Chief Special Operators, which all received letters of reprimand and a cut of half their pay for two months.

According to EA, they were unaware of whether the seven Navy SEALs asked the DOD for permission to participate first.

Back in 2010, EA's "Medal of Honor" was banned from military PXs globally because of multiplayer Taliban characters.

Source: Polygon



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By jak3676 on 11/9/2012 5:21:29 PM , Rating: 2
Crap, no edit.

Actually Article 92 would be correct for violating the rules for disclosure of classified information. Not sure why I was thiking that was Art 134 thing.

I'm trying to find the source now - I don't believe they were punished for leaking classified info though. They were just working with EA to detail movement pieces for the game (who carries which pieces of gear, which order folks go in on - stuff like that.)


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/9/2012 5:25:15 PM , Rating: 3
Which wouldn't necessarily be classified, but special operations units typically prefer to keep their training, tactics, and procedures from anyone outside the unit. If the enemy knew what these TTP's were it would help them to prepare for it when it came knocking.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By jak3676 on 11/9/2012 5:32:07 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah - I was just trying to correct the OP which stated it was about classified information. I'm not seeing other sources that say it was anything classified.

But yes, the hand-slap they got for disclosing sensitive, but unclassified information was correct.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By FITCamaro on 11/9/2012 6:09:19 PM , Rating: 3
But Obama hands over all the information the enemy could ever want on how our intelligence organizations do things to make a campaign commercial, I mean documentary before his re-election. And not a peep.


By ClownPuncher on 11/9/2012 6:13:50 PM , Rating: 5
Navy SEALs are held to a higher standard than politicians are.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By Jeffk464 on 11/9/2012 7:17:21 PM , Rating: 3
That's saying a lot, you can get caught with crack cocaine and still be re-elected.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By Kurz on 11/12/2012 10:14:22 AM , Rating: 3
Hell you can be in rehab and still get re-elected.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57548177/jes...


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By TheJian on 11/11/2012 8:50:31 AM , Rating: 4
We're talking the PRESIDENT of the USA here. Not some idiot politician. This guy runs our country. I can't even believe this idiot was re-elected. But then with 47% getting handouts, it's no surprise they voted for their FREE check TODAY rather than worry about our future. I can't wait for Jan when everyone gets HUGE layoffs and maybe finally USA will wake up and realize they voted for a damned fool who has NO idea how to get people jobs.

Then again he's a terrorist (yeah I said it, that's what you should be called when you destroy our country) wanting our country to fail, so I'm pretty sure he's just putting the pedal to the metal with regards to the fiscal cliff. He cares little about anything but back dooring our gun rights (VIA UN...already put the talks back on for March 18th UN Arms treaty...Didn't waste a second keeping his promise to the russians "I'll have more flexibility once I'm re-elected...LOL...How dumb are USA citizens), killing our constitution as fast as possible and destroying our dollar. He'll print money until we run out of ink. He wants us BROKE so we end up under the UN umbrella rather than be USA. The fiscal cliff cuts 500Bil from military contracts which makes us even weaker (he must be cheering now that he gets the chance to push us over that cliff). He won't negotiate at all with republicans on this and hasn't met with the Jobs council in a year!

Google this:
obama russian president open mic

Then listen as he tells the russian he'll be back dooring our defense & your gun rights and who knows what else. Don't believe me, watch the vids posted all over.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-open...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/23/flashba...
Good grief. There goes the missile shield. You're welcome Russia.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-...
It only took him a few hours after being re-elected to screw us over again:
"(Reuters) - Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee's call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade."

There's a reason the gun stocks (Smith & W, Ruger etc...) are all up 20+% in days and double in the last year. My mother wants a 9mm for xmas...ROFL.

Delayed due to Sandy my ARSE. Delayed so he could get re-elected first. You won't recognize your country in 4 more years. We may never recover once we pass the tipping point on debt (we're about a trillion away from our 3rd downgrade in 4yrs - & 3rd time EVER in our history). In 8yrs he will amass more debt than ALL OTHER presidents combined before him. He came in at 9.5Trillion. We're at 16.3Trillion now. We'll be over 20 in 2yrs at this rate which will be climbing now that we'll be paying for 20million illegals Medical coverage and food stamps on top of our already 47million now on it (which obama added to the 31million on it when he took office).
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/record-46-million-am...
You can google the crap out of those statistics and puke over them. A war on Coal and Oil etc etc...He couldn't do much more to KILL our economy. Estimated 1.4mil layoffs coming Jan 2013 and that's just the beginning. You can't pay for freeloaders if nobody is making any money. 51% of our country is STUPID.
http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=508...
New gun laws don't stop a SINGLE criminal from getting one illegally. It only stops YOU, joe citizen from getting a gun & defending yourself.

