USS Stephen W. Groves Scores Interdicts 8.1 Metric Tons of Cocaine

Navy Newsstand ^ | 9/15/2006 12:05:00 PM | USS Stephen W. Groves Public Affairs

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN (NNS) -- USS Stephen W. Groves (FFG 29) recently scored her third successful take down of narcotics trafficking vessels in less than two weeks, and assisted in the take down of a fourth, interdicting an estimated 8.1 metric tons of cocaine during a counter-narco terrorism operations (CNT OPS) deployment for U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command.

While on patrol in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in early August, Stephen W. Groves took down a “go fast” loaded with an estimated 2.6 metric tons of cocaine and interdicted another “go fast” that was preparing to onload narcotics. “Go fast” vessels are small, multi-engined speedboats commonly used to transport illicit narcotics.

Less than two weeks later, the ship’s crew, along with Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron (Light) (46), Det. 8, and embarked Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment (LEDET) 105 interdicted a third “go fast” vessel. Stephen W. Groves was able to close to within a few miles of the “go fast” before being detected and having to give chase. Stephen W. Groves pursued the “go fast” at high speed for the next hour and a half before catching her and detaining her four crew members.

“It is really rare to capture a fully-fuelled 'go-fast' in a flat-out chase,” said Lt. j.g. Scott McCann, LEDET 105 officer in charge. "It is estimated this bust prevented 3 metric tons of cocaine from making it to the United States."

A 26-hour, 750-mile pursuit a few days later resulted in the interdiction of an additional 2.5 metric tons of cocaine and the detention of 10 suspects.

“Only with the precise coordination of everyone involved was the capture of these go-fasts possible,” added Stephen W. Groves’ Commanding Officer, Cmdr. Jon Kreitz. “We could not have had these successes without the terrific support of several maritime patrol aircraft and personnel ashore. We’ve had a terrific couple of weeks interdicting over eight tons of cocaine.”

Stephen W. Groves began her six-month counter-drug operations deployment to the U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command area of responsibility in early April. While deployed, Stephen W. Groves’ crew works with other assets from Joint Interagency Task Force South, the agency responsible for counter-drug operations in the Eastern Pacific and Caribbean.

Homeported in Mayport, Fla., Stephen W. Groves is a Commander, Destroyer Squadron 14 ship. During the ship’s deployment, the crew will be patrolling nearly 4 million square nautical miles of water in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.

"This is what I joined the Navy for, for a chance to get out and do what we train for, and for a chance to really make a difference," Quartermaster 2nd Class (SW) Zachary Bullock said. "I know that’s what we’re doing."

For more information on Stephen W. Groves, go to www.groves.navy.mil.

For more information on U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command, go to www.cusns.navy.mil.

For related news, visit the Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command Navy NewsStand page at www.news.navy.mil/local/cusns/.

[maica]

I bet the crew on the "go-fast" had no idea that any Coast Guard ship could go as fast as they could. HaHaHa!

[GretchenM]

I was curious about the ship. I make no claims for accuracy but here's what I found online.

http://www.groves.navy.mil/reptabrd.htm

SHIP'S HISTORY:

“About 4:4 P.M. the enemy was coming in fast, and the carrier sent up its few remaining planes, some already battle-scarred. They headed straight for the enemy. The fight ended at sunset, when the last remaining Japanese plane was shot from the sky. Some of our boys did not return, but they left a memory that time can never dim.”

Thus read an official account of one of the great air engagements of the Battle of Midway during World War II. Stephen W. Groves, a 25-year-old Navy Ensign from East Millinocket, Maine, was one of the American flyers who did not return after the day-long battle on June 4, 1942. Other historical accounts of the battle show that Ensign Groves took off nine times from his carrier on that fateful day and that he was one of six American planes that fought off a vastly superior Japanese force that was trying to finish off the damaged carrier Yorktown. The small group was credited with shooting down 14 enemy planes and causing six others to retreat. For his deeds in the crucial battle, the young Maine flyer was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross for extraordinary heroism. His citation reads:

“For extraordinary heroism and distinguished service as pilot of a fighter plane in action against enemy Japanese forces in the ‘Air Battle of Midway’ on June 4, 1942. With grim disregard for the hazardous consequence of his act, Ensign Groves plunged into aerial combat against a large group of enemy aircraft which was harassing our carriers. Contributing decisively to the disruption of threatening enemy formations, he pressed home a determined and vigorous counterattack against desperate odds until, finally overcome by sheer aerial superiority, he was shot down from the skies. By his courageous devotion to the fulfillment of a vastly important mission, he aided greatly in the victory achieved by our forces and conducted himself in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.”

The commissioning of the guided missile frigate Stephen W. Groves (FFG 29) demonstrates that time did not dim the memory of this American hero, and in effect, fulfills a promise the Navy made to the Groves family shortly after the ensign was declared missing in action. A destroyer, being constructed in Boston, was to have been named for Groves, but it was scrapped when the war ended. Ensign Groves was a 1934 graduate of Schenck High School in East Millinocket and received a mechanical engineering degree from the University of Maine in 1939. He joined the Navy in December of 1940 and was commissioned in August of 1941. He boarded the carrier USS HORNET in December of that year. The HORNET began to transport Doolittle’s Bombers to Japanese Waters in April of 1942, setting the stage for the Battle of Midway, considered one of the most crucial allied victories of the war.

Ensign Groves was the first East Millinocket serviceman to be killed in World War II. Today the American Legion Post in the town is named the Feeney-Groves Post, partially in his memory.

