Another Gross Miscarriage of Justice In The US Military?

[MobBoss]

well we have a procedure for it, and it is not just done on a whim, in fact being Australian, most of 'our' royalty, has a pardoned convict in our history, so yes I have given it some thought...

I dont think you have entirely. Consider the ability to mitigate punishment or pardon someone on death row. Take that away, and the person on death row possibly wont be able to receive a stay of execution at the last minute if necessary.

Or are you of the opinion that a pardon or mitigation in that instance is 'worthy'?

There is a reason why we put this ability in the hands of very senior leaders or elected officials. And it doesnt make our system 'incompetent' by any means of the definition.

well if your procedures are so prone to individual whims, it would be really hard to tell,one way or the other...

They arent. Or are you deliberately ignoring the small fact that it is extremely rare for this to occur?

thats the thing with procedures, every word in the decision making process is writen down, and availible for public reading....

Unless its protected priviledged information such as advice from your attorney. Here is something you might not realize - while there is such a thing as the Freedom of Information Act the contents of that information still have to conform to the Privacy Act. Which is precisely why we may never get to publically see the Generals JAG officer advice to him regarding the case. Its probably going to be covered under attorney/client priviledge.

most politicians, do it on their way out of public office, a sort of 'up your's' to their politcal opponents and a 'hello' to future employers, all part of the boys club...

Thats the most commonly seen; however, other public officials issue pardons all the time. I've actually seen a few issued by the Governor of Washington for soldiers in order to wipe domestic violence charges off their record and remove Launtenberg Act restrictions so the soldiers could deploy.

So, its not always on their way out. But such minor pardons arent really news stories, nor should they be.

here is a novel idea, if on some whim a fellow is not pardoned, due to the lack of procedures, it could cost him his career...

That would have been a gurantee in this case.

 

[MobBoss]

I honestly believe you do not see it, like others, it makes bringing change to the military boys club, so much harder

You do realize that the General that made this decision had more information about the case than any of the senators and certainly more information about it than anyone here commenting on it.

So, i'm not sure why you simply automatically assume this is some kind of 'boys club' mentality ongoing here. From what we know of the facts of the case that were in the OP is that it is basically a 'he said, she said' type of case, with the LTC's own wife testifying on her husbands behalf that he didnt leave his bedroom all night long.

Not knowing anything else of the testimony given; or what specific charges were levied in the case; its really hard to speculate on the reasons why this case turned out like it did.

There is also the fact that LTG Franklin could also have ordered a new trial; or finalized that one so that the appeal process could go foward (which is really the most common thing to occur in such a case).

I think its important for very senior commanders to still have the ability to pardon or mitigate convictions; whether they be judicial or non-judicial punishment - however, it comes at the cost of those doing so being held accountable themselves of the decisions they make as commanders. I dont see anything wrong with that honestly.

 

[Old Hippy]

I dont think you have entirely. Consider the ability to mitigate punishment or pardon someone on death row. Take that away, and the person on death row possibly wont be able to receive a stay of execution at the last minute if necessary.

slow down, I have repeatedly said a procedure should be in place, and as I understand it a stay of execution allows more time to allow courts to handle the precedures, it is not exactly a pardon like you would have me belive here,, more like I avocate, there is much to like in your system of civillian reviews, that I particully admire...

Or are you of the opinion that a pardon or mitigation in that instance is 'worthy'?

again you are far off the mark, instituting a set of judical procedures,as in your instance, allows for these type of events, as opposed to what the pollsters are saying in any particular week, so i would be of the opinion that "worthy" just becomes political speech for popular/vote catching...

There is a reason why we put this ability in the hands of very senior leaders or elected officials. And it doesnt make our system 'incompetent' by any means of the definition.

but see that is the point, LTG franklin is not an elected leader, and your elected officials are saying that he was incompetant... I see that you like to blurr the edges here, but it was an unelected official who just without explaining why, helped out one of the boys...

They arent. Or are you deliberately ignoring the small fact that it is extremely rare for this to occur?

well is it or is it just rare for senators to make a fuss... we really have no way of knowing without procedures that also have public records, I am sure military just don't let anyone troll through the paper work, like civillian court systems do...
and i would despute that it is rare for the millatary to put, tradition and expedency ahead of new codes of conduct, before it has fully adopted the civillian new age thinking on these matters...

