Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 09:50:36


Post by: Seaward


I thought this piece from the New York Times was interesting:

WASHINGTON — When President Obama proclaimed that those who commit sexual assault in the military should be “prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged,” it had an effect he did not intend: muddying legal cases across the country.

In at least a dozen sexual assault cases since the president’s remarks at the White House in May, judges and defense lawyers have said that Mr. Obama’s words as commander in chief amounted to “unlawful command influence,” tainting trials as a result. Military law experts said that those cases were only the beginning and that the president’s remarks were certain to complicate almost all prosecutions for sexual assault.

“Unlawful command influence” refers to actions of commanders that could be interpreted by jurors as an attempt to influence a court-martial, in effect ordering a specific outcome. Mr. Obama, as commander in chief of the armed forces, is considered the most powerful person to wield such influence.

The president’s remarks might have seemed innocuous to civilians, but military law experts say defense lawyers will seize on the president’s call for an automatic dishonorable discharge, the most severe discharge available in a court-martial, arguing that his words will affect their cases.

“His remarks were more specific than I’ve ever heard a commander in chief get,” said Thomas J. Romig, a former judge advocate general of the Army and the dean of the Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kan. “When the commander in chief says they will be dishonorably discharged, that’s a pretty specific message. Every military defense counsel will make a motion about this.”

At Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina last month, a judge dismissed charges of sexual assault against an Army officer, noting the command influence issue. At Fort Bragg in North Carolina last month, lawyers cited the president’s words in a motion to dismiss the court-martial against Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, who is accused of forcing a lower-ranking officer to perform oral sex on him, among other charges.

In Hawaii, a Navy judge ruled last month that two defendants in sexual assault cases, if found guilty, could not be punitively discharged because of Mr. Obama’s remarks. In Texas, a juror was dismissed from a military panel on a sexual assault case after admitting knowledge of the president’s words. In Alexandria, Va., Eric S. Montalvo, a former defense counsel in the Marine Corps who is now in private practice, has cited the president’s words in motions to dismiss two sexual assault cases, one against an Army sergeant and the other against a Navy seaman.

“Because the president is the commander in chief, it’s going to come up in basically every imaginable context in sexual assault cases,” said Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School.


Rest of the article here.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 10:13:56


Post by: purplefood


He dun goofed...


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 10:21:22


Post by: TheDraconicLord


 purplefood wrote:
He dun goofed...


I think this resumes the whole thing, yes.

I wonder if that speech was a spur of the moment thing and his military advisors just went *FACEPALM*.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 11:55:59


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 TheDraconicLord wrote:
 purplefood wrote:
He dun goofed...


I think this resumes the whole thing, yes.

I wonder if that speech was a spur of the moment thing and his military advisors just went *FACEPALM*.




One could only hope. However, saying that, I think that in his position he can't afford to have gafs like that, and that EVERYTHING he says in public, or in "public", has been previously written down by a speech writer of some type.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 12:19:53


Post by: CptJake


When my wife and I heard that statement when it was made, we both looked at each other and said 'unlawful command influence'. Between the two if us we have 5 company commands and she had a BN command, we both recognized that was a dumb statement and a defense attorney's dream/prosecutor's nightmare. I guess we were correct.

If I remember correctly, he made the statement right after (kind of in response to) some officer in charge of sexual assault training (or something related) groped a stripper in DC.

Sometimes I just have to shake my head and wonder...


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 15:58:02


Post by: Dreadclaw69


As a former Constitutional scholar (and after he was slammed for his comments in the Zimmerman case) I hoped that he might know better than to make ill advised comments during ongoing legal proceedings.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 16:08:43


Post by: Alfndrate


 purplefood wrote:
He dun goofed...


That he dun did...



Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 16:14:38


Post by: djones520


It's funny, the amount of sexual assault "training" we've had to undergo this year, and he basically just set us back months to years with that single comment of his.

Actually, it's quite sad... amateur in chief...


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 18:13:33


Post by: Tannhauser42


The sad part is, if he wasn't commander-in-chief, we would all (I presume) be agreeing with his words.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 18:24:09


Post by: notprop


 djones520 wrote:
..... amateur in chief...


C'mon you're on your second one on the bounce that could be described like that or is that third...?.

This all strikes me as a case of letter of the law over spirit. If a court/judge/advocate/jury feels that it has been unduely influenced by such a minor generalised public statement it probably shouldn't be sitting in the first place. I can every defendant team now having a camera and jouralist on board now just to go and ask the President about the case - instant case dismissal!


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 18:41:04


Post by: CptJake


 notprop wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
..... amateur in chief...


C'mon you're on your second one on the bounce that could be described like that or is that third...?.

This all strikes me as a case of letter of the law over spirit. If a court/judge/advocate/jury feels that it has been unduely influenced by such a minor generalised public statement it probably shouldn't be sitting in the first place. I can every defendant team now having a camera and jouralist on board now just to go and ask the President about the case - instant case dismissal!


Except judges and lawyers in courts martial cases have already acted and used his comments to justify their actions. The Pres is in the military chain of command. It really does make a difference in military trials.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 19:02:06


Post by: Ahtman


 CptJake wrote:
Except judges and lawyers in courts martial cases have already acted and used his comments to justify their actions. The Pres is in the military chain of command. It really does make a difference in military trials.


It makes a difference when this President says it. I don't believe for a second if Bush had said it that it would have any effect whatsoever on the legal proceedings, and most like 'criminals should be prosecuted' wouldn't even make the news.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 19:05:34


Post by: whembly


 CptJake wrote:
 notprop wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
..... amateur in chief...


C'mon you're on your second one on the bounce that could be described like that or is that third...?.

This all strikes me as a case of letter of the law over spirit. If a court/judge/advocate/jury feels that it has been unduely influenced by such a minor generalised public statement it probably shouldn't be sitting in the first place. I can every defendant team now having a camera and jouralist on board now just to go and ask the President about the case - instant case dismissal!


Except judges and lawyers in courts martial cases have already acted and used his comments to justify their actions. The Pres is in the military chain of command. It really does make a difference in military trials.

Help me out here... why does it complicate these cases? I'm just not seeing the "unlawful command influence". He made a comment about those who commits sexual assaults... I don't see anything more specific to any pending cases...

Then again, I've never served in the military... so, I'm must be a rednecked civie. o.O


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 19:05:54


Post by: djones520


 Ahtman wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
Except judges and lawyers in courts martial cases have already acted and used his comments to justify their actions. The Pres is in the military chain of command. It really does make a difference in military trials.


It makes a difference when this President says it. I don't believe for a second if Bush had said it that it would have any effect whatsoever on the legal proceedings, and most like 'criminals should be prosecuted' wouldn't even make the news.


So you are saying the military forces would let accused rapists and other sex offenders off the hook, simply to spite President Obama?

Unbelievable...


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 19:06:26


Post by: Jihadin


Wrong Ahtman

It doesn't matter who the POTUS is. He....possible future a she....is top of the Chain of Command or the "Food Chain" we call it. They are the Commander in Chief of the military. CptJake is right. Undue Command influence.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 19:06:42


Post by: djones520


 whembly wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
 notprop wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
..... amateur in chief...


C'mon you're on your second one on the bounce that could be described like that or is that third...?.

This all strikes me as a case of letter of the law over spirit. If a court/judge/advocate/jury feels that it has been unduely influenced by such a minor generalised public statement it probably shouldn't be sitting in the first place. I can every defendant team now having a camera and jouralist on board now just to go and ask the President about the case - instant case dismissal!