Highest murder rate? Chicago Illinois where guess what? It's illegal to hold a 9mm on your porch. Low murder rates? AZ & TX where you are advised to have a gun. Heck in AZ we OPEN CARRY (and throw illegals out!)! You can open carry right into walmart here :) Only a fool tries to murder you here. Half the people in the store are carrying concealed or OPEN. You'd be dead in seconds (unless your a politician nobody cares to protect...LOL). If everyone around you has a gun, you walk quietly by and harass nobody. It's common sense. Of course there's the occasional nutjob, but reasonably sane people don't pick fights here or in TX. The cops won't get there in time to SAVE the criminal from the citizens who are armed to the teeth. :) Unbelievably, canada now has more rich people than we do. You awake yet people? You should really expect more from your PRESIDENT. But these seals making a game are the problem right? LOL.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By room200 on 11/11/12, Rating: 0
RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By FITCamaro on 11/12/2012 7:14:01 AM , Rating: 4
This country is lost, not great. Not anymore.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By maugrimtr on 11/12/12, Rating: 0
RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By FITCamaro on 11/12/2012 9:14:59 AM , Rating: 4
Yes because it's "extreme" to support family values, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, and equality for all. Not equality for some via a law that institutes reverse racism against anyone not in the group(s) they're attempting to make more "equal".


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By Richlet on 11/12/12, Rating: 0
By FITCamaro on 11/12/2012 10:01:08 AM , Rating: 5
Good to know I can count on it for people who just call me stupid or extreme without giving any kind of counter argument.


By Kurz on 11/12/2012 10:16:21 AM , Rating: 3
Sorry but trying to make society Equal with law never works.
Fit Is completely right.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By Rukkian on 11/12/2012 11:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
No, it is "extreme" to push your "family values" on everybody else. Let people marry who they want, do what they want and leave people alone. Don't berate people because they have other beliefs than you and keep religion out of politics.

I personally do not like Obama, and wished somebody else had been a choice. Mitt was out of touch with a large portion of the population and did not seem to even understand that. Yes, he got the rich, old, male, white vote, but pretty much got smoked out side that. Give an actual plan other than lower taxes, spend more, and let congress figure out how to pay for it. That is not a plan, it is an empty promise that cannot possibly be done.

There were several people in the primaries that I would have voted for over obama, unfortunately everybody fell for Romney's ideology of the month during the primaries. I liked alot of Herman Caines Ideas, and if he did not have the skeletons in the closet that came out, I would have probably voted for him. Ron Paul also had many good ideas, but some were just a little too far out.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By JediJeb on 11/12/2012 6:08:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Mitt was out of touch with a large portion of the population and did not seem to even understand that.


If Mitt had lost by a huge percentage I could buy into this thought, but when it is 45% to 51% you can say the same thing about both sides. Mitt is out of touch with half the population and Mr. Obama is also out of touch with one half of the population, otherwise he would have taken a larger percentage of the votes.

I agree with you on Herman Cain, seemed to have some good business oriented ideas for running the government.

The biggest problem facing the country is that the person who needs to be elected will never be elected. It is a person who will take command and actually cut spending, reform taxes and take control within the bounds of the Constitution to push forward the changes needed even at the risk of his popularity. The fix for this nation is going to hurt, just like pulling a tooth, but the long term health of the nation will be worth the short term pain.

quote:
Let people marry who they want, do what they want and leave people alone.


Though it sounds like a good idea, study up on the Ancient Greek Empire and the Roman Empire and see what happened to them once their societies decided to put more emphasis on personal entertainment, pleasures and popularity. Personal freedoms are protected by the Constitution, but they come with a price. Letting people do what they want is fine as long as what the people want is not detrimental to society as a whole. "If it feels good do it" is not a good way to run a society. Suppose one group thinks that killing people "feels good", or stealing "feels good", do you still allow them to do what feels good or do you put a limit on their actions? Some people want to legalize drugs, but ask yourself, do you want a doctor doing heart surgery on you if he has just gotten high? Do you want the pilot of a plane carrying your family flown by someone so stoned they can hardly see? There has to be some type of limits, the arguments come in where those limits are set. There is always someone upset because the limit was set either to far past or too short of their ideal position. Be careful to suggest a "do what they want and leave them alone" stance, it can lead to some very bad circumstances because someone always wants to take what they want to the extremes without regard to how much it might hurt others.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By FITCamaro on 11/12/2012 8:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
It wasn't 51% to 45%. It was 51% to 48%.

