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.

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'.

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.

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!"

 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...

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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

 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.

 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...

 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.

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.

 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?

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.

 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.

 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.

Whats the order?

 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.

Mandatory sentencing?

 Frazzled wrote:
Mandatory sentencing?

Notice the first paragraph of OP:

should be “prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged,”

Sounds like mandatory sentencing to me.

 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.

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)

 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.

 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.

 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?