Except judges and lawyers in courts martial cases have already acted and used his comments to justify their actions. The Pres is in the military chain of command. It really does make a difference in military trials.

Help me out here... why does it complicate these cases? I'm just not seeing the "unlawful command influence". He made a comment about those who commits sexual assaults... I don't see anything more specific to any pending cases...

Then again, I've never served in the military... so, I'm must be a rednecked civie. o.O


The influence is in the sentencing. The President gave an order on how sentencing is supposed to be specific, which does create a bias in the judicial system, and that is the problem.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 19:09:21


Post by: Ahtman


 djones520 wrote:

So you are saying the military forces would let accused rapists and other sex offenders off the hook, simply to spite President Obama?

Unbelievable...


The willful misreading that is required to get to that thinly stretched and obtuse interpretation is what is unbelievable.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 19:09:56


Post by: LordofHats


 Ahtman wrote:


It makes a difference when this President says it. I don't believe for a second if Bush had said it that it would have any effect whatsoever on the legal proceedings, and most like 'criminals should be prosecuted' wouldn't even make the news.


I'm pretty behind the Bush-Obama double standard (well lets be honest its the GOP-Dem double standard and it's been around since forever), but I gotta say I doubt that. Lawyers don't exist to score political points against the president and being lawyers, I don't doubt that if Bush said this they'd still be going to court and talking about what the president just said.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 19:12:15


Post by: djones520


 Ahtman wrote:
 djones520 wrote:

So you are saying the military forces would let accused rapists and other sex offenders off the hook, simply to spite President Obama?

Unbelievable...


The willful misreading that is required to get to that thinly stretched and obtuse interpretation is what is unbelievable.


You said that if Bush had said this, it would be ignored. The implication is that it's only an issue because it's Obama who said it. The military would "ignore" this damaging thing if it came from a president they liked, but because it didn't their going to use it to score political points.

That is exactly what you inferred.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 19:13:37


Post by: Ahtman


 Jihadin wrote:
Wrong Ahtman

It doesn't matter who the POTUS is. He....possible future a she....is top of the Chain of Command or the "Food Chain" we call it. They are the Commander in Chief of the military. CptJake is right. Undue Command influence.


In a perfect world maybe, but we don't live in that world, we live in one where people are partisan and have agendas, and one going on here is to go after President Obama after any and everything, no matter how big or small, real or imagined. This is like when people complained that a Marine held the umbrella for the President in the rain even though that has been for every President in the last 50 years. The story isn't that Obama said something, it is that elements in the press and military are doing there best to make it into something they can hang around his neck. Presidents by there nature address the people, and to pretend that they are not allowed to address issues in the public sphere is asinine. Again, if Bush had said this this would not be a story.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 19:14:31


Post by: whembly


 djones520 wrote:


The influence is in the sentencing. The President gave an order on how sentencing is supposed to be specific, which does create a bias in the judicial system, and that is the problem.

OH! I see!

duh... (it's Monday, please forgive me)

Yeah, that's a problem.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 19:15:19


Post by: djones520


Ahtman, the military has already been forced to dismiss several cases because of this, and more on are on the block for dismissal right now. This isn't some made up bugaboo. It is a real thing that is happening. He opened his mouth improperly, and now cases against those who commit heinous crimes are being lost left and right. It has NOTHING AT ALL to do with politics, and I quiet frankly cannot see how you'd ever get that.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 19:16:22


Post by: Ahtman


 djones520 wrote:
You said that if Bush had said this, it would be ignored. The implication is that it's only an issue because it's Obama who said it. The military would "ignore" this damaging thing if it came from a president they liked, but because it didn't their going to use it to score political points.

That is exactly what you inferred.


Actually I would imply something and you would infer something. I didn't imply that at all so either your reading skills need work, or you are just being an ass. I'm guessing a bit of both considering how far afield you have gone with this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 djones520 wrote:
Ahtman, the military has already been forced to dismiss several cases because of this,


Certainly no one would ever play politics at the highest levels to make someone they don't like look bad. Such things never happen.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 19:17:36


Post by: Jihadin


Marine holding the umbrella is out of reg's. Males in the US military are not allowed to carry umbrella's or use them. I kid you not. Though a umbrella and sexual assault court martials are two different animals


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 19:17:50


Post by: djones520


 Ahtman wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
You said that if Bush had said this, it would be ignored. The implication is that it's only an issue because it's Obama who said it. The military would "ignore" this damaging thing if it came from a president they liked, but because it didn't their going to use it to score political points.

That is exactly what you inferred.


Actually I would imply something and you would infer something. I didn't imply that at all so either your reading skills need work, or you are just being an ass. I'm guessing a bit of both considering how far afield you have gone with this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 djones520 wrote:
Ahtman, the military has already been forced to dismiss several cases because of this,


Certainly no one would ever play politics at the highest levels to make someone they don't like look bad. Such things never happen.


So... you are accusing people in the military of letting rapists go free to score political points then.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 19:28:44


Post by: d-usa


So when Obama says anything to the media about "not scrambling jets to get a hacker" he is actually giving military commands via CNN?


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 19:37:16


Post by: CptJake


 Ahtman wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
Wrong Ahtman

It doesn't matter who the POTUS is. He....possible future a she....is top of the Chain of Command or the "Food Chain" we call it. They are the Commander in Chief of the military. CptJake is right. Undue Command influence.


In a perfect world maybe, but we don't live in that world, we live in one where people are partisan and have agendas, and one going on here is to go after President Obama after any and everything, no matter how big or small, real or imagined. This is like when people complained that a Marine held the umbrella for the President in the rain even though that has been for every President in the last 50 years. The story isn't that Obama said something, it is that elements in the press and military are doing there best to make it into something they can hang around his neck. Presidents by there nature address the people, and to pretend that they are not allowed to address issues in the public sphere is asinine. Again, if Bush had said this this would not be a story.


You are either full of crap, or have never worked within the military justice system. A defense attorney working within the UCMJ (be he a civilian hired by the defendant or the assigned military lawyer), regardless of party affiliation of the attorney, his client, or the sitting President, would jump all over a similar comment by the sitting president, and because the UCMJ is written the way it is, a military judge, regardless of party affiliation, would react as the military judges are acting. No one, to include the president, in the chain of command, can make statements like that and expect it to not effect trials. He (Pres Obama) basically mandated sentencing, and his comments could damned well be taken as influencing the decision to go to trial or not for these types of cases. A moderately competent defense attorney is going to take advantage of it (and they are...)

It is a story, not because Pres Obama is Pres Obama, but because his words are affecting sexual assault cases in the military.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 19:38:31


Post by: Jihadin


So when Obama says anything to the media about "not scrambling jets to get a hacker" he is actually giving military commands via CNN?


Stick with the topic pls. Seriously....besides its a "unlawful" order if he did order to scramble jets to bring/force down another country aircraft

On May 7, Obama said he has “no tolerance” for sexual assault in the military.

"I expect consequences,” Obama said. “So I don’t just want more speeches or awareness programs or training, but ultimately folks look the other way. If we find out somebody’s engaging in this, they’ve got to be held accountable – prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period.”


