Obama's big mouth again...

[Perd Hapley]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/us/obama-remark-is-complicating-military-trials.html?hp

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.

  

[roo_ster]

The military was already rife with the authoritarian mindset from the right.  Sort of expected.  Now, it has the worst leftist and right wing authoritarianism, as well as a stalinist PC speech code enshrining the latest leftist social engineering.  Sort of a martial crap and vomit sandwich.

But others said it was hard not to see the potent meaning in Mr. Obama’s remarks, particularly on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are contemplating making dishonorable discharge an automatic punishment for convicted offenders.

Keep it up, Congress, and you won't find anyone but gutter trash to fill the ranks and officer a worthless hollow force.  Hard to suggest the military as a serious option when they will ruin you with a dishonorable discharge off the bat for violating Donna Shalala's sensibilities.

Also, I will risk committing the crime of "Noticing Things"(1) by "Doing The Math"(2) in the latest military sexual harassment report touted by the Usual Suspects. 
1. Looking at the percentages of men & women sexually harassed (by the report's definition), more men are actually sexually harassed than women.
2. No where in the report or in the media is there any curiosity of who is doing that harassing or why.


(1) & (2) are very likely to invite charges of racism, sexism, and "Well, that tells me more about you than the sexual harassers..."

[Scout26]

But, but, but....we were told by the leftists that integrating women in the Armed Services wouldn't be a problem.


Yep, let's put a bunch of 18-20somethings together of both sexes and everyone will behave like they're in a monastery.    

[HankB]

The military was already rife with the authoritarian mindset from the right.  Sort of expected.  Now, it has the worst leftist and right wing authoritarianism, as well as a stalinist PC speech code enshrining the latest leftist social engineering.  Sort of a martial crap and vomit sandwich . . .

The current kerfluffle about sexism in the military isn't the only problem.

From the outside looking it, it sometimes appears as if the JAG corps has been thoroughly subverted - it seems that even in combat zones, the REMFs seem to be focused on prosecuting soldiers who shoot back too much when in combat and the alleged bad treatment of terrorists. Then when their legal actions can't proceed the way they want, they  lament the dearth of witnesses to their persecutions, complaining that soldiers in the field seem to have more loyalty to their comrades-in-arms than to their Pentagon-based commmand structure.

And then consider the case of Major Nidal - three years after the fact, and the trial STILL  hasn't begun. POTUS considers his actions (shouting "Allah Akbar" whilst gunning down unarmed soldiers) to be workplace violence rather than terrorism. And the "issue" or whether the major should shave or not consumed months of time.  

This is sheer buffoonery in the command structure. And we all know who's at the top.

[vaskidmark]

It is not difficult to think that Obama has absolutely no conception of the extent of his position as Commander in Chief - all he probably  knows is that he gets to say where to put the toy soldiers on the family room floor.  But he is surrounded by all sorts of handlers who aresupposed to know what being CiC means and what happens when Obama opens his mouth about anything having to do with the military.

The sad truth is that his handlers have, since the beginning, either not handled him or have been part and parcel of the plan to govern by whim.

stay safe.

[Scout26]

It is not difficult to think that Obama has absolutely no conception of the extent of his position as Commander in Chief - all he probably  knows is that he gets to say where to put the toy soldiers on the family room floor.  But he is surrounded by all sorts of handlers who aresupposed to know what being CiC means and what happens when Obama opens his mouth about anything having to do with the military.

The sad truth is that his handlers have, since the beginning, either not handled him or have been part and parcel of the plan to govern by whim.

stay safe.

Or since they are all avowed leftists with nothing but loathing for anything military, they are just as clueless as their boss. 

[zxcvbob]

It's really pretty simple.  Obama has no respect for the office he holds -- *any* aspect of the office he holds.

[Tallpine]

It's really pretty simple.  Obama has no respect for the office he holds -- *any* aspect of the office he holds.

The Office of Emporer 

[Levant]

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.

This is the biggest crop of excrement I have ever heard.  Obama said the truth in this.  IT is already the law.  The boss saying what the law is does not taint the case.  If Holder, or any attorney general, says rapists need to be sent to prison, does that somehow mean that all rape cases are tainted?

This is just going to be another, in a history of such excuses, for the military to let sexual assault and even rape go unpunished.  To assume that a military courts marshall cannot distinguish between political commentary and orders is ludicrous.

Because Presidents Bush and Black Bush have both said we need to prosecute terrorists must we now let all terrorists go free?

Response to these comments are not something you can blame Obama for. 

[Scout26]

Actually no.  In this case the Commander in Chief has already stated that those accused should be punished.   Once a case is referred to Courts Martial, the commander has to STFU so as not influence the court.  (The jury being composed of those who work for the commander.) 

There's a huge difference between saying we need to prosecute (that simply means convene a trial to determine guilt) vs. proscribing punishment before any evidence is presented.  ("prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged.")  3 of those 5 are punishments.  1 and 3 are the same thing.

He has stated what he wants to happen in these trials.  And he's the CINC.  That's undue command influence.   Art. 37 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
ART. 37. UNLAWFULLY INFLUENCING ACTION OF COURT
   
(a) No authority convening a general, special, or summary court-martial, nor any other commanding officer, may censure, reprimand, or admonish the court or any member, military judge, or counsel thereof, with respect to the findings or sentence adjudged by the court, or with respect to any other exercises of its or his functions in the conduct of the proceedings. No person subject to this chapter may attempt to coerce or, by any unauthorized means, influence the action of a court-martial or any other military tribunal or any member thereof, in reaching the findings or sentence in any case, or the action of any convening, approving, or reviewing authority with respect to his judicial acts. The foregoing provisions of the subsection shall not apply with respect to

    (1) general instructional or informational courses in military justice if such courses are designed solely for the purpose of instructing members of a command in the substantive and procedural aspects of courts-martial, or

    (2) to statements and instructions given in open court by the military judge, president of a special court-martial, or counsel.

(b) In the preparation of an effectiveness, fitness, or efficiency report on any other report or document used in whole or in part for the purpose of determining whether a member of the armed forces is qualified to be advanced, in grade, or in determining the assignment or transfer of a member of the armed forces or in determining whether a member of the armed forces should be retained on active duty, no person subject to this chapter may, in preparing any such report (1) consider or evaluate the performance of duty of any such member, as counsel, represented any accused before a court-martial.