Unless its protected priviledged information such as advice from your attorney. Here is something you might not realize - while there is such a thing as the Freedom of Information Act the contents of that information still have to conform to the Privacy Act. Which is precisely why we may never get to publically see the Generals JAG officer advice to him regarding the case. Its probably going to be covered under attorney/client priviledge.

special rules for the boys club... would you impeach a president with such secrecy as you defend sex offenders with a"nudge nudge wink wink" we do not have to pay any attention to {insert minority group}

Thats the most commonly seen; however, other public officials issue pardons all the time. I've actually seen a few issued by the Governor of Washington for soldiers in order to wipe domestic violence charges off their record and remove Launtenberg Act restrictions so the soldiers could deploy.

So, its not always on their way out. But such minor pardons arent really news stories, nor should they be.

I am sure many feminst groups, many people that hold the rule of law important, would be sure that, these are exactly the type of story that should be news... especially the fact that it is routinely done for domestic voilence charges... just look after everyone in the boys club...

That would have been a gurantee in this case.

far from it, in your world it appears that a gurantee of the sytem working to allow pardons and reviews of cases is taken as not likely ... else why would a senior officer risk his carreer to get one of the boys off

 

[Old Hippy]

You do realize that the General that made this decision had more information about the case than any of the senators and certainly more information about it than anyone here commenting on it.

So, i'm not sure why you simply automatically assume this is some kind of 'boys club' mentality ongoing here. From what we know of the facts of the case that were in the OP is that it is basically a 'he said, she said' type of case, with the LTC's own wife testifying on her husbands behalf that he didnt leave his bedroom all night long.

Not knowing anything else of the testimony given; or what specific charges were levied in the case; its really hard to speculate on the reasons why this case turned out like it did.

There is also the fact that LTG Franklin could also have ordered a new trial; or finalized that one so that the appeal process could go foward (which is really the most common thing to occur in such a case).

I think its important for very senior commanders to still have the ability to pardon or mitigate convictions; whether they be judicial or non-judicial punishment - however, it comes at the cost of those doing so being held accountable themselves of the decisions they make as commanders. I dont see anything wrong with that honestly.

my argument dose not need to know... just as your arguement does not need to know,as you have repeatedly said you don't know the details

if you think the USA should have courts that hide the reasons for their findings and make judments that just smooth things over for the boys club... you could make an arguement for that

See, I can see why a commander would need to have latitude for punishments, fines and falure of duty... he needs to keep the unit efficent and happy
But in your enthusiasm for the boys club code of conduct, you just extend it to sexual assault crimes, often at the expense of victums, would it be OK to let him off from bank robbing charges, where 2 old ladies were shot, just because he had a good record and the unit was to be deployed... the only difference is one of attitude to the crime, something the military is slow to catch up on.

 

[MobBoss]

but see that is the point, LTG franklin is not an elected leader, and your elected officials are saying that he was incompetant...

Less than a handful of senators isnt really proving anything. And fwiw, senior Generals, that is 3 and 4 star generals such as LTG Franklin, essetially carry the same weight under military law as governors do. These are typically very large regional commands with tens of thousands of troops under their command. For example, LTG Franklin, as the 3rd Air Force commander is the commader of all Air Force personnel in all of Europe and in Africa which consists of over 25,000 members. That is a huge area of command, and he is essentially a military governor over the commands found in that area of operation.

I see that you like to blurr the edges here, but it was an unelected official who just without explaining why, helped out one of the boys...

The ability for the military to convene courts martial is found in the constitution. It would take a constitutional amendment to take the ability to conduct courts martial away form the military.

That simply isnt going to happen over a single incident such as this.

well is it or is it just rare for senators to make a fuss... we really have no way of knowing without procedures that also have public records, I am sure military just don't let anyone troll through the paper work, like civillian court systems do...

Actually the Freedom of Information Act applies to the military just as it does to other federal records.

special rules for the boys club...

I cant stop you from seeing it this way if you choose to, despite the lack of evidence to support your viewpoint.

especially the fact that it is routinely done for domestic voilence charges... just look after everyone in the boys club...

Having personally worked to remove a vast number of soldiers and officers for domestic violence convictions, I can assure you, thats simply not the case.