See the difference or refuse to see the difference. Maybe not comprehending what he did. Maybe not fully understanding the influence the POTUS has over the military eh


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 20:20:42


Post by: Tannhauser42


 CptJake wrote:

It is a story, not because Pres Obama is Pres Obama, but because his words are affecting sexual assault cases in the military.


Perhaps the point that Ahtman should be making is that it is only a "big" story because our current political atmosphere is so incredibly and poisonously partisan. It's still an important thing, either way.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 20:23:58


Post by: LordofHats


Sex crimes in the military also didn't receive as much media attention during Bush's administration. The media was too busy covering the Iraq war. It's not just about the president but how many bad things the media has to parade around in any given year


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 20:35:22


Post by: Frazzled


Meh, Its a verbal statement, not a written order.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 20:45:24


Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish


His son would also be Trayvon Martin.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 20:46:05


Post by: Crimson


 djones520 wrote:

So you are saying the military forces would let accused rapists and other sex offenders off the hook, simply to spite President Obama?


No, they just use Obama as an excuse to continue their well established practice of letting rapists and sex offenders off the hook.

Treating everything the president ever says in public as an actual order is ludicrous.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 20:47:21


Post by: Jihadin


Granted its a verbal but in his "mind"....JAG is expected to him to crucify the guilty. For the life of me I cannot remember...top of my head...caught tail end of Bush Senior I think....all of Clinton eight years....Bush Junior eight years.....first four years of Obama. Making a comment of that caliber about how the military prosecute individuals that are charged. Even during OIF/OEF when US troops committed murders/illegal kills POTUS at that time made no comment on prosecution of them. Clinton DADT was of a different caliber. Also it seems some can't get the head wrapped around the fact he is top of the US Military Chain of Command.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 20:49:08


Post by: Frazzled


He's also the President and Speaker in Chief.
Everyone should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Not getting the issue. if Frazzled is defending Obama, something is amiss.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 21:14:22


Post by: Squigsquasher


So, the president condemns sexual assault within the military, and this is somehow a problem?



Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 21:15:44


Post by: Ahtman


 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
His son would also be Trayvon Martin.


He said if he had a son he would look like Trayvon, which is true, and I can understand how he felt because I thought the same thing.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 21:19:24


Post by: pities2004


 purplefood wrote:
He dun goofed...





Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 21:22:21


Post by: Jihadin


"I expect consequences,” Obama said. “So I don’t just want more speeches or awareness programs or training, but ultimately folks look the other way. If we find out somebody’s engaging in this, they’ve got to be held accountable – prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period.”


That gave JAG Defense lawyers a "get out of jail free card". After that comment how are those, the "defendent", are expected to have a fair trial when the Chain of Command says this.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 21:28:17


Post by: Frazzled


 Ahtman wrote:
 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
His son would also be Trayvon Martin.


He said if he had a son he would look like Trayvon, which is true, and I can understand how he felt because I thought the same thing.


You thought your son would look like Trayvon Martin?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jihadin wrote:
"I expect consequences,” Obama said. “So I don’t just want more speeches or awareness programs or training, but ultimately folks look the other way. If we find out somebody’s engaging in this, they’ve got to be held accountable – prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period.”


That gave JAG Defense lawyers a "get out of jail free card". After that comment how are those, the "defendent", are expected to have a fair trial when the Chain of Command says this.


He sounds like every prosecutor. Not getting the issue.
If he had sair "those guilty have to be held accountable blah blah blah would be ok? Not seeing it and I don't think it would pass muster.
Alsternatively he could just fire everyone.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 21:33:13


Post by: Jihadin


Almost Frazz...almost....forgot for a moment....you no no no string me along


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 21:35:52


Post by: Frazzled


 Jihadin wrote:
Almost Frazz...almost....forgot for a moment....you no no no string me along


FIRE EM ALL NO JUSTICE NO PEAS!!!


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 22:59:57


Post by: motyak


 Jihadin wrote:
So when Obama says anything to the media about "not scrambling jets to get a hacker" he is actually giving military commands via CNN?


Stick with the topic pls. Seriously....


--personal attack removed--

I think this is one of the problems with how the US is set up, having someone in a role where they need to be able to politic to function in the job be bound to what he says in statements like this will significantly limit his ability to either command or politic, neither of which is a desirable outcome.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 23:03:14


Post by: Jihadin


Talking the Manslaughter one? or following someone at night firefight? which one? both?

besides didn't I mention that would be an unlawful order?


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 23:14:12


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 motyak wrote:

On topic: I think this is one of the problems with how the US is set up, having someone in a role where they need to be able to politic to function in the job be bound to what he says in statements like this will significantly limit his ability to either command or politic, neither of which is a desirable outcome.



Except that what he said was definitely not in the realm of politics. If he had said something to the effect of "all people who commit sexual assaults should be held fully accountable" then it'd be different. Instead, he specifically talked about the military, and specifically talked about dishonorable discharges and the like.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 23:25:12


Post by: motyak


 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
 motyak wrote:

On topic: I think this is one of the problems with how the US is set up, having someone in a role where they need to be able to politic to function in the job be bound to what he says in statements like this will significantly limit his ability to either command or politic, neither of which is a desirable outcome.



Except that what he said was definitely not in the realm of politics. If he had said something to the effect of "all people who commit sexual assaults should be held fully accountable" then it'd be different. Instead, he specifically talked about the military, and specifically talked about dishonorable discharges and the like.


And if the presidency was a purely political role, he would have still made the comment, because it is an important topic, the conduct of a nation's military. And it would have been received with the same support that he would say 'we are cracking down on teachers who abuse students, and if they are caught they will be fired and unable to re-register' or if he had said it about doctors abusing patients, or any other profession. But because of the President's mixed role, his ability to work with statements about topics is limited by this mixed role.

As it stands, it probably is an unlawful order, but what I'm getting at is that it shouldn't be, because he shouldn't have the ability to give those. By splitting the role, you'll allow the president to work more freely with other political bodies, and let someone who has trained all their career take the role of CIC. Or maybe leave it with the Joint Chiefs (although I don't really get their role, I'm working under the assumption that they are the individual heads of their military branches or something similar though, and I could well be wrong).

edit: OK seems like the joint chiefs don't have the ability to get operational command (this is just wiki, so again it could be off), but they are made up of military service chiefs of the different branches, so it is kind of what I'd thought it was.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/15 23:43:38


Post by: Jihadin


Don't look at it as a lawful or unlawful order. He as Commander in Chief just unintentionally interfere with UCMJ action. By making that comment that was aimed specifically at the military he has tainted the Military Judges when they issue the sentence of punishment if found guilty...also the type of punishment. The integerty(sp) of the Military Judges can be called into questions later on due to that comment.

Its almost similar to when he made the comment about Trayvon Martin and what that snowballed into


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 03:47:26


Post by: Tannhauser42


Perhaps the simple solution would be to change the military code to apply the punishment he stated?


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 04:23:19


Post by: Jihadin


This is going to long. This is your
Heads Up
notice

Guide Note: As part of the FY 2006 Military Authorization Act, Congress amended Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), effective for offenses occurring on and after October 1, 2007. Article 120 was formerly known as "Rape and carnal knowledge," but is now entitled "Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct."


List of the charges at the end will also have Maximum Punishment by them at the end of the article
I've no idea how the Hell the laughing Ork appears in the punishment sentence.



Spoiler:
Guide Note: As part of the FY 2006 Military Authorization Act, Congress amended Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), effective for offenses occurring on and after October 1, 2007. Article 120 was formerly known as "Rape and carnal knowledge," but is now entitled "Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct."

The new Article 120 creates 36 offenses. These 36 offenses replace those offenses under the former Article 120 and others that used to be MCM offenses under Article 134 (the "General" Article).

The new Article 120 replaces the following Article 134 offenses:
• Indecent assault
• Indecent acts or liberties with a child
• Indecent exposure
• Indecent acts with another

The UCMJ change also amends two Article 134 offenses:

(1) Indecent language communicated to another - other than when communicated in the presence of a child - remains punishable under Article 134. If the language was communicated in the presence of a child, then it is an Article 120 offense.

(2) Pandering (having someone commit an act of prostitution) is still an offense under Article 134, but if the pandering is "compelled," it becomes an Article 120 offense

The change also adds a new Article 120a, "Stalking."

ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE

Rape

By using force: That the accused caused another person, who is of any age, to engage in a sexual act by using force against that other person.

By causing grievous bodily harm: That the accused caused another person, who is of any age, to engage in a sexual act by causing grievous bodily harm to any person.

By using threats or placing in fear: That the accused caused another person, who is of any age, to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping.

By rendering another unconscious: That the accused caused another person, who is of any age, to engage in a sexual act by rendering that other person unconscious.

By administration of drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance:

(i) That the accused caused another person, who is of any age, to engage in a sexual act by administering to that other person a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance;

(ii) That the accused administered the drug, intoxicant or other similar substance by force or threat of force or without the knowledge or permission of that other person; and

(iii) That, as a result, that other person's ability to appraise or control conduct was substantially impaired.

Aggravated sexual assault

By using threats or placing in fear:

(i) That the accused caused another person, who is of any age, to engage in a sexual act; and

(ii) That the accused did so by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person would be subjected to bodily harm or other harm (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person would be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping).

By causing bodily harm:

(i) That the accused caused another person, who is of any age, to engage in a sexual act; and

(ii) That the accused did so by causing bodily harm to another person.

Upon a person substantially incapacitated or substantially incapable of appraising the act, declining participation, or communicating unwillingness:

(i) That the accused engaged in a sexual act with another person, who is of any age; and (Note: add one of the following elements)

(ii) That the other person was substantially incapacitated;

(iii) That the other person was substantially incapable of appraising the nature of the sexual act;

(iv) That the other person was substantially incapable of declining participation in the sexual act; or

(v) That the other person was substantially incapable of communicating unwillingness to engage in the sexual act.

Rape of a child not yet 12

(i) That the accused engaged in a sexual act with a child; and

(ii) That at the time of the sexual act the child had not attained the age of twelve years.

Rape of a child who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years

By using force:

(i) That the accused engaged in a sexual act with a child;

(ii) That at the time of the sexual act the child had attained the age of 12 years but had not attained the age of 16 years; and

(iii) That the accused did so by using force against that child.

By causing grievous bodily harm:

(i) That the accused engaged in a sexual act with a child;

(ii) That at the time of the sexual act the child had attained the age of 12 years but had not attained the age of 16 years; and

(iii) That the accused did so by causing grievous bodily harm to any person.

By using threats or placing in fear:

(i) That the accused engaged in a sexual act with a child;

(ii) That at the time of the sexual act the child had attained the age of 12 years but had not attained the age of 16 years; and

(iii) That the accused did so by threatening or placing that child in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping.

By rendering that child unconscious:

(i) That the accused engaged in a sexual act with a child;

(ii) That at the time of the sexual act the child had attained the age of 12 years but had not attained the age of 16 years; and

(iii) That the accused did so by rendering that child unconscious.

Above information derived from the Manual for Courts-Martial]

By administration of drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance:

(i) That the accused engaged in a sexual act with a child

(ii) That at the time of the sexual act the child had attained the age of 12 years but attained the intoxicant, or had not attained the age of 16 years;

(iii) (a) That the accused did so by administering to that child a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance;

(b) That the accused administered the drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance by force or threat of force or without the knowledge or permission of that child; and

(c) That, as a result, that child's ability to appraise or control conduct was substantially impaired.

Aggravated sexual assault of a child who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years:

(a) That the accused engaged in a sexual act with a child; and

(b) That at the time of the sexual act the child had attained the age of 12 years but had not attained the age of 16 years.

Aggravated sexual contact

By using force:

(i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with another person; or

(ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by another person; and

(iii) That the accused did so by using force against that other person.

By causing grievous bodily harm:

(i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with another person; or

(ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by another person; and

(iii) That the accused did so by causing grievous bodily harm to any person.

By using threats or placing in fear:

(i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with another person; or

(ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by another person; and

(iii) That the accused did so by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping.

By rendering another unconscious:

(i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with another person; or

(ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by another person; and

(iii) That the accused did so by rendering that other person unconscious.

By administration of drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance:

(i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with another person; or

(ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by another person; and

(iii) (a) That the accused did so by administering to that other person a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance;

(b) That the accused administered the drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance by force or threat of force or without the knowledge or permission of that other person; and

(c) That, as a result, that other person's ability to appraise or control conduct was substantially impaired.

Abusive sexual contact

By using threats or placing in fear:

(i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with another person; or

(ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by another person; and

(iii) That the accused did so by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person would be subjected to bodily harm or other harm (other than by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person would be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping).

By causing bodily harm:

(i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with another person; or

(ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by another person; and

(iii) That the accused did so by causing bodily harm to another person.

(i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with another person; or

(ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by another person; and (Note: add one of the following elements)

(iii) That the other person was substantially incapacitated;

(iv) That the other person was substantially incapable of appraising the nature of the sexual contact;

(v) That the other person was substantially incapable of declining participation in the sexual contact; or

(vi) That the other person was substantially incapable of communicating unwillingness to engage in the sexual contact.

Wrongful sexual contact

(a) That the accused had sexual contact with another person;

(b) That the accused did so without that other person's permission; and

(c) That the accused had no legal justification or lawful authorization for that sexual contact.

Above information derived from the Manual for Courts-Martial]

Upon a person substantially incapacitated or substantially incapable of appraising the act, declining participation, or communicating unwillingness:

Aggravated sexual contact with a child who has not attained the age of 12 years

(i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with a child; or

(ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by a child or by another person with a child; and

(iii) That at the time of the sexual contact the child had not attained the age of twelve years.

Aggravated sexual contact with a child who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years

By using force:

(i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with a child; or

(ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by a child or by another person with a child; and

(iii) That at the time of the sexual contact the child had attained the age of 12 years but had not attained the age of 16 years; and (iv) That the accused did so by using force against that child.

By causing grievous bodily harm:

(i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with a child; or

(ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by a child or by another person with a child; and

(iii) That at the time of the sexual contact the child had attained the age of 12 years but had not attained the age of 16 years; and

(iv) That the accused did so by causing grievous bodily harm to any person.

By using threats or placing in fear:

(i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with a child; or

(ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by a child or by another person with a child; and

(iii) That at the time of the sexual contact the child had attained the age of 12 years but had not attained the age of 16 years; and

(iv) That the accused did so by threatening or placing that child or that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping.

By rendering another or that child unconscious:

(i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with a child; or

(ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by a child or by another person with a child; and

(iii) That at the time of the sexual contact the child had attained the age of 12 years but had not attained the age of 16 years; and

(iv) That the accused did so by rendering that child or that other person unconscious.