[TKDietz]

These are the kinds of busts that make a difference in that they keep the street prices higher than they could be. We fill up our prisons with guys who had little tiny amounts, and it does us no good at all except in the few cases where those we put in prison for drugs are also really bad people who commit a lot of serious crimes aside from their involvement with drugs. When we put a 200,000 druggies in prison for selling a gram or less to their druggie buddies who had gotten busted and are working with police to keep themselves out of prison, we've not even budged the price of drugs though or even done anything to keep prices from dropping. Seize tons and tons of drugs and that makes a difference, at least in keeping the cost of these drugs so high that people aren't sharing them so much with their friends, so that less try them, and those that have tried them are less likely to do them so much and so often that they are bound to become addicted.

[Know your rights]

So folks who are in business and have to fight to stay in the game think the druggie crowd is not worth hiring.

Based on my experience, drug-testing employers are in a minority. Do you have experience or evidence to the contrary?

As a free market is king amongst conservatives, does this give you a clue?

Same question to you. And here's another one: Should the voluntary choices of SOME employers be forcibly imposed on ALL?

[investigateworld]

A quick survey of the Oregon Department of Employment shows the majority of jobs offered (above minimum wage) are requiring drug testing and background checks. From personal knowledge, I know of several McDonald's joints requiring drug testing.

Of course I'm in Oregon, which seems to have a little problem with meth.

[robertpaulsen]

"It will bring the price down"

Like that's a good thing? Got a survey that shows this is what Americans want -- cheap recreational drugs available at the checkout counter next to the candy?

[robertpaulsen]

"I also fail to accept that increased availability would have a significant increase in the number of users."

That wasn't his argument. His argument was legality would result in more people trying drugs. Which it would.

[robertpaulsen]

"What Prohibition? Possession was legal. Doctors could prescribe whiskey as "medicine." Low alcohol beer was legal. Law enforcement officers couldn't enter establishments that were serving it. It was Prohibition in name only."

You're describing marijuana use in California.

[robertpaulsen]

"Manufacture, sale, and transportation were illegal ... that's plenty of prohibition."

Plenty?

The manufacture, sale, and transportation of marijuana is illegal in California. How's that prohibition workin' out there slim?

[robertpaulsen]

"drug-testing employers are in a minority"

What does that have to do with his statement?

"Should the voluntary choices of SOME employers be forcibly imposed on ALL?"

Who says all employers MUST test for drugs? You're king of the strawmen, aren't you?

[MAD-AS-HELL]

Hey Sherlock, it's not about cheap drugs for americans but undermining the economics of the devasting cartels to hurt them where it really counts. Some of you so called conservative reactionaries are as short sighted as your socialists on the left. As if the the drug policies as they stand now are really working and making a huge dent in the cartels. Try thinking outside of the box instead of wearing it over your head.

[buck61]

The government needs to send this group to Iraq, getter done.

[robertpaulsen]

"Hey Sherlock, it's not about cheap drugs for americans but undermining the economics of the devasting cartels to hurt them where it really counts."

And I'm saying Americans don't want cheap drugs. All I hear today is "let's raise the price of cigarettes to discourage teen use". But you're saying we wouldn't do that for recreational drugs?

30% of marijuana users today are underage. That percentage would likely grow with legalization. Why in the world make marijuana cheap -- not enough teen use to suit you?

What happened to "let's legalize drugs and tax the hell out of them"? That suddenly go away?

And if we legalize drugs in America, what's to stop the cartels from setting up their headquarters here and illegally exporting our cheap legal drugs to countries where drug use remains illegal? All they have to do is reverse the existing pipeline.

You need to forget about thinking outside of the box and instead just concentrate on thinking, period.

[Know your rights]

Based on my experience, drug-testing employers are in a minority.

A quick survey of the Oregon Department of Employment shows the majority of jobs offered (above minimum wage) are requiring drug testing

Your sample is about as nonrandom as mine: jobs in a particular region and a particular skill range (Departments of Employment don't list CEO openings). So it remains the case that the market is far from unanimous on the value of drug testing.

Now what about my other question: "Should the voluntary choices of SOME employers be forcibly imposed on ALL?"

[Know your rights]

Manufacture, sale, and transportation were illegal ... that's plenty of prohibition.

Plenty?

The manufacture, sale, and transportation of marijuana is illegal in California.

As is possession for the vast majority of users.

How's that prohibition workin' out there slim?

As poorly as substance prohibitions always do. Thanks for supporting my argument.

[Know your rights]

So folks who are in business and have to fight to stay in the game think the druggie crowd is not worth hiring.

Based on my experience, drug-testing employers are in a minority.

What does that have to do with his statement?

It's evidence against his sweeping claim.

Should the voluntary choices of SOME employers be forcibly imposed on ALL?

Who says all employers MUST test for drugs?

He brought up employer testing in response to a statement about drug legality; I assumed it was meant to be relevant.

[Know your rights]

it's not about cheap drugs for americans but undermining the economics of the devasting cartels to hurt them where it really counts.

if we legalize drugs in America, what's to stop the cartels from setting up their headquarters here and illegally exporting our cheap legal drugs to countries where drug use remains illegal?

Losing their high-profit American market would certainly hurt them where it really counts, even if other markets remained.

[robertpaulsen]

"As poorly as substance prohibitions always do."

Which supports my argument that it's NOT "plenty of prohibition".

[Know your rights]

To judge the degree of prohibition by the results is not the meaning Moonman62 was using ... nor the standard meaning. Under your interpretation of the term, there has not been nor can be "plenty" of prohibition; even China and Iran have significant drug problems.

[robertpaulsen]

"He brought up employer testing in response to a statement about drug legality; I assumed it was meant to be relevant.

It can't be relevant unless drug testing is forced on ALL employers?