... else why would a senior officer risk his carreer to get one of the boys off

Now THAT is the pertinent question here that no one knows the answer to.

if you think the USA should have courts that hide the reasons for their findings and make judments that just smooth things over for the boys club... you could make an arguement for that

You err in assuming the commander is part of the court. He isnt. His only role in the process is to convene the court (i.e. authorize it to occur). His role is more akin to what a state governor would be than anything else.

And just like a governor doesnt have to publish their thoughts on issuing a pardon, neither does a convening authority have to. They are indeed still responsible for the act - for it is an act of command authority to do this, and all actions of command are suspect to overview by their own superior commanders.

 

[Old Hippy]

Less than a handful of senators isnt really proving anything. And fwiw, senior Generals, that is 3 and 4 star generals such as LTG Franklin, essetially carry the same weight under military law as governors do. These are typically very large regional commands with tens of thousands of troops under their command. For example, LTG Franklin, as the 3rd Air Force commander is the commader of all Air Force personnel in all of Europe and in Africa which consists of over 25,000 members. That is a huge area of command, and he is essentially a military governor over the commands found in that area of operation.

The ability for the military to convene courts martial is found in the constitution. It would take a constitutional amendment to take the ability to conduct courts martial away form the military.That simply isnt going to happen over a single incident such as this.

So you actually support the idea that a someone should just be able to, on a whim overide a military court... strange

See I actually thought it was me making the argument for courts operating under the Constitution, while you were making the argument, for someone to just not accept it..

I would have thought as a military man you would want clear and 'known' procedures in place just so if the sh/t hit the fan, you could trust the system... instead you advocate for a system that relies on someone intervening for no known reason, despite the application of the good old USA justice system, back by the Constitution that you swore an oath to uphold... strange

it must lose something when translated into 'Ocker'

Actually the Freedom of Information Act applies to the military just as it does to other federal records.

except here in this case where 'nobody' knows anything... except the person who is not telling, absoulutly the way to run a judicial system...

I cant stop you from seeing it this way if you choose to, despite the lack of evidence to support your viewpoint.

you can not be that forgetfull, there are issues dealing with the military's slow aceptance for change in relation to females/gays/sexual harrassement/bastization going back at least 30 years

Having personally worked to remove a vast number of soldiers and officers for domestic violence convictions, I can assure you, thats simply not the case.

well just thank your lucky stars no one just felt like LTG franklin...

Now THAT is the pertinent question here that no one knows the answer to.

True but it would not be necessary if the propper procedures/rules/traditions/codes of conduct/duty, were in place, something the military usually just 'loves', except when it intrudes on the boys club... then it tends to move like a mule trian

 

[Camikaze]

Was there nothing wrong with an innocent fictional black character being convicted of rape by a clearly racist all-white jury in the Deep South back when racism was pervasive?

Is that really your question here?

Do you really think it pertains at all to what occurred here?

It shows pretty clearly that the demographic constitution of a jury does matter, quite a lot. If you're arguing that the military can be a bit of a boys club and doesn't take sexual assault seriously enough, then trying an individual in front of a group of similarly minded male peers is hardly the right way to go about fixing the problem. It strikes me as completely out of touch that in this day and age, the military would still have juries akin to the all-white juries of yesteryear.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I seriously doubt there is any plan on their part to only select white male officers for court martial cases, much less for those which involve sexual assault of females. It is a completely absurd analogy, especially in this case where the 5 male officers did indeed find him guilty of sexual assault. You could certainly argue that his sentence was far too lenient. That a civilian judge would have likely imprisoned him for longer than a year. But that is a different matter than proving his guilt, and then having it arbitrarily and peremptorily overturned by a general with no apparent specific education or expertise in the law.

 

[MobBoss]

So you actually support the idea that a someone should just be able to, on a whim overide a military court... strange

No, thats not what I am saying at all. The difference is you think this was done simply on a 'whim' while there is simply no proof of that at all.

What I am saying is this: There is nothing wrong with having a pardon/mitigation ability for very senior leaders/executives as long the office itself is held accountable for exercising that ability. Which by all accounts it certainly is.

If you dont think our most senior leaders are capable of making such decisions after decades of shown leadeship ability, then I dont know what to say.

See I actually thought it was me making the argument for courts operating under the Constitution, while you were making the argument, for someone to just not accept it..

Its not you since what you seem to be arguing against has its foundation in the constitution. You're not american, so perhaps your just unaware?