By administration of drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance:

(i) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with a child; or

(ii) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by a child or by another person with a child; and

(iii) That at the time of the sexual contact the child had attained the age of 12 years but had not attained the age of 16 years; and

(iv) (a) That the accused did so by administering to that child or that other person a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance;

(b) That the accused administered the drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance by force or threat of force or without the knowledge or permission of that child or that other person; and

(c) That, as a result, that child's or that other person's ability to appraise or control conduct was substantially impaired.

Abusive sexual contact with a child

(a) That the accused engaged in sexual contact with a child; or

(b) That the accused caused sexual contact with or by a child or by another person with a child; and

(c) That at the time of the sexual contact the child had attained the age of 12 years but had not attained the age of 16 years.

Indecent liberties with a child

(a) That the accused committed a certain act or communication;

(b) That the act or communication was indecent;

(c) That the accused committed the act or communication in the physical presence of a certain child;

(d) That the child was under 16 years of age; and

(e) That the accused committed the act or communication with the intent to:

(i) arouse, appeal to, or gratify the sexual desires of any person; or

(ii) abuse, humiliate, or degrade any person.

Indecent act

(a) That the accused engaged in certain conduct; and

(b) That the conduct was indecent conduct.

Indecent exposure

(a) That the accused exposed his or her genitalia, anus, buttocks, or female areola or nipple;

(b) That the accused's exposure was in an indecent manner;

(c) That the exposure occurred in a place where the conduct involved could reasonably be expected to be viewed by people other than the accused's family or household; and

(d) That the exposure was intentional.

Aggravated sexual abuse of a child

(a) That the accused engaged in a lewd act; and

(b) That the act was committed with a child who has not attained the age of 16 years.

Forcible pandering

(a) That the accused compelled a certain person to engage in an act of prostitution; and

(b) That the accused directed another person to said person, who then engaged in an act of prostitution.

Note: If the act of prostitution was not compelled, but "the accused induced, enticed, or procured a certain person to engage in an act of sexual intercourse for hire and reward with a person to be directed to said person by the accused," see Article 134.

Above information derived from the Manual for Courts-Martial]

DEFINITIONS

Sexual act. The term 'sexual act' means --

(A) contact between the penis and the vulva, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; or

(B) the penetration, however slight, of the genital opening of another by a hand or finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

Sexual contact. The term 'sexual contact' means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of another person, or intentionally causing another person to touch, either directly or through the clothing, the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

Grievous bodily harm. The term 'grievous bodily harm' means serious bodily injury. It includes fractured or dislocated bones, deep cuts, torn members of the body, serious damage to internal organs, and other severe bodily injuries. It does not include minor injuries such as a black eye or a bloody nose. It is the same level of injury as in Article 128, and a lesser degree of injury than in section 2246(4) of title 18.

Dangerous weapon or object. The term 'dangerous weapon or object' means --

(A) any firearm, loaded or not, and whether operable or not;

(B) any other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, whether animate or inanimate, that in the manner it is used, or is intended to be used, is known to be capable of producing death or grievous bodily harm; or

(C) any object fashioned or utilized in such a manner as to lead the victim under the circumstances to reasonably believe it to be capable of producing death or grievous bodily harm.

Force. The term 'force' means action to compel submission of another or to overcome or prevent another's resistance by --

(A) the use or display of a dangerous weapon or object;

(B) the suggestion of possession of a dangerous weapon or object that is used in a manner to cause another to believe it is a dangerous weapon or object; or

(C) physical violence, strength, power, or restraint applied to another person, sufficient that the other person could not avoid or escape the sexual conduct.

Threatening or placing that other person in fear.The term 'threatening or placing that other person in fear' for the charge of 'rape' or the charge of 'aggravated sexual contact' means a communication or action that is of sufficient consequence to cause a reasonable fear that non-compliance will result in the victim or another person being subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping.

Threatening or placing that other person in fear. In general. The term 'threatening or placing that other person in fear' for the charge of 'aggravated sexual assault, or the charge of 'abusive sexual contact' means a communication or action that is of sufficient consequence to cause a reasonable fear that noncompliance will result in the victim or another being subjected to a lesser degree of harm than death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping.

Inclusions. Such lesser degree of harm includes --

(i) physical injury to another person or to another person's property; or

(ii) a threat --

(I) to accuse any person of a crime;

(II) to expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or

(III) through the use or abuse of military position, rank, or authority, to affect or threaten to affect, either positively or negatively, the military career of some person.

Bodily harm. The term 'bodily harm' means any offensive touching of another, however slight.

Child. The term 'child' means any person who has not attained the age of 16 years.

Lewd act. The term 'lewd act' means --

(A) the intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the genitalia of another person, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, or degrade any person, or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or

(B) intentionally causing another person to touch, not through the clothing, the genitalia of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate or degrade any person, or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

Indecent liberty. The term 'indecent liberty' means indecent conduct, but physical contact is not required. It includes one who with the requisite intent exposes one's genitalia, anus, buttocks, or female areola or nipple to a child. An indecent liberty may consist of communication of indecent language as long as the communication is made in the physical presence of the child. If words designed to excite sexual desire are spoken to a child, or a child is exposed to or involved in sexual conduct, it is an indecent liberty; the child's consent is not relevant.

Above information derived from the Manual for Courts-Martial]

Indecent conduct. The term 'indecent conduct' means that form of immorality relating to sexual impurity which is grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to common propriety, and tends to excite sexual desire or deprave morals with respect to sexual relations. Indecent conduct includes observing, or making a videotape, photograph, motion picture, print, negative, slide, or other mechanically, electronically, or chemically reproduced visual material, without another person's consent, and contrary to that other person's reasonable expectation of privacy, of --

(A) that other person's genitalia, anus, or buttocks, or (if that other person is female) that person's areola or nipple; or

(B) that other person while that other person is engaged in a sexual act, sodomy (under Article 125 ), or sexual contact.

Act of prostitution. The term 'act of prostitution' means a sexual act, sexual contact, or lewd act for the purpose of receiving money or other compensation.

Consent. The term 'consent' means words or overt acts indicating a freely given agreement to the sexual conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of consent through words or conduct means there is no consent. Lack of verbal or physical resistance or submission resulting from the accused's use of force, threat of force, or placing another person in fear does not constitute consent. A current or previous dating relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the sexual conduct at issue shall not constitute consent. A person cannot consent to sexual activity if --

(A) under 16 years of age; or

(B) substantially incapable of --

(i) appraising the nature of the sexual conduct at issue due to --

(I) mental impairment or unconsciousness resulting from consumption of alcohol, drugs, a similar substance, or otherwise; or

(II) mental disease or defect which renders the person unable to understand the nature of the sexual conduct at issue;

(ii) physically declining participation in the sexual conduct at issue; or

(iii) physically communicating unwillingness to engage in the sexual conduct at issue.

Mistake of fact as to consent. The term 'mistake of fact as to consent' means the accused held, as a result of ignorance or mistake, an incorrect belief that the other person engaging in the sexual conduct consented. The ignorance or mistake must have existed in the mind of the accused and must have been reasonable under all the circumstances. To be reasonable the ignorance or mistake must have been based on information, or lack of it, which would indicate to a reasonable person that the other person consented. Additionally, the ignorance or mistake cannot be based on the negligent failure to discover the true facts. Negligence is the absence of due care. Due care is what a reasonably careful person would do under the same or similar circumstances. The accused's state of intoxication, if any, at the time of the offense is not relevant to mistake of fact. A mistaken belief that the other person consented must be that which a reasonably careful, ordinary, prudent, sober adult would have had under the circumstances at the time of the offense.

