Hagel: Obama Words on Sex Assault "umwarranted influence"

[Officer of Engineers]

How is that a sex crime?

Fractinization in the Field.

The context here is sex crimes, unwanted advances of sexual connotation or rape. By the way, how did your premier get involved in that? Was it undue influence?

No one political got involved. It was reported and then it was automatic.

How that happeened was the fault of the local commanders for allowing such an absurd situation to happen. they could have ignore it or do a non judicial discipline but somebody along the chain of command want it to happen.

No one else in the Field was allowed to fractinize. But it was a pain in the ass. They got what they deserve but we lost two very good people in the Field and have to spend time dealing with this crap while we were trying to get the locals to stop shooting at each other.

[Blademaster]

Fractinization in the Field.

No one political got involved. It was reported and then it was automatic.

No one else in the Field was allowed to fractinize. But it was a pain in the ass. They got what they deserve but we lost two very good people in the Field and have to spend time dealing with this crap while we were trying to get the locals to stop shooting at each other.

What happened to the thinking that "Officers are automatons but thinking people"? It is readily apparent that officers involved in the disciplining were acting under orders and following the law and not allowed to think or exercise prudent judgment. Either the officers were not allowed or refused to exercise their discretion.

Let's bring that back to our topic at hand here. Obama said that rapes and forcible unwanted sexual advances must not be tolerated and must be stamped out. Is it so wrong to follow that order or are you so afraid of repeating the episode that you just cited that you would allow the rapes and forcible unwanted sexual advances to proceeds?

I want to know which one is it and then we can proceed from there.

[Officer of Engineers]

Either the officers were not allowed or refused to exercise their discretion.

You're ignoring the bureaucracy. Once JAG got involved, they got their own little empire to protect and their Officers have to be promoted too.

Let's bring that back to our topic at hand here. Obama said that rapes and forcible unwanted sexual advances must not be tolerated and must be stamped out. Is it so wrong to follow that order or are you so afraid of repeating the episode that you just cited that you would allow the rapes and forcible unwanted sexual advances to proceeds?

I'm saying the Queen's Rules and the UCMJ should be the guiding principal, not the President's nor the Colonel-In-Chief's personal beliefs.

[Blademaster]

You're ignoring the bureaucracy. Once JAG got involved, they got their own little empire to protect and their Officers have to be promoted too.

I'm saying the Queen's Rules and the UCMJ should be the guiding principal, not the President's nor the Colonel-In-Chief's personal beliefs.

Well if the Queen's rules and UCMJ fall short on protecting the soldiers from rapes or unwanted sexual advances, a far more serious situation than holding hands, then I fail to see that how we should adhere stridently to the UCMJ.

Let me ask you this? Are we not doing enough to enforce the Queen's rules or UCMJ? If it is not, then Obama's comments can be rightfully interpreted as doing more to follow the UCMJ than exercising undue influence upon the judiciary process.

[Officer of Engineers]

Well if the Queen's rules and UCMJ fall short on protecting the soldiers from rapes or unwanted sexual advances, a far more serