Another Gross Miscarriage of Justice In The US Military?

Formaldehyde

Both Fair And Balanced
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
33,999
Location
USA #1
This time it involves Air Force Lt. Colonel James Wilkerson who was convicted of groping a sleeping house guest by four colonels and a lt. colonel. But his commanding officer, Air Force Lt. General Craig Franklin, personally decided that there was "insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" so he decided he "could not, in good conscience, sustain the conviction":

Air Force’s Accountability for Sexual Assault: Not Promoting Convicted Officer

jameswilkerson.jpg


A military jury found Lt. Col. James Wilkerson guilty of groping a sleeping woman’s breasts and vagina. But the Air Force wasn’t done with the “superstar” F-16 pilot. It reinstated Wilkerson to active duty and wiped away his conviction — but, to save face, is pledging not to promote him to full colonel.

The incident has infuriated Senators and military-survivor advocates, who say that Wilkerson’s case underscores just how clueless the Air Force remains to the persistent epidemic of uniformed sexual assault.

Wilkerson’s conviction at his court martial last year led to a sentence of a year in jail, the forfeiture of his pay and a dismissal from service. But last month, the commander of the Third Air Force, Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin, who presided over Wilkerson’s case, overturned the verdict, wiped away Wilkerson’s conviction from his record, and returned him to active duty. All this occurred in the wake of the Air Force’s pledge to crack down on servicemember sexual assault following the Lackland Air Force Base scandal, in which trainers repeatedly abused, molested and raped female cadets.

Now the embarrassed Air Force is looking for a face saving way out of its institutional mess. Its answer thus far, reports Stars & Stripes, is to remove Wilkerson’s name from its promotions list. There’s an opportunity for Wilkerson to appeal the decision.

In the military’s “up-or-out” officer system, stopping Wilkerson from getting promoted is a bureaucratic, passive-aggressive way of encouraging him to retire. Thanks to Franklin, Wilkerson would be able to leave the military without a stain on his record, without the Air Force doing a thing to address the proven abuses committed by an officer termed an “Air Force superstar” by his last performance review.

“The Air Force could do an administrative separation action and try for a lower discharge characterization, but given the notoriety the case has attracted that’s unlikely,” says retired Col. Morris Davis, a former Air Force lawyer. “It would require in essence another mini-trial unless he did a waiver in lieu of a discharge board. He could also face a grade determination at retirement that would retire him in a lower grade.” But that’s about it for additional discipline.

All this has advocates wondering if abused servicemembers can find justice inside the military, however loudly the Pentagon insists it’s taking the issue seriously.

“This case sends a horrible message to victims of sexual assault in our military that are thinking about coming forward,” Nancy Parrish, president of the Protect Our Defenders support network, tells Danger Room. “Why bother to put the investigators, prosecutors, judge, jury and survivors through this if one person can set justice aside with the swipe of a pen?”

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) is calling on the Air Force to fire Wilkerson and removing Franklin from his leadership position. “This stunning decision demonstrates a total disregard for the survivors of sexual assault and for the findings of the military justice system,” she wrote to Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley this week.(.pdf)

Parrish supports McCaskill. “The authority to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate must be taken outside the chain of command,” she says. “And Commanders should not have the authority to set aside a conviction or sentence by a judge or jury.”

The Senate Armed Services Committee plans a big hearing on Wednesday into military sexual assault. Expect to hear much more about Lt. Col. Wilkerson then.

Senator asks AF leaders to consider firing general in Wilkerson case

A U.S. senator is calling for the possible firing of the Air Force lieutenant general who set aside a jury’s guilty verdict in a sexual assault case and re-instated the convicted fighter pilot to full-duty status.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, wrote to the secretary and chief of staff of the Air Force to ask them to review the decision by Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin to exonerate Lt. Col. James Wilkerson.

Wilkerson, who was accused of groping a sleeping houseguest in March last year at his home near Aviano Air Base, Italy, had been convicted in November of aggravated sexual assault by a jury of four colonels and a lieutenant colonel.

“As the Air Force and other military organizations are redoubling efforts to erase a culture that has often turned a blind eye on sexual assault, Lt. Gen. Franklin’s conduct undermines this important shift,” McCaskill wrote in the letter to Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley and Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III. A copy of the letter was posted on her website.