MAXIMUM PUNISHMENTS

Rape and Rape of a Child: Dishonorable Discharge, death or confinement for Life, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

Aggravated Sexual Assault: Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 30 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child: Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 20 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

Aggravated Sexual Abuse of a Child: Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 20 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

Aggravated Sexual Contactishonorable Discharge, confinement for 20 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

Aggravated Sexual Contact with a Child: Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 20 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

Abusive Sexual Contact with a Childishonorable Discharge, confinement for 15 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

Indecent Liberty with a Child: Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 15 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

Abusive Sexual Contact: Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 7 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

Indecent Act: Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 5 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

Forcible Panderingishonorable Discharge, confinement for 5 yrs, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

Wrongful Sexual Contactishonorable Discharge, confinement for 1 yr, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

Indecent Exposure: Dishonorable Discharge, confinement for 1 yr, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

Next Article, Article 120a -- Stalking.

Above information derived from the Manual for Courts-Martial]




Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 04:45:02


Post by: Seaward


 Frazzled wrote:
Meh, Its a verbal statement, not a written order.

I can tell you from long experience that not every order you receive will be written.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 05:05:20


Post by: motyak


 Seaward wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Meh, Its a verbal statement, not a written order.

I can tell you from long experience that not every order you receive will be written.


That seems like an...incredibly obvious statement. Not trying to knock you making it or anything, but of course everything isn't written. And that is perfectly acceptable, it'd be impossible to have every order written.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 05:07:46


Post by: Seaward


 motyak wrote:
 Seaward wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Meh, Its a verbal statement, not a written order.

I can tell you from long experience that not every order you receive will be written.


That seems like an...incredibly obvious statement. Not trying to knock you making it or anything, but of course everything isn't written. And that is perfectly acceptable, it'd be impossible to have every order written.

Then I think it's safe to assume I was pointing out to Frazzled that it didn't need to be a written order to be an order.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 05:17:39


Post by: motyak


 Seaward wrote:
 motyak wrote:
 Seaward wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Meh, Its a verbal statement, not a written order.

I can tell you from long experience that not every order you receive will be written.


That seems like an...incredibly obvious statement. Not trying to knock you making it or anything, but of course everything isn't written. And that is perfectly acceptable, it'd be impossible to have every order written.

Then I think it's safe to assume I was pointing out to Frazzled that it didn't need to be a written order to be an order.


Ah. Alrighty then.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 11:00:58


Post by: Frazzled


 Seaward wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Meh, Its a verbal statement, not a written order.

I can tell you from long experience that not every order you receive will be written.


Of course. But the ultimate end use is that he's ordering full enforcement of the regulations, which is a good thing. I don't buy anything else from that statement alone.
Alternatively he could order anyone charged to be immediately dishonorably discharged, get rid of the entire JAG system, fir the joint chiefs as a bag of jerkoffs who have let this gone on long enough and declare the new uniform to be camo fusia. In an enlightened Frazzled administration, all would get their portion of BIG HEAPING SPOONS OF JUSTICE!

Mmmm camo fusia. I don't even know what fusia is but it sounds like it would scare the bejesus out of the terrorists. " Any man who wears camo fusia and is led by zombie Reagan is a man you don't with."


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 11:55:05


Post by: CptJake


Frazz, it boils down to:

The chain of command is supposed to stay completely Hands Off of the military justice system. If they don't they are wrong. In civilian world, there really is no equivalent. A commander has a LOT of control over those under his command. A commander expressing 'I wish....' can rightfully be taken as an order by his/her subordinates.

In this case, you have the Top Dog Commander In Chief, who can fire (cause to be fired) any military judge or any service member directing how anyone accused of a certain crime should be treated and what their sentence can be.

The defense is going to be able to claim "The reason you gave my client such a hard sentence is because the President told you to".

I've dealt with this several times, as has my wife. When you have a guy brought up on charges and the convening authority decides to go with a court martial, if the commander expresses ANYTHING about how he/she wishes the results of the trial to be the defense is going to slaughter you, because the system is set up that way (and rightfully so).

You don't have to like, and you can truly believe it isn't really an issue. Unfortunately the facts show it IS an issue. The cases in the OP article show it is.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 12:04:17


Post by: Ouze


whembly wrote: I'm just not seeing the "unlawful command influence". He made a comment about those who commits sexual assaults... I don't see anything more specific to any pending cases...

Frazzled wrote:He's also the President and Speaker in Chief.
Everyone should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Not getting the issue. if Frazzled is defending Obama, something is amiss.


Gentlemen. When Frazzled and Whembly are the voices of reason explaining your thrice-weekly argument against President Obama are lame, you should reach back in the outrage cooler and find something better. I'll see you back on Thursday.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jihadin wrote:
I've no idea how the Hell the laughing Ork appears in the punishment sentence.


It will always appear when you put these 2 characters together without a space : D. If you wish to edit them and insert a space between the colon and the D, it will fix them.


...


not enough space between the D and the colon



snicker





Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 12:22:42


Post by: Frazzled


 CptJake wrote:
Frazz, it boils down to:

The chain of command is supposed to stay completely Hands Off of the military justice system. If they don't they are wrong. In civilian world, there really is no equivalent. A commander has a LOT of control over those under his command. A commander expressing 'I wish....' can rightfully be taken as an order by his/her subordinates.

In this case, you have the Top Dog Commander In Chief, who can fire (cause to be fired) any military judge or any service member directing how anyone accused of a certain crime should be treated and what their sentence can be.

The defense is going to be able to claim "The reason you gave my client such a hard sentence is because the President told you to".

I've dealt with this several times, as has my wife. When you have a guy brought up on charges and the convening authority decides to go with a court martial, if the commander expresses ANYTHING about how he/she wishes the results of the trial to be the defense is going to slaughter you, because the system is set up that way (and rightfully so).

You don't have to like, and you can truly believe it isn't really an issue. Unfortunately the facts show it IS an issue. The cases in the OP article show it is.

But as Commander in Chief, he can just rid of the military justice system.
"I'm proud to announce, we are re-instituting the practice of keel hawling."


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 12:55:43


Post by: CptJake


Actually, congress does the UCMJ. The Pres can ask for it to be changed.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 13:17:19


Post by: Frazzled


 CptJake wrote:
Actually, congress does the UCMJ. The Pres can ask for it to be changed.


Wait, you think that would stop this Pres?


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 13:36:28


Post by: Seaward


 Ouze wrote:
Gentlemen. When Frazzled and Whembly are the voices of reason explaining your thrice-weekly argument against President Obama are lame, you should reach back in the outrage cooler and find something better. I'll see you back on Thursday.

The trouble you run into there is that the effect of the statement isn't theoretical; this stuff has already happened. Judges have ruled on it.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 16:07:33


Post by: Kovnik Obama


Hum. Wouldn't someone guilty of sexual assault in the military already be 'prosecuted, stripped of rank, court-martialed, fired and dishonorably discharged?'

And even if that's not the case, how is a statement of what is believed to be an appropriate punishment to a deed, 'in effect ordering a specific outcome'? His statement is 'If A is B, then C', they are trying to make it into 'A is B, therefore you should C'.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 16:11:42


Post by: CptJake


You all are right. The military judges and those of us who have pointed out the actual decisions made based on how the military justice system actually works are clearly wrong.