I would have thought as a military man you would want clear and 'known' procedures in place just so if the sh/t hit the fan, you could trust the system...

I do. I even posted those 'clear and known' procedures for actions by a convening authority per the UCMJ in this thread earliler. You know, the actual regulation that gives 'clear and known' instruction for this in the first place.

Did you miss that?

instead you advocate for a system that relies on someone intervening for no known reason

No. You might not know the reason - that doesnt mean there wasnt one.

despite the application of the good old USA justice system, back by the Constitution that you swore an oath to uphold... strange

What's strange is you seem to be fairly ignorant of military regulation and how much of this has its foundation in the US constitution.

Again, i'm the person thats arguing from a regulatory and constitutional point - not you. This action by this General actually conforms to the binding law and regulation covering the situation.

except here in this case where 'nobody' knows anything... except the person who is not telling, absoulutly the way to run a judicial system...

Actually, there is plenty that is not withheld. I'm sure the entire record of trial can be had for someone willing to make the FOIA request for it.

Your derision comes from ignorance of how it all works, i'm afraid. I'd say the fact that this is an extremely rare occurance actually speaks to the system working as opposed to not. Just because someone pardons someone you dont approve of doesnt mean the ability to pardon should be withdrawn from everyone that is able to employ it.

you can not be that forgetfull, there are issues dealing with the military's slow aceptance for change in relation to females/gays/sexual harrassement/bastization going back at least 30 years

Perhaps its learned its lessons from history - quick change usually leads to big systemic problems that take decades to fix.

well just thank your lucky stars no one just felt like LTG franklin...

I've mentioned several times now this is an extremely rare situation.

True but it would not be necessary if the propper procedures/rules/traditions/codes of conduct/duty, were in place

Actually, proper procedures/rules/traditions/codes/etc. are indeed in place. I even posted them earlier in this thread.

something the military usually just 'loves', except when it intrudes on the boys club... then it tends to move like a mule trian

At this point i'm pretty sure your simply rambling with no real argument except to mutter 'boys club' every now and then. I've countered every point you've made, and you've yet to actually support your premise of why no senior official should be able to pardon or mitigate a sentence once a conviction is achieved.

 

[MobBoss]

It shows pretty clearly that the demographic constitution of a jury does matter, quite a lot. If you're arguing that the military can be a bit of a boys club and doesn't take sexual assault seriously enough, then trying an individual in front of a group of similarly minded male peers is hardly the right way to go about fixing the problem. It strikes me as completely out of touch that in this day and age, the military would still have juries akin to the all-white juries of yesteryear.

Just a quick thought for you to consider. Military jury panel selection requires that the panel members be senior in grade/time in service to the individual being tried. Also, there is a jury selection/voir dire process just like there is in civilian/criminal trials. If this jury contained all males, then it was because both the prosecution and defense agreed to it.

Just as an aside, let me float this premise to you as well. In a case like this, it may have been beneficial for the defense to have added a woman to the jury. Why you ask? A woman may have given more weight to testimony of the officers wife; while perhaps giving a more critical eye of the victims testimony in general (i.e. the he said/she said nature of the case) whereas a male officer might not. My point being this: in the military, often male officers adopt a 'zero tolerance' mindset where even the allegation of wrongdoing sets the precedent of guilt regardless of what evidence is offered. I've seen it - they essentially make up their mind in regarding guilt and then no amount of evidence after that fact will convince them otherwise.

Perhaps that is what the CA may have perceived based upon his JAG officers advise of the record of trial. Maybe not.

I know people, especially civilians, like to buy into the 'boys club' thing in regarding the military, and to some extent its perfectly true - especially in all male units in the Army and (I would think) in the Marine Corps. But this is the Air Force we are talking about here - and they generally have a much larger female population than other branches and have the lowest 'boys club' mentality of any of the military branches. I mean, they were allowing female combat pilots for a long while now far earlier than any other service branch. And fwiw, in my own career, i've never seen any 'boys club' mentality in military justice actions - probably the opposite in fact. I've seen far more of the 'zero tolerance' attitude in such panels than anything else (especially where drug use is concerned).