“His decision shows ignorance, at best, and malfeasance, at worst. I strongly urge you to undertake an immediate review of his conduct and consider removing him from his leadership position.”

McCaskill is the fourth lawmaker to express outrage over the case and the third senator to call on Defense Department leaders to investigate the matter and take action.

Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., on Monday sent a letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. That letter asked Hagel to find out why Franklin had made his Feb. 26 decision, whether it could be overturned, and to work with them on removing commanders’ discretion in sexual assault case dispositions.

Wilkerson had been sentenced to dismissal, pay and retirement forfeiture and a year in jail. The decision by Franklin, commander of the Third Air Force who convened Wilkerson’s court-martial, freed Wilkerson from a South Carolina brig and possibly paved the way for his promotion to full colonel. The Air Force has not said whether Wilkerson’s promotion has taken place or where he would be assigned. He had previously been the 31st Fighter Wing inspector general at Aviano.

All three senators, as well as Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, have either sought to pass legislation to change the Uniform Code of Military Justice regarding commander discretion in sexual assault cases, or said, in light of the Wilkerson case, would consider doing so. They’ve said that the system is rife with bias and conflict of interest, continues to harm victims and embolden offenders.

The Wilkerson case, both Speier and McCaskill said, could be the “tipping point.”


McCaskill’s letter came after she questioned the commander of Central Command, Marine Gen. James Mattis, during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday about the Wilkerson case.

McCaskill, a former county prosecutor and a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Franklin’s decision was “arbitrary” and conveyed that “that jury’s decision didn’t matter.”

Should one person ”be able to say, ‘Never mind?” she asked Mattis.

“Let me assure the senator … justice is overwhelmingly served by the current Uniform Code of Military Justice,” said Mattis, who had been discussing the outlook in Afghanistan. “Commanders — including women commanders — have this authority for a reason,” Mattis said, suggesting she look beyond one case.

McCaskill responded that she could cite a lot of instances where cases were not brought or victims not taken seriously.

“There’s a culture issue that’s going to have to be addressed here,” she said. “And what this decision did was — all it did was underline and put an exclamation point behind the notion that, if you are sexually assaulted in the military — good luck.”

Panetta: Military ‘Looked The Other Way’ In Rape Case

Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta on Thursday criticized the military’s lackluster approach to sexual violence, saying that some officials “looked the other way” rather than pursuing convictions.

These words came during the funeral of Jeremy Goulet, a former serviceman who was killed last week in a gunfight with police after killing two Santa Cruz, CA officers. Goulet, who had a long history of incidences involving sexual assault and harassment, was released from the Army with a “less than honorable” discharge in 2006 as part of a plea bargain in a rape case.

Had Goulet been convicted of rape under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, he would likely be serving a sentence in a military prison. Panetta, who stepped down as Secretary of Defense two weeks ago, acknowledged the flaws in the military justice system’s handling of sexual violence while speaking at Goulet’s funeral. “We do know that he had a history of sexual violence both in and out of the military. And for whatever reason, people somehow always looked the other way,” Panetta said. “And at some point, somebody pays a price.”

Sexual assault in the military has been granted a renewed spotlight this week, after Air Force Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin’s overturned Lt. Col. James Wilkerson’s conviction of aggravated sexual assault, sparking outrage. Wilkerson — who was originally kicked out of the Air Force as part of his conviction — has been reinstated, though removed from the list of officers up for promotion by the Secretary of the Air Force. An estimated 19,000 instances of Military Sexual Trauma (MST) occurred in 2011 alone, though the actual number may be higher due to underreporting.

Panetta made promoting women’s rights a key part of his tenure at the Pentagon, including vowing to reduce the number of sexual assaults in the military. After Panetta signed off on changes that would allow women to serve in fighting roles inside combat zones, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey said that the integration of women into combat units could help reduce sexual assault.

During his confirmation hearing, current Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel pledged to continue Panetta’s work in this regard. Hagel is now being lobbied by several Senators, including Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), to do more — including looking into the Wilkerson case.
What an odd thing to say at the perpetrator's funeral.

Do you think incidents such as these might actually be the "tipping point" to change the US military criminal justice system so that commanding officers don't have as much authority, if any, in such matters? Or will it be white-washed and forgotten along with all the other similar incidents of the past?