Sorry.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 16:18:47


Post by: Frazzled


Don't get snippy. Its a question - wouldn't cases already be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

And more importantly, can we bring back keel hauling? Even if everyone is senteced to "keel hauling" but does normal punishment.

Just so we can have a judge say "keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel haul him!"


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 16:18:50


Post by: Kovnik Obama


 CptJake wrote:
You all are right. The military judges and those of us who have pointed out the actual decisions made based on how the military justice system actually works are clearly wrong.

Sorry.


Contesting the legitimacy of a decision =/= contesting the existence or validity of that decision.

Would've thought that to be self-evident...


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 16:40:34


Post by: Ouze


Today I learned that if the President says in a speech to the public we should prosecute rapists in the military to the fullest extent of the law, that means that said rapists have to be let go and it's the President's fault.

Dakka Dakka, ladies and gentlemen.



Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 16:58:25


Post by: CptJake


 Ouze wrote:
Today I learned that if the President says in a speech to the public we should prosecute rapists in the military to the fullest extent of the law, that means that said rapists have to be let go and it's the President's fault.

Dakka Dakka, ladies and gentlemen.





Of course the lesson being taught, which you ignored, is that the military justice system has something called undue command influence which the civilian justice system does not.



Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 17:00:42


Post by: Frazzled


 CptJake wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
Today I learned that if the President says in a speech to the public we should prosecute rapists in the military to the fullest extent of the law, that means that said rapists have to be let go and it's the President's fault.

Dakka Dakka, ladies and gentlemen.





Of course the lesson being taught, which you ignored, is that the military justice system has something called undue command influence which the civilian justice system does not.


Which can be overridden by the same CiC though.

The argument doesn't really hold. Governors and state's atteonry general say such all the time. The are in charge of the prosecutors who prosecute cases.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 17:05:13


Post by: djones520


 Frazzled wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
Today I learned that if the President says in a speech to the public we should prosecute rapists in the military to the fullest extent of the law, that means that said rapists have to be let go and it's the President's fault.

Dakka Dakka, ladies and gentlemen.





Of course the lesson being taught, which you ignored, is that the military justice system has something called undue command influence which the civilian justice system does not.


Which can be overridden by the same CiC though.

The argument doesn't really hold. Governors and state's atteonry general say such all the time. The are in charge of the prosecutors who prosecute cases.


They don't have a UCMJ that punishes them for ignoring what the AG says though. The President can very simply correct the situation by countermanding the order. I'd imagine it may be something he's already done.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 17:06:18


Post by: Hordini


 Frazzled wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
Today I learned that if the President says in a speech to the public we should prosecute rapists in the military to the fullest extent of the law, that means that said rapists have to be let go and it's the President's fault.

Dakka Dakka, ladies and gentlemen.





Of course the lesson being taught, which you ignored, is that the military justice system has something called undue command influence which the civilian justice system does not.


Which can be overridden by the same CiC though.

The argument doesn't really hold. Governors and state's atteonry general say such all the time. The are in charge of the prosecutors who prosecute cases.



None of them fall under the UCMJ though, as far as I know.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 17:08:17


Post by: Frazzled


 djones520 wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
Today I learned that if the President says in a speech to the public we should prosecute rapists in the military to the fullest extent of the law, that means that said rapists have to be let go and it's the President's fault.

Dakka Dakka, ladies and gentlemen.





Of course the lesson being taught, which you ignored, is that the military justice system has something called undue command influence which the civilian justice system does not.


Which can be overridden by the same CiC though.

The argument doesn't really hold. Governors and state's atteonry general say such all the time. The are in charge of the prosecutors who prosecute cases.


They don't have a UCMJ that punishes them for ignoring what the AG says though. The President can very simply correct the situation by countermanding the order. I'd imagine it may be something he's already done.


They don't need the UCMJ. Thats their direct boss who can fire them on the spot.
But you're right, probably already done, or not.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 17:08:50


Post by: Seaward


 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Hum. Wouldn't someone guilty of sexual assault in the military already be 'prosecuted, stripped of rank, court-martialed, fired and dishonorably discharged?'

Maybe, maybe not. Do you believe we should always apply the exact same sentence in every conceivable situation to, say, manslaughter, for example?

Getting rid of elasticity in sentencing options is a recipe for disaster, in my opinion. Especially when you look back at things like Tailhook where a lot of guys lost their careers because they happened to observe that a female had an attractive posterior.

 Frazzled wrote:
Which can be overridden by the same CiC though.

Not really.

The argument doesn't really hold. Governors and state's atteonry general say such all the time. The are in charge of the prosecutors who prosecute cases.

I think you'll find that "governor is to attorney general as commander-in-chief is to JAG officer" to be a specious analogy at best, just as the UCMJ isn't the same as civilian law.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 17:12:54


Post by: Ouze


 Seaward wrote:
Getting rid of elasticity in sentencing options is a recipe for disaster, in my opinion. Especially when you look back at things like Tailhook where a lot of guys lost their careers because they happened to observe that a female had an attractive posterior.


Yes, this is an accurate, reasonable, and truthful retelling of that incident. /snicker

OK, I'm out, you guys aren't even trying anymore



Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 17:14:44


Post by: Seaward


 Ouze wrote:
Yes, this is an accurate, reasonable, and truthful retelling of that incident. /snicker

OK, I'm out, you guys aren't even trying anymore


I don't recall trying to retell the incident. I was, however, pointing out that a lot of guys got drummed out for nothing more than that. But hey, you're definitely an expert on the naval aviation community, and my years of experience couldn't possibly stand up to that news article you read that one time, so please, tell me more about it.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 17:24:05


Post by: Frazzled


 Seaward wrote:
 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Hum. Wouldn't someone guilty of sexual assault in the military already be 'prosecuted, stripped of rank, court-martialed, fired and dishonorably discharged?'

Maybe, maybe not. Do you believe we should always apply the exact same sentence in every conceivable situation to, say, manslaughter, for example?

Getting rid of elasticity in sentencing options is a recipe for disaster, in my opinion. Especially when you look back at things like Tailhook where a lot of guys lost their careers because they happened to observe that a female had an attractive posterior.

 Frazzled wrote:
Which can be overridden by the same CiC though.

Not really.

The argument doesn't really hold. Governors and state's atteonry general say such all the time. The are in charge of the prosecutors who prosecute cases.

I think you'll find that "governor is to attorney general as commander-in-chief is to JAG officer" to be a specious analogy at best, just as the UCMJ isn't the same as civilian law.


Why not. If the Pres can bollucks it up he can just change it. Of course actual day to day management is not this administration's thing...


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 17:32:23


Post by: Chongara


 CptJake wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
Today I learned that if the President says in a speech to the public we should prosecute rapists in the military to the fullest extent of the law, that means that said rapists have to be let go and it's the President's fault.

Dakka Dakka, ladies and gentlemen.





Of course the lesson being taught, which you ignored, is that the military justice system has something called undue command influence which the civilian justice system does not.