Fun facts.

Romney got 3 million less votes than McCain in 08.
Obama got 9 million less votes than in 08.

Who do I think those missing voters were? Mostly people in their 20s who voted for Obama's "hope and change" and were severally disappointed but didn't like Romney either.

Funny thing is if more liberals voted for conservatives, then we'd live in a nation where they could institute their utopias at the state level where they live. Then the rest of us would get to watch them collapse the way Europe, the Soviet Union, and California have.


By JediJeb on 11/12/2012 10:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yea the 45% was a typo, but alas no edit button.

The only thing the close margin shows is that this country is as split down middle now as it was at the time Lincoln took office. Only this time the divide isn't so much north versus south, but urban verses rural. Just watching the returns from Ohio showed that Obama won by carrying the cities while Romney carried the rest of the state.

An interesting thing I saw on the news this evening was just how many new regulations are going to go into effect at the first of the year. They want to put one in effect that will require all cars to have a backup camera. I know many will say "oh that's a great idea" but how many of those have already gone out and bought an after market backup camera and installed it in their vehicle? Some regulations are good, but to just pile more on when the economy is struggling is not so good. Compliance with regulations is not free, I have seen both sides of the equation on that myself. I work in an environmental testing laboratory where we analyze samples for clients needing to comply with ever changing regulations, and each new analysis costs more for that client to have done, because it costs us money to perform them and we can not pass them along for free or we go out of business. If we can't keep the price down then the client may have to cut workers to stay profitable, or if we may lose money we may have to cut workers to stay competitive, either of which is not good for the current economy.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By peter7921 on 11/12/2012 5:56:21 PM , Rating: 1
No it's extreme to support a part full of religious nuts, that over spend on military, destroy an economy, and push the debt to crazy heights! George Bush almost bankrupted the US, with two wars, and removing regulation that started a housing bubble and caused the biggest reccesion since the great depression! In fact most republican candidates were more worried about women's vagina's(Abortion) then the economy.

It seems most right wing nut jobs can't seem to grasp facts!

Fact: The stimulus worked without it, the US economy would have been worse.

Fact: Trickle down economics do not work, cutting taxes to the rich, does not creat more jobs.

Fact: The only president with a great fiscal record in the last 20 years was a democrat his name was Bill Clinton.

The republican party is not about fiscal responsibility, they want to cut taxes even lower, which will make the debt situation worse.

How do they expect to pay it off? Oh wait they want to cut planned parenthood and PBS which is .001% of the budget.

They are all talk without any real solutions.

BTW: I am what you could consider a fiscal conservative and somewhat of a libertarian. Which is why I don't support a party (Republicans)who want to ban abortion, impose there crazy religious beliefs on me. I also don't want to support a party that will spend the country into bankruptcy! They are not fiscally responsible look at their record.


By JediJeb on 11/12/2012 6:28:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
George Bush almost bankrupted the US, with two wars, and removing regulation that started a housing bubble and caused the biggest reccesion since the great depression!


Im not the biggest fan of Bush myself but he is not to blame alone. Clinton began the push to get banks to lend money to people who really didn't have the ability to pay those loans off just to get more people into home ownership. Plus President Obama did quite a bit himself to put us farther into debt.

While cutting taxes may not be the boon it has been made out to be, taxing the rich to make up the difference will never work also. Consider the deficit on the proposed budget from the White House this year that had a $1+ Trillion shortfall. To make that up by taxing the rich we need to tax one thousand billionaires and extra $1billion in taxes. Not sure we have one thousand billionaires in the country, so lets take it down to millionaires, we have to tax one million millionaires and extra $1million per year to make that shortfall up. Do we have one million millionaires in the country? If several of them only made one million dollars last year then you would be taking all of their earnings and next year they may not even be millionaires so they would drop from the tax bracket making it even harder to pay for the budget. When you crunch the numbers you end up finding out that it would take a 30% increase in taxes for everyone making about $35,000 per year to make up the shortfall in that budget. But guess what, if you add about 10% taxes to every single wage earner, you make up the shortfall easily. So why not ask everyone to pay their fair share instead of only "rich" people to pay their "fair" share? Every citizen benefits from the taxes collected by the government so why isn't every single person required to contribute to those taxes? Wouldn't a fair rule be that only people who pay taxes can benefit from those taxes? Of course I am being somewhat sarcastic there, I believe we should have compassion on the less fortunate among us, but asking everyone to contribute is not showing a lack of compassion, it is asking them all to contribute to the betterment of the whole.

