Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**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.

**purplefood**

He dun goofed...

**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*.

**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.

**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...

**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.

**Alfndrate**

purplefood wrote:
He dun goofed...

That he dun did...

**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...

**Tannhauser42**

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

**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!

**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.

**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.

**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

**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...

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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

**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.

**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?

**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.

**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

**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.

**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