Do you think matters of criminal nature should be completely removed from the purview of the military, as I have stated numerous times in the past? Why should we treat servicemen any differently than anybody else when it comes to criminal conduct? This seems especially true when they are initially given reasonably harsh sentences, then either given full clemency or reduced sentences at a later date...
 
On what basis would the commanding officer conclude there lacks sufficient evidence? Clearly the jury disagrees with him.
 
If executive power trumps judicial power it is only fair that this officer should trump whatever some juri decided... go with the times.
 
I will wait for Mobboss to comment, but the article has some inconsistencies I would want an expert to look at.

As far as I know operational commanders have no say in courts martial cases, only non judicial punishment. It sounds like the General in question might be the judge as it says he "presided" over the case. There is nothing wrong with a judge throwing out evidence, this happens all the time especially in cases of improper chain of custody or seizure in both criminal or and military courts.

It would have been nice if the article had commented on what reason the evidence was deemed insufficient.
 
If it was a general CM then the juries findings are recomendations to the General. The General can be more lenient, but never more severe, than what the jury recommends. That is my understanding from boards I have sat on, but I am not 100% sure without looking it up.

When they say he presided, it just means he was the general ordering the CM. They have a military judge actually preside at the trial, the general doesn't really have anything to do with it other than ordering it.

Anyway, I don't think there is anything we can say about the verdict without seeing the evidence.
 
Indeed. The general wasn't directly involved. He "presided" over it because he is the CO.

Don't you think the court martial heard the evidence and ruled according?

But calling a clearly biased Sergeant whose job is a legal clerk an "expert" is one the cutest things I've ever read in this forum. :lol:

Air Force general’s reversal of pilot’s conviction for sexual assault angers lawmakers

An Air Force general’s decision to overturn the conviction of a standout fighter pilot on sexual assault charges is stirring anger on Capitol Hill, where some lawmakers say they are losing patience with the military after a string of related scandals.

Several members of Congress have demanded that the Pentagon intervene after Lt. Gen. Craig A. Franklin, commander of the Third Air Force in Europe, ordered the release of the fighter pilot from prison on Feb. 26 and tossed out his conviction without explanation.

The pilot, Lt. Col. James Wilkerson, had been found guilty in November by an all-male jury at Aviano Air Base in Italy in what was seen as a test case of the Air Force’s willingness to tackle such crimes. But the decision to grant him clemency has infuriated many female lawmakers and advocacy groups, who said the outcome will discourage victims from reporting abuse.

“The appearances of this are devastating to victims of sexual assault throughout the military,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a member of the Armed Services Committee and a former prosecutor. “It looks like somebody taking care of one of their guys.”

The Air Force has been grappling for the past year with an even bigger scandal in which basic-training instructors were charged with raping and assaulting dozens of female recruits at Lackland Air Base in Texas. Air Force leaders have bluntly described sexual misconduct as a “cancer” in the ranks that the service is struggling to combat.

Other branches of the armed services are experiencing similar problems. The Senate Armed Services Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing Wednesday on sexual assault problems in the military, the first time it has devoted a session to the subject in a decade.

The number of reported rapes, sexual assaults and cases of harassment has soared in recent years even as the Defense Department has adopted new programs to aid victims and crack down on perpetrators. Although military leaders say they have improved their handling of such cases, a Pentagon report last year estimated that only about one-sixth of victims report the crimes.

Advocacy groups said that the decision last month to overturn the jury’s verdict will only deepen concerns about the system.

Franklin, a three-star commander based in Germany, is not a judge and did not observe the trial. But as the senior officer in Wilkerson’s chain of command, he had final authority in the court-martial process. Air Force officials said he reviewed the entire trial record as well as a clemency appeal from the defendant and a personal letter from the accuser. He concluded that there was “insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” and decided he “could not, in good conscience, sustain the conviction,” according to Lt. Col. Paul D. Baldwin, an Air Force spokesman.

Franklin did not elaborate, and he declined a request for an interview. Under military law, a commander in his position has the authority to reduce a sentence or dismiss a conviction and is under no obligation to give a reason.

Baldwin said that the general, who is also a pilot, “does not personally know” Wilkerson and does not recall interacting with him socially or professionally.


It is very rare for a commander to grant clemency and dismiss a case entirely. Over the past five years, Air Force prosecutors have recorded 327 convictions for rape, sexual assault and similar crimes. Of those, five verdicts were overturned by commanders based on clemency, the Air Force said.