...and in that case the issue is "command influence" and it's implementation. If the president makes a statement condemning sexual assault, and the rules require or allow the dismissal of cases related to sexual assault the issue not with what the president said. Rather the problem is with the rules that lead to that situation. Accordingly the correct thing to be criticizing is not the president but the rules, and the correct course of action fundamentally is not for the president to not make these kind of statements but rather than that the rules be changed such that the president can make statements without it being an issue.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 17:34:16


Post by: Seaward


Chongara wrote:
...and in that case the issue is "command influence" and it's implementation. If the president makes a statement condemning sexual assault, and the rules require or allow the dismissal of cases related to sexual assault the issue not with what the president said. Rather the problem is with the rules that lead to that situation. Accordingly the correct thing to be criticizing is not the president but the rules, and the correct course of action fundamentally is not for the president to not make these kind of statements but rather than that the rules be changed such that the president can make statements without it being an issue.

Or he could just remember he's commander-in-chief all the time, not just when the SEALs do something cool.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 17:41:59


Post by: whembly


 Frazzled wrote:


Why not. If the Pres can bollucks it up he can just change it. Of course actual day to day management is not this administration's thing...

Frazz... I think the difference here is that the UCMJ is a completely different animal than civilian law.

The President commands of the UCMJ... he's has rank over these personnel. That's different than a Governor having "rank" over the DA.

It's like a CEO shooting the gak by the water cooler about certain things, and his underlings runs with it later.

Then, come to find out, the CEO never really gave formal instructions... but, because the underlings wanted to either impress his boss or is in fear of his job, felt compelled act upon that water cooler conversation.

This smacks to me of: "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 17:52:37


Post by: Jihadin


Throwing in the towel. Serious lack of military experience/knowledge on the opposite half of the debate team

Its like the Afghan hospital awhile back. Everyone assume since we funded and supplied the medical gear that we ran the daily operation of it.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 18:09:17


Post by: Frazzled


 Jihadin wrote:
Throwing in the towel. Serious lack of military experience/knowledge on the opposite half of the debate team

Its like the Afghan hospital awhile back. Everyone assume since we funded and supplied the medical gear that we ran the daily operation of it.


No. The argument is that Obama is the boss. If his order is that all cases shall be prosecuted to the fullest extent, thats a legal order. I still like the idea of fusia camo though.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 18:13:21


Post by: Seaward


 Frazzled wrote:


No. The argument is that Obama is the boss. If his order is that all cases shall be prosecuted to the fullest extent, thats a legal order. I still like the idea of fusia camo though.

That wasn't the order.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 18:25:45


Post by: Frazzled


Whats the order?


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 18:34:26


Post by: whembly


 Frazzled wrote:
Whats the order?

djones520 said it earlier:
 djones520 wrote:


The influence is in the sentencing. The President gave an order on how sentencing is supposed to be specific, which does create a bias in the judicial system, and that is the problem.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 18:36:23


Post by: Frazzled


Mandatory sentencing?


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 18:38:12


Post by: whembly


 Frazzled wrote:
Mandatory sentencing?

Notice the first paragraph of OP:
should be “prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged,”


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 18:41:48


Post by: Frazzled


Sounds like mandatory sentencing to me.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 19:34:57


Post by: djones520


 Frazzled wrote:
Sounds like mandatory sentencing to me.


Which he has no real authority to authorize, but since he's the CINC, it's gets real messy, and that is where the problem arises.

The UCMJ does not in any way shape or form fit within the standard US Judicial system. It's an entirely seperate beast. So much so that protections provided by the Bill of Rights don't even exist for us. So applying your knowledge of how things work in the civilian world to this situation doesn't quite work, that is the point that's has been fought over it seems. Military Justice is not the same as Civilian Justice. We do not have a seperate judicial branch. Our "Judges" are people who operate in our chain of command. So when you get folks higher up in that chain of command butting their head into the legal proceedings, it opens up this can of worms. That is why we've seen these results of dismissed cases and stuff.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 19:45:05


Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured


If cases have already been dropped due to this is there any possibility of the victims going after the President (wearing his hat as CIC) for that 'order'

or is the military itself (who obviously can't act against him) the only body that would have cause ?

(asking as under UK civilian law there would be the possibility, but USA military law is clearly not the same beast)


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 21:01:49


Post by: Frazzled


 djones520 wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Sounds like mandatory sentencing to me.


Which he has no real authority to authorize, but since he's the CINC, it's gets real messy, and that is where the problem arises.

The UCMJ does not in any way shape or form fit within the standard US Judicial system. It's an entirely seperate beast. So much so that protections provided by the Bill of Rights don't even exist for us. So applying your knowledge of how things work in the civilian world to this situation doesn't quite work, that is the point that's has been fought over it seems. Military Justice is not the same as Civilian Justice. We do not have a seperate judicial branch. Our "Judges" are people who operate in our chain of command. So when you get folks higher up in that chain of command butting their head into the legal proceedings, it opens up this can of worms. That is why we've seen these results of dismissed cases and stuff.

I think I get it. You're arguing that because he's the boss, the judge will be swayed to give the maximum sentence, if not straight away believing he's been ordered to do so?
I'd think thats been clarified now internally, but again, operational management is not this administration's strong suit.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 21:10:58


Post by: djones520


 Frazzled wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Sounds like mandatory sentencing to me.


Which he has no real authority to authorize, but since he's the CINC, it's gets real messy, and that is where the problem arises.

The UCMJ does not in any way shape or form fit within the standard US Judicial system. It's an entirely seperate beast. So much so that protections provided by the Bill of Rights don't even exist for us. So applying your knowledge of how things work in the civilian world to this situation doesn't quite work, that is the point that's has been fought over it seems. Military Justice is not the same as Civilian Justice. We do not have a seperate judicial branch. Our "Judges" are people who operate in our chain of command. So when you get folks higher up in that chain of command butting their head into the legal proceedings, it opens up this can of worms. That is why we've seen these results of dismissed cases and stuff.

I think I get it. You're arguing that because he's the boss, the judge will be swayed to give the maximum sentence, if not straight away believing he's been ordered to do so?
I'd think thats been clarified now internally, but again, operational management is not this administration's strong suit.


Yes, that is basically the essence of it.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 21:12:28


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 Frazzled wrote:
I'd think thats been clarified now internally, but again, operational management is not this administration's strong suit.

What is their strong suit?


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 23:09:09


Post by: Ensis Ferrae


 djones520 wrote:

The UCMJ does not in any way shape or form fit within the standard US Judicial system. It's an entirely seperate beast. So much so that protections provided by the Bill of Rights don't even exist for us.



This is also why I have seen in certain, and very rare cases, where a soldier will be tried in civilian court, as opposed to military. Usually this will have to do with punishments, and the admissibility of evidence to the court, where the crime took place, etc. Even though a service member is "on duty" 24/7 no matter where he/she is, they still fall under the jurisdiction of UCMJ. For instance, if I get hammered drunk, drive my car home, and take out 10 pedestrians on the way (unlikely, as no one walks in this town), I can actually be tried under BOTH UCMJ and Civilian Courts.


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 23:14:12


Post by: d-usa


 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
I'd think thats been clarified now internally, but again, operational management is not this administration's strong suit.

What is their strong suit?


Increasing profit for the gun industry and advertising revenue for FoxNews?


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 23:35:18


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 d-usa wrote:
Increasing profit for the gun industry and advertising revenue for FoxNews?

Is that intentional, or just an unintended side effect?


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 23:56:41


Post by: d-usa


The private market profits, who cares how it works!


Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials @ 2013/07/16 23:58:46


Post by: Dreadclaw69


 d-usa wrote:
The private market profits, who cares how it works!

His voter base?