 

[PhroX]

I don't know about the exact details of why this man was pardoned - there may even be an proper reason - but the idea of a pardon from an individual in any way, military or civilian, worries me. I don't know the exact ways in which the US military runs legal matters, but it seems to me that if there is a legitimate reason for the pardon, then it should be brought before a court in a retrial/appeal. If the CA felt that there were issues with the trial, or if he had evidence that wasn't presented at the trial, then rather than just letting the convicted man get off effectively scott-free with no oversight, he should have had it re-run.

If there is confidential information that absolutely cannot be revealed to the general public, then at least a decision like this should have proper oversight from legal experts and other ranking officers. Maybe it did, but based on the available information, it appears that this was just this Franklin fellow deciding on his own, maybe with some advice. To pardon a man convicted of sexual assault should not be, or be seen to be, the action of a single individual (and again, I would say exactly the same for a civilian in power doing this). If there was proper oversight, then the Air Force should make it clear that this was the case, and that it was impossible to retry the accused with the new evidence or whatever (albeit without revealing the exact details why due to confidentiality and all that).

 

[Patroklos]

so codiefied that it brings us back to the OP
or

etc.etc.etc.

I don't know, just where is this individule whim idea coming from...

there are lots of stupid people in this world, I would be distressed you have he same opinion as them on this topic if I were you.

I honestly believe you do not see it, like others, it makes bringing change to the military boys club, so much harder

So now not only are we assuming there was no justification for this decision based on nothing, now we are assuming nefarious sexist motives based on nothing to? Do you think such accusations bolster you faulting position ?

 

[Formaldehyde]

there are lots of stupid people in this world, I would be distressed you have he same opinion as them on this topic if I were you.

It doesn't seem to bother you much on numerous topics, if at all.

So now not only are we assuming there was no justification for this decision based on nothing, now we are assuming nefarious sexist motives based on nothing to? Do you think such accusations bolster you faulting position ?

You mean much like numerous senators, and even the ex-Secretary of Defense?

 

[Patroklos]

So just in case you didn't realize what you did there Jester, you just punted on addressing your dispicable guilt assumption in order to name drop. It's like you can't help telegraphing your insecurity in your position.

Can we play poker? Pretty Please?

 

[otago]

So does Hagel have the authority to overturn the absolute right of commanders to find fellow pilots not guilty ?

((I believe this case does raise a significant question whether it is necessary or appropriate to place the convening authority in the position of having the responsibility to review the findings and sentence of a court-martial, particularly prior to the robust appellate process made available by the UCMJ)

http://www.stripes.com/news/hagel-orders-review-of-ucmj-after-wilkerson-sex-assault-case-1.211333

 

[Old Hippy]

there are lots of stupid people in this world, I would be distressed you have he same opinion as them on this topic if I were you.



So now not only are we assuming there was no justification for this decision based on nothing, now we are assuming nefarious sexist motives based on nothing to? Do you think such accusations bolster you faulting position ?

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel seems to be one of them
as otago pointed out...

In a March 7 letter written to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., one of several senators who have expressed outrage over the case of Lt. Col. James Wilkerson, Hagel said he had ordered the probe into the decision by Air Force Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin to dismiss Wilkerson’s sexual assault conviction and reinstate him to the Air Force.

“I believe this case does raise a significant question whether it is necessary or appropriate to place the convening authority in the position of having the responsibility to review the findings and sentence of a court-martial, particularly prior to the robust appellate process made available by the UCMJ,” Hagel wrote.

this is not a problem just with the US, its a problem for all the military Instititions of all countries are now having to deal with it...
Australia has had similar problems with old entrenched attitutdes just not measuring up to post 1970's standards of civil societies...

 

[Old Hippy]

At this point i'm pretty sure your simply rambling with no real argument except to mutter 'boys club' every now and then. I've countered every point you've made, and you've yet to actually support your premise of why no senior official should be able to pardon or mitigate a sentence once a conviction is achieved.

at this point i am fairly sure nothing would cause you to question you superiors or the 'code', even when we do know what happened...

In overruling the jury’s verdict, Franklin, himself a fighter pilot, had disregarded the recommendation of his staff lawyer, who had advised him that defense claims of legal errors in the court-martial were “without merit.”

The adviser, Col. Joseph Bialke, recommended that Franklin approve Lt. Col. James Wilkerson’s conviction but modify his sentence to double his time in prison from one to two years and also reverse his dismissal from the service.

Reversing the dismissal would have allowed Wilkerson and his family to collect retirement pay and benefits.