In a letter, McCaskill asked Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley and Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, the Air Force chief of staff, to consider firing Franklin. “I just think the system is messed up if a general can overturn a case like this with a stroke of a pen,” she said. “That’s just offensive to anyone’s sense of justice.”

Two other senators, Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), sent a letter to new Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel last week asking him to review the case as well.

In an interview, Shaheen said she was still “waiting for all the facts” but was disturbed by appearances.

“This is a case that sends absolutely the wrong message,” she said.“If we’re going to continue to attract women into the military, which we need to do to have the best and brightest, then we need to address this.”

George Little, a Pentagon spokesman, said Hagel would deliver a response to the senators soon, adding: “The secretary has made it clear that sexual assault has absolutely no place in our armed forces and must be addressed decisively.”

Under military law, no one in Air Force or the Defense Department has the authority to overrule Franklin’s decision. Nor can prosecutors appeal.

Lt. Gen. Richard C. Harding, the Air Force’s judge advocate general, said the legal authority for a commander to grant clemency dates to the birth of the American armed forces in 1775.

Harding said the military has always given commanders the power and discretion to do what is necessary to uphold “good order and discipline,” the foundational traits for the armed forces. “Those aren’t empty words.”

He said it was common for commanders, who are accustomed to giving orders without being questioned, not to divulge their reasoning in a clemency case.

The Wilkerson case attracted intense interest inside the Air Force when it went to trial in November, largely because the defendant was an officer whose personnel evaluations had branded him a “superstar.”

Wilkerson, 44, was an F-16 fighter pilot who had flown missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and was serving as the acting inspector general at Aviano Air Base. He was charged with assaulting a 49-year-old woman, an independent civilian contractor at the base, who had met him at a party.

According to testimony reported by Stars and Stripes, a newspaper that covers military affairs, the woman said she had gone to sleep alone in Wilkerson’s guest bedroom but awoke at 3 a.m. to find him groping her breasts and vagina.

Wilkerson denied the allegations and said he was asleep in his own bed the entire night. The case rested largely on circumstantial evidence and pitted the word of the accuser against testimony from Wilkerson’s wife, who said she kicked the woman out of the house without her shoes in the middle of the night because she was too noisy.

The military jury convicted Wilkerson of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced him to a year in prison.

In an interview, the accuser said the trial was emotionally wrenching but that the Air Force treated her fairly and with respect. “The prosecution was behind me 1,000 percent,” she said.

But she said she was stunned when prosecutors informed her that Franklin had thrown out the conviction without giving a reason. “I found that absolutely shocking,” she said, calling it “a prime example of the old boys’ network. It’s cronyism through and through.”


The Washington Post generally does not identify victims of sexual assault and the woman asked that her name be withheld. She contacted The Post through an advocacy group, Protect Our Defenders, that represents sex-crime victims in the military.

Wilkerson was freed from the military brig in Charleston, S.C., and is now on leave as he prepares to return to active duty.

The general’s decision to grant clemency came as a “surprise” to Wilkerson given the military’s recent crackdown on sex crimes, said his attorney, Frank J. Spinner.

“It is exceedingly difficult in this environment involving sexual assault cases,” Spinner said. “We see this decision as restoring some integrity to the process.”

Some lawmakers and victim advocacy groups, however, argued the opposite.

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said she would introduce a bill next week to strip commanders of their power to overturn legal decisions or reduce sentences imposed by military judges and juries. Such actions, she said, “make a mockery of the entire legal system.”

“The laws that are on the books . . . are so antiquated and so rigged in favor of the assailant that frankly it’s no wonder someone won’t report” a sex crime, Speier said in an interview
.
 
I will wait for Mobboss to comment, but the article has some inconsistencies I would want an expert to look at.

As far as I know operational commanders have no say in courts martial cases, only non judicial punishment. It sounds like the General in question might be the judge as it says he "presided" over the case. There is nothing wrong with a judge throwing out evidence, this happens all the time especially in cases of improper chain of custody or seizure in both criminal or and military courts.

It would have been nice if the article had commented on what reason the evidence was deemed insufficient.

Why two senators are not one mob boss...?

from the article
Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., on Monday sent a letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. That letter asked Hagel to find out why Franklin had made his Feb. 26 decision, whether it could be overturned, and to work with them on removing commanders’ discretion in sexual assault case dispositions.
 
You can't very well expect female senators to be "experts" regarding sexual molestation by Air Force "superstars"?

I love how he ostensibly slept through the whole thing while his wife supposedly threw her out, even without her shoes, for being "noisy".
 
Why two senators are not one mob boss...?

from the article

Senator is not synonymous with legal expert, and those two are probably the worst we have. Regardless of that though my interest is more about the procedural issues with courts martial related to this case more than the case itself.
 
Senator is not synonymous with legal expert, and those two are probably the worst we have. Regardless of that though my interest is more about the procedural issues with courts martial related to this case more than the case itself.

:popcorn:

I am sure we will both be enlightened soon enough ...
 
I will wait for Mobboss to comment, but the article has some inconsistencies I would want an expert to look at.

As far as I know operational commanders have no say in courts martial cases, only non judicial punishment. It sounds like the General in question might be the judge as it says he "presided" over the case. There is nothing wrong with a judge throwing out evidence, this happens all the time especially in cases of improper chain of custody or seizure in both criminal or and military courts.

It would have been nice if the article had commented on what reason the evidence was deemed insufficient.

I'll give you exactly what the UCMJ says in regards to the process here, and my own points.

My first comment will be to say it is extremely rare for a convening authority (CA) (in this case LTG Franklin) to set aside the findings of a court martial like this. It also requires an exhaustive legal review by his advising JAG officer in order to ensure the CM procedure met regulatory guidance and to offer the CA advice on his courses of action (COA) he can take on the case.

Straight from the UCMJ, here is the entire chapter on what actions a CA may take:

860. ART. 60. ACTION BY THE CONVENING AUTHORITY

(a) the findings and sentence of a court-martial shall be reported promptly to the convening authority after the announcement of the sentence.
(b) (1) the accused may submit to the convening authority matters for consideration by the convening authority with respect to the findings and the sentence. Except in a summary court- martial case, such a submission shall be made within 10 days after the accused has been given an authenticated record of trial and, if applicable, the recommendation of the staff judge advocate or legal officer under subsection (d). In a summary court-martial case, such submission shall be made within seven days after the sentence is announced.
(2) If the accused shows that additional time is required for the accused to submit such matters, the convening authority or other person taking action under this section, for good cause, may extend the applicable period under paragraph (1) for not more than an additional 20 days.
(3) In a summary court-martial case, the accused shall be promptly provided a copy of the record of trial for use in preparing a submission authorized by paragraph (1).
(4) The accused may waive his right to make a submission to the convening authority under paragraph (1). Such a waiver must be made in writing and may not be revoked. For the purposes of subsection (c)(2), the time within which the accused may make a submission under this subsection shall be deemed to have expired upon the submission of such a waiver to the convening authority.
(c) (1) The authority under this section to modify the findings and sentence of a court-martial is a matter of command prerogative involving the sole discretion of the convening authority. Under regulations of the Secretary concerned, a commissioned officer commanding for the time being, a successor in command, or any person exercising general court-martial jurisdiction may act under this section in place of the convening authority.
(2) Action on the sentence of a court-martial shall be taken by the convening authority or by another person authorized to act under this section. Subject to regulations of the Secretary concerned, such action may be taken only after consideration of any matters submitted by the accused under subsection (b) or after the time for submitting such matters expires, whichever is earlier. The convening authority or other person taking such action, in his sole discretion, may approve, disapprove, commute, or suspend the sentence in whole or in part.
(3) Action on the findings of a court-martial by the convening authority or other person acting on the sentence is not required. However, such person, in his sole discretion, may--
(A) dismiss any charge or specification by setting aside a finding of guilty thereto; or
(B) change a finding of guilty to a charge or specification to a finding of guilty to an offense that is a lesser included offense of the offense stated in the charge or specification.
(d) Before acting under this section on any general court- martial case or any special court-martial case that includes a bad-conduct discharge, the convening authority or other person taking action under this section shall obtain and consider the written recommendation of his staff judge advocate or legal officer. The convening authority or other person taking action under this section shall refer the record of trial to his staff judge advocate or legal officer, and the staff judge advocate or legal officer shall use such record in the preparation of his recommendation. The recommendation of the staff judge advocate or legal officer shall include such matters as the President may prescribe by regulation and shall be served on the accused, who may submit any matter in response under subsection (b). Failure to object in the response to the recommendation or to any matter attached to the recommendation waives the right to object thereto.
(e) (1) The convening authority or other person taking action under this section, in his sole discretion, may order a proceeding in revision or a rehearing.
(2) A proceeding in revision may be ordered if there is an apparent error or omission in the record or if the record shows improper or inconsistent action by a court-martial with respect to the findings or sentence that can be rectified without material prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused. In no case, however, may a proceeding in revision--
(A) reconsider a finding of not guilty of any specification or a ruling which amounts to a finding of not guilty;
(B) reconsider a finding of not guilty of any charge, unless there has been a finding of guilty under a specification laid under that charge, which sufficiently alleges a violation of some article of this chapter; or
(C) increase the severity of some article of the sentence unless the sentence prescribed for the offense is mandatory.
(3) A rehearing may be ordered by the convening authority or other person taking action under this section if he disapproves the findings and sentence and states the reasons for disapproval of the findings. If such a person disapproves the findings and sentence and does not order a rehearing, he shall dismiss the charges. A rehearing as to the findings may not be ordered where there is a lack of sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings. A rehearing as to the sentence may be ordered if the convening authority or other person taken action under this subsection disapproves the sentence.

Of particlar interest to me would be the JAG officers legal review to the CA on this matter. The review itself may have found a substantial error in the Courts Martial Process that may have influenced the CA to make the decision he did. But without knowing its content, its extremely hard to speculate as to the basis of the CAs decision.

It also goes without saying that a commander that does this literally puts his own career on the line in such a decision. And that should be the case in every such decision. I know Form says i'm 'biased'; but I wouldnt hesistate at all in saying this General should be relieved and probably stripped of his own retirement if he overturned this court martials decision without some basis of logical reasoning we are not privy to (provided to him by his advising JAG officer).

In application, the power of the CA over the case is must like a Governors or Presidents ability in state or federal cases.

Indeed. The general wasn't directly involved. He "presided" over it because he is the CO.

Actually, the term is CA - Convening Authority.

Don't you think the court martial heard the evidence and ruled according?

No one in this thread will be able to ascertain this as we have no idea of the specifics found on the record of trial, or the ensuing JAG officer review that is required. Military courts martial do not often incur error, but it can happen.

As I mentioned, this sort of thing happening is extremely rare.

But calling a clearly biased Sergeant whose job is a legal clerk an "expert" is one the cutest things I've ever read in this forum. :lol:

Let me explain something to you. Its one of my primary jobs to handle Courts Martial matters (as mentioned in this story) from the very start (creation of charging documents) to the very end of closing matters and manage the entire record of trial. This is one of the very basic duties of a military paralegal serving in the criminal law section (as I have). I have done many of these over the course of my 26 year military career to the point where it is fairly rote for me to do so.

For you to comment thus would be the same as me referring to you as being inept in your own career (which I have never done to you). I dont mind calling you a subject matter expert in the career of your choosing albeit you dont refer to it very often; but aside from all the issues I have with you, you've never, EVER, once given me a reason to doubt your chosen expertise in your career. I'll have you know i'm probably even more of a subject matter expert in my chosen field than you are in yours; as I reached the pinnacle of responsibility in my chosen profession, and by my total years of service doing my job (26 years to be precise).

To simply sum up, all you accomplish is you show others how small and petty you truly are by saying such a comment about me and my chosen profession. If thats how you really like being seen, by all means continue your childish remarks about others in their chosen professions.
 
Forma is just jealous he isn't an expert, or passingly knowledgable, in anything he posts about. Maybe one day he will start a code thread or something. I am glad you took the time to explain the process.

So to me it seams like the courts martial is almost like a grand jury on crack, or rather one that doesn't just take testimony but also recommends judgement and sentencing and the CA can take or leave what results like a civilian judge? Maybe?

I seems like an archaic leftover from when commanders in the field away fro and out of communication were all powerful in their AOR, being the highest authority on everything including military law. Since we micromanage everything else under a commanders prevue these days why let him maintain power of this. Of all the things that should be separate this is it. If the CA thought the case was unfounded why convene the courts martial in the first place?
 
Forma is just jealous he isn't an expert, or passingly knowledgable, in anything he posts about. Maybe one day he will start a code thread or something. I am glad you took the time to explain the process.

