Links

If North Korea collapses, thing will get ugly.

—–

Army recruiter shoots prospect/possible paramour, then self.

You’re there to put them in the Army, not the Army in them.

—–

That Air Force general that set aside a conviction for sexual assault?

He had his reasons.

From a conversation I had on the book of faces:

<<< Anyone truly interested in justice would have allowed the case to go through the US Armed Forces Court of Appeals,>>>

No. LTG Franklin had a duty to review the court martial, and either let the results stand, reduce the sentence, or set it aside. Failure to review the case would have been a dereliction of duty on his part.
Then, having conducted a review of the case, and finding reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty as charged, he further had an affirmative duty to set aside the conviction.

—–

It’s always a good time to kick the LCS program at CDR Salamander’s.

And courtesy of the good CDR, here’s a pretty cool Russian Navy vid.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4seSrFWEwlE]

7 thoughts on “Links”

  1. Regarding the DPRK scenario, don’t believe quite everything you read. “We” wouldn’t necessarily be “handling” the collapse of the regime.

    1. True. And like a lot of exercises, the “good guys” have the deck stacked against them in various ways. On purpose. Challenging the home team is kinda the whole point of the exercise.

  2. Anything North Korea does, including nothing at all, is going to be Roseanne-Barr-jello-wrestling-Rosie-O’Donnell ugly.

  3. I had a chance to talk with an active duty JAG and he outranks the CG of the case you describe. There are many things which he must consider in this situation. He may have had his own reasons for his actions, but was the UCMJ the basis for his decision, this is the real question. It was rather interesting to hear him answer the question. To be compliant with the UCMJ, yes, there are things that he should do, like review the case. But there are things that he could and should have done. You will be surprised with his final counsel, this is a paraphrase, but he agreed with it. He should have referred the case to the US Armed Forces Court of Appeals. Anything the CG said or did would make this case monumentally worse. Above all things, it does not settle the case. It is all based on old Military case law.

    1. You know a JAG that outranks a Lieutenant General? Really?
      1. Commanders have ALWAYS been required to review the results of courts martial. And they’ve always had the authority to let stand, reduce, or set aside the results of those proceedings. That is the entire point of the review.

      2. Having a duty to review the results of a court martial, and having found reasonable doubt that the officer charged was, in fact, guilty, LTG Franklin had a positive duty to set aside the conviction.

      We bash general officers/flag officers for their lack of moral leadership quite often here and around the milblogs. So when we see one that takes seriously his duty, we certainly should recognize it.

    2. He should have referred the case to the US Armed Forces Court of Appeals

      So passing the buck counts as moral leadership today? No. He is required to review it, and exercise his best judgment.

      . Anything the CG said or did would make this case monumentally worse.

      Like letting stand a conviction he believes to be unjust? This case stank to high heaven. It is not the duty of the general to refer a case to the MCA. It’s his duty to review the case. LTC Wilkerson has the option of appealing the results.

      Above all things, it does not settle the case.

      No, it settles it pretty damn well. The government had its shot at LTC Wilkerson. No double jeopardy. His conviction has been set aside.

      It is all based on old Military case law.

      Huh? Wut?

  4. Brad,

    I’d always heard of recruiters screwing enlistees over (never happened to me, my recruiter was 100% honest down the line), but I never realized it was so frequently literal.

Comments are closed.