Instead, Franklin’s decision matched the advice from Wilkerson’s defense lawyer, Frank Spinner.

“(T)he findings of guilty should be set aside and dismissed because the government failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” Spinner wrote to Franklin, Third Air Force commander and the authority who convened Wilkerson’s court-martial.

“The law gives you, personally, tremendous power to do justice,” said Spinner’s letter, a copy of which was reviewed by Stars and Stripes.

“I challenge you to do the right thing for the right reason.”

Court-martial convening authorities may overturn verdicts or reduce sentences “for any reason or no reason,” according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, although tossing out a conviction is exceedingly rare.

Franklin dismissed the case because he had “concluded that the entire body of evidence was insufficient to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” according to a written statement from the Third Air Force.

“We appealed to his conscience,” Spinner said Monday.

“I believe he was not personally convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of Lt. Col. Wilkerson’s guilt. I don’t know why people can’t respect that

it might be rare, but it supports the postition that the way you personally, do your job is just not good enough to not allow superior people to be allowed to just strike out the work that you personally do... on a whim...

I would find this lack of trust in oneself and the system ... umm, draconian in the least

I also find it strange that you would not want to improve the good practices of the great institution of the US military, when as you say, 'a rare', event comes to light...

 

[Patroklos]

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel seems to be one of them
as otago pointed out...


this is not a problem just with the US, its a problem for all the military Instititions of all countries are now having to deal with it...
Australia has had similar problems with old entrenched attitutdes just not measuring up to post 1970's standards of civil societies...

No, Hagel agrees with me in that he did not automatically denounce anyone or assume impropriety on anyone's part and instead wants to know what the reason for the action was and is totally prepared to fire the General or absolve him based on what he finds. You know, a logical and mature approach.

That puts him and I in stark contrast to you and Sen Boxer who have a knee jerk assumption of guilt reaction based on nothing. But hey, keep ranting about the "old boys" or whatever, I am sure it will take you far in life

As to your unlinked article above I don't trust it until you provide a link as it contradicts what Mobboss said concering the CA's authority, ie he can "pardon" or reduce sentancing but can't convict or increase sentencing (just like the US Presiden). Moboss, can you clarify?

I note you are not OUTRAGED that the General might have increased his sentence despite the ruling of a court! Is that so?

 

[Old Hippy]

No, Hagel agrees with me in that he did not automatically denounce anyone or assume impropriety on anyone's part and instead wants to know what the reason for the action was and is totally prepared to fire the General or absolve him based on what he finds. You know, a logical and mature approach.

That puts him and I in stark contrast to you and Sen Boxer who have a knee jerk assumption of guilt reaction based on nothing. But hey, keep ranting about the "old boys" or whatever, I am sure it will take you far in life

As to your unlinked article above I don't trust it until you provide a link as it contradicts what Mobboss said concering the CA's authority, ie he can "pardon" or reduce sentancing but can't convict or increase sentencing (just like the US Presiden). Moboss, can you clarify?

first off, my assumption of guilt is based on the confidence I have in the US justice system, which I acutally extend to the US military...
that they can do something right.

as for the link it was otago's and you might find it interesting...

http://www.stripes.com/news/hagel-orders-review-of-ucmj-after-wilkerson-sex-assault-case-1.211333

if it is not too left wing for you

I note you are not OUTRAGED that the General might have increased his sentence despite the ruling of a court! Is that so?

well if you read it,

The adviser, Col. Joseph Bialke, recommended that Franklin approve Lt. Col. James Wilkerson’s conviction but modify his sentence to double his time in prison from one to two years and also reverse his dismissal from the service

it was recommended to allow him to keep his retirement benifits,so look after the good old boys again ... it was not intended as any form of punishment, but as a reward for their mate!!!

 

[MobBoss]

I would find this lack of trust in oneself and the system ... umm, draconian in the least

Actually, pardon/mitigation is part of the system, in order to have trust in it (the system) one needs to accept the fact that pardons/mitigations are part of it and will occur from time to time.

I also find it strange that you would not want to improve the good practices of the great institution of the US military, when as you say, 'a rare', event comes to light...

Similar situations occur (probably more so) in civilian/criminal court. I dont hear you clamoring about improving that.

Anyway, again, 1 instance out of tens of thousands of cases simply isnt proof the system needs 'improving' at all.