So to me it seams like the courts martial is almost like a grand jury on crack, or rather one that doesn't just take testimony but also recommends judgement and sentencing and the CA can take or leave what results like a civilian judge? Maybe?

Actually, a Courts Martial carries the same weight upon conviction of any other court in the USA. Convictions are indeed considered the equal of felonies in civilian courts. And the results thereof can be appealed, just like civilian cases, all the way up to SCOTUS.

I seems like an archaic leftover from when commanders in the field away fro and out of communication were all powerful in their AOR, being the highest authority on everything including military law.

That is indeed part of the history of the ability to mitigate or set aside punishments. As I mentioned previously, the ability is not really unlike the power of a Governor to do the same exact thing via state law on a state violation.

Since we micromanage everything else under a commanders prevue these days why let him maintain power of this.

Largely because there is still such a provision for it in civilian law as well.

I think the basic question is do we want our senior level commanders to have this ability and also, in having it, have they actually abused it. Like I mentioned this very rarely happens; and when it does happen it receives a lot of scrutiny; just like this case has. If LTG Franklin can't justify this decision to his own boss (or others having pull on his career) his career is most likely over.

And its been my experience that the Air Force is far more serious about this type of thing than the other branches. They have a reputation for being ruthless on those that violate the UCMJ, so this is even more of a rarity among their ranks. If LTG Franklin cant give a good reason to his superiors for doing this, he may have to go before a Grade Determination Board upon his retirement, and could wind up losing a whole lot of retired pay and benefits.

Of all the things that should be separate this is it. If the CA thought the case was unfounded why convene the courts martial in the first place?

Again, the CA merely issues the order for the CM to be conducted (again) based upon the advice of the servicing JAG officer. He is simply given the basic facts as they are known, and the charges being preferred against the Officer in question. He cant predict what will be presented at trial, or even what the potential outcome will be. Aside from convening the CM itself, and taking final action based upon the record of trial and his own JAGs advice, his role in all of it is fairly minor. Think of it as the city Mayors relationship with his city prosecuting attorney....or maybe a Governors relationship with their Attorney General.

That being said, I think its an error to automatically assume this guys sentence was set aside merely because he was a 'hot shot' pilot. If it was, then LTG Franklin needs to be relieved of command and face a Grade Determination Board. If not, then the actual thinking behind this decision needs to be addressed.

seems the world is OK, afterall, no need to muddle things by civilian oversight.

What civilian oversight is there of a Governor giving a pardon along these same lines? Especially an outgoing Governor with nothing really to lose in doing it?
 
What civilian oversight is there of a Governor giving a pardon along these same lines? Especially an outgoing Governor with nothing really to lose in doing it?

that fact that there appears to be none, does not make a case for there being no civilian oversight of governors pardons, here a judicial process open to public scrutiny can quash a conviction, but few would agree with someone exercising their power to make individual decisions ...
 
There is still accountability of those decisions. For elected officials, they are still accountable to the citizenry that elected them; and to military commanders, to those appointed over them.

There is also a form of civilian oversight that you havent realized yet: FLag Officers such as LTG Franklin require senate confirmation for promotion and assignment. That is still a form of civilian oversight of our senior military leaders that perhaps you had not realized.
 
Oh hey, a thread about the us army and sexual assault.

Welp.
 
Senator is not synonymous with legal expert, and those two are probably the worst we have. Regardless of that though my interest is more about the procedural issues with courts martial related to this case more than the case itself.
Many senators happen to be actual attorneys, including Claire Haskell who is now spearheading the effort to try to repair the damage from this apparent miscarriage of justice. They are obviously far greater "experts" in the law than a clearly biased clerk who hasn't really stated anything that the articles haven't already covered. :crazyeye:

What is actually interesting in this particular case is that Mobboss is basically agreeing that a travesty of justice likely occurred, instead of trying to rationalize and defend the indefensible as usual.

And I think the word you are looking for above is "purview", not "prevue".
 
I'm not buying into the 'this must be a sexist baseless decision' thing too much, because although there is certainly the possibility that it could be, and although it would be much better for some actual reason to be given, chances are that there is some legitimate basis that puts the conviction into doubt.

Perhaps the bigger point is, all male jury? Seriously?
 
Top Bottom