Judge: Obama Comments 'Unlawful Command Influence'

[mistercrabby]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...ts-unlawful-command-influence.html?ESRC=eb.nl


Stupid ruling or should the CINC have known and chosen his words more carefully? Or another example of military culture giving a pass to sexual predation?

My opinion is that sexual abuse prosecution has been lax in the military (and in general) and needs top priority. Our men and women in uniform need protection from predators and military leadership and culture need to step up and make that happen. I agree with the President's statement on this 100%.

It's the height of irony that its now being used to opposite effect by whom, a military court!

Would seem to add weight to the call for civilian intervention.

Wutcha think?

 

[Nintendesert]

We have a bigger problem with sexual predators in our elementary schools than we do the military. Keep on derping it up though.

 

[Zargon]

heaven forbid the president respect innocent until proven guilty rather than spout off wanting servere penalties pre-trial


though I have no idea wtf the case is, but it technically shouldnt matter due to presumption of innocence

 

[waggy]

We have a bigger problem with sexual predators in our elementary schools than we do the military. Keep on derping it up though.

what a fucking idiotic response. Since there is a another issue at a different place we can't talk about the other? ugh.

 

[mistercrabby]

what a fucking idiotic response. Since there is a another issue at a different place we can't talk about the other? ugh.

yep. and i did say (and in general)...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Personally I think this is a silly ruling. It seems like a huge reach to me to conclude that the President's general remarks about how sexual assault should be handled in the service can be read as unlawful command influence over any particular case. I do applaud the defense counsel who conceived the argument, though - I suspect most JAGs would not have even thought to raise it.

 

[TerryMathews]

I agree, it crossed the line when he said "I expect consequences..."

The president might be able to say that in certain situations. The commander in chief should not as it presupposes guilt and sentencing.

It might be unreasonable to assume every military member read his comments. The officers that would be convened for a court martial? More likely they read or heard about it.

A bad case of open mouth, insert foot.

 

[Jaskalas]

“The bottom line is: I have no tolerance for this,” Obama said, according to an NBC News story submitted as evidence by defense attorneys in the sexual assault cases.

‘I expect consequences,” Obama added. “So I don’t just want more speeches or awareness programs or training, but ultimately folks look the other way. If we find out somebody’s engaging in this, they’ve got to be held accountable -- prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period.”

Fascinating...

Being as this is quite the legal dispute and this is the first I've heard of it, I'm at a loss for comment. Not really sure where to stand on this notion that the President exerted unlawful influence or command via a public speech.

I could defend him saying he was speaking generally and not of any specific case.

 

[crownjules]

heaven forbid the president respect innocent until proven guilty rather than spout off wanting servere penalties pre-trial

The President's words to me do not imply that he wants that, which is why I disagree with this judge's ruling. He's saying that training and speeches and awareness haven't made a difference. So he wants people found guilty of it to face severe consequences in the hope that deters further such crimes.

 

[fskimospy]

Fascinating...

Being as this is quite the legal dispute and this is the first I've heard of it, I'm at a loss for comment. Not really sure where to stand on this notion that the President exerted unlawful influence or command via a public speech.

I could defend him saying he was speaking generally and not of any specific case.

I imagine this will be overturned on appeal, it's really hard for me to see how Obama's statement is any different than countless ones officials make about all kinds of misconduct all the time.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I imagine this will be overturned on appeal, it's really hard for me to see how Obama's statement is any different than countless ones officials make about all kinds of misconduct all the time.

I'm not sure either way. Replace President with supreme head of the military and we now we aren't looking at just an official. It could be seen as potentially creating an situation where impartiality is problematic. Is that really the case? I don't think we know. Obama should have been a lawer in thinking, not a politician. There were other ways to express things, and wvery word Obama says carries the weight of office.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm not sure either way. Replace President with supreme head of the military and we now we aren't looking at just an official. It could be seen as potentially creating an situation where impartiality is problematic. Is that really the case? I don't think we know. Obama should have been a lawer in thinking, not a politician. There were other ways to express things, and wvery word Obama says carries the weight of office.

That's all true in theory, but in practice I doubt his statement affects the judgment of those at the lower level. Even for those who actually heard it, which was probably the minority, it is quite clear that he was making a political statement to the press, not issuing a direct military order. When are military orders issued by way of statements to the press?

 

[woolfe9998]

I agree, it crossed the line when he said "I expect consequences..."

The president might be able to say that in certain situations. The commander in chief should not as it presupposes guilt and sentencing.

It might be unreasonable to assume every military member read his comments. The officers that would be convened for a court martial? More likely they read or heard about it.

A bad case of open mouth, insert foot.

Obama's remark did not "presuppose guilt." It was prefaced with "if we find that people are engaging in this." The statement could be criticized for specifying a particular consequence when in fact the system leaves the consequence as a matter of judicial or jury discretion. But he wasn't presupposing guilt.

 

[sandorski]

Obama's remark did not "presuppose guilt." It was prefaced with "if we find that people are engaging in this." The statement could be criticized for specifying a particular consequence when in fact the system leaves the consequence as a matter of judicial or jury discretion. But he wasn't presupposing guilt.

How can anyone have missed that part?

 

[TerryMathews]

Obama's remark did not "presuppose guilt." It was prefaced with "if we find that people are engaging in this." The statement could be criticized for specifying a particular consequence when in fact the system leaves the consequence as a matter of judicial or jury discretion. But he wasn't presupposing guilt.

How can anyone have missed that part?

Hmmm. How could that judge?

 

[sandorski]

Hmmm. How could that judge?

Good question.

 

[woolfe9998]

Good question.

Because guilt or innocence was not the issue in the case. This was a case where people who were already found guilty were facing a hearing not on criminal penalty but on what should happen with their military status, which is a separate issue. The judge ruled that Obama's remark had essentially pre-judged the outcome of that process as dishonorable or bad conduct discharge. The court did not rule that his remark pre-judged guilt, only that it pre-judged a particular consequence of guilt.

 

[Nintendesert]

what a fucking idiotic response. Since there is a another issue at a different place we can't talk about the other? ugh.

The idiocy started in the first post on the false premise that somehow the military is lax on sexual assault.

Maybe you should open your brain a little and see the similarities in organizations that have a mentor/pupil setup and realize the military isn't even close to being at the top for misconduct.

 

[mistercrabby]

OK, my vote is we eliminate sexual misconduct whereever its found without respect to what organization or segment of society is arguably most out of control with it.

That's still not the point of the post.