Just as rich kids who have everything handed to them as they grow up have less respect for what they have versus those who worked their way to the top starting with nothing, the poor who have everything handed to them will have less respect for what they have than those just above the poverty level who have struggled and made something out of their life without having everything given to them. Nowhere does the Constitution say we are entitled to the good life, but it does guarantee us the right to strive for it.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By LordSojar on 11/12/12, Rating: -1
By SlyNine on 11/16/2012 2:06:13 PM , Rating: 1
That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. The average IQ will always be 100. By your own standards you probably shouldn't have been born.


By djkrypplephite on 11/14/2012 6:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
>implying politicians are held to any standard whatsoever


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By ZimZum on 11/10/2012 3:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
I was wondering who would be the first too make this about Obama in some way, you never disappoint. Well done sir.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By FITCamaro on 11/11/2012 8:22:56 AM , Rating: 3
Is it a lie though? No.


By Souka on 11/11/2012 12:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
This is definetly not a lie!

So true...so true...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0q2eGAjyGg


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By Rukkian on 11/12/12, Rating: 0
By room200 on 11/12/2012 3:16:12 PM , Rating: 1
They can't stand this guy. You've never seen so many posts on this site that were political until Obama became president. All of a sudden, these nuts here are deficit hawks. They NEVER posted that crap here as the deficits/debt grew under Bush. When the economy tanked, they NEVER came here and attacked Bush. Everyone knows the reason.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By Jeffk464 on 11/9/2012 7:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, right. One of the main jobs of special ops is to train "friendly" forces around the world on american tactics. You can bet they are attempting to train afganis on these very tactics.


By Ammohunt on 11/9/2012 8:36:14 PM , Rating: 1
Um yeah thats a big no, SEALS don't do that type of training ARMY Special Forces does and rarely do they train domestic forces in SEAL type special warfare tactics the aphgans get basic soldiering training.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By Omega215D on 11/10/2012 12:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
Makes me wonder about the movie Act of Valor considering it stars active duty Navy SEALS. I never got a chance to see it and the reviews kinda put me off as well.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By Gondor on 11/10/2012 7:03:54 AM , Rating: 1
"Taliban" is plural of "talib". You cannot be "a taliban" ;-)


By foolsgambit11 on 11/10/2012 6:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
Taliban means "students". And silly Pashtuns, with their own pluralization... if you're going to borrow an Arabic word, at least borrow the Arabic plural Tullab....

I'm going to weigh in and say that Pashtu speakers are free to call the group Taliban with the "wrong" plural, and that English speakers are free to call a single member of the Taliban "a Taliban" with the wrong singular. Although "a Taliban" does sound weird to my ears.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By Jeffk464 on 11/11/2012 12:33:06 PM , Rating: 1
I agree it was a good movie so long as you aren't expecting something along the lines of a Steven Spielberg production. It was more along the budget/film expertise of a made for TV movie. Brian Suits(radio military expert guy) said its probably about the most authentic special ops movie ever made.


By Jeffk464 on 11/11/2012 12:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
PS - It does feel a lot like a modern first person shooter, but I think that's probably because some modern games are getting pretty authentic.


RE: No - UCMJ Article 92 isn't about classified
By fredgiblet on 11/10/2012 3:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
It was bsically made BY the Navy so they are fine. The acting is poor, but the movie is awesome, you should see it.


By FITCamaro on 11/11/2012 8:23:50 AM , Rating: 2
Yes they were given approval to make the movie.


By sixteenornumber on 11/10/2012 6:16:49 AM , Rating: 2
Article 92 is also know as the "all others" Article. If there isn't a regulation specifically saying you can't do something and you do, it's article 92. Took a piss on the admirals lawn? ARTICLE 92! I highly doubt any classified info was involved. I'd wager that there was a greater change it was something minuscule and EA is promoting it as being something bigger as a marketing tactic.


By foolsgambit11 on 11/10/2012 6:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
That's Article 134. Article 92 is violating a regulation or general order. So if you don't shave in uniform or grow your hair out (as a male) you'd be charged under Article 92, because there's a specific regulation covering acceptable hair in the military. It may feel like a catch-all article, but that's only because the military has regulations covering pretty much everything in a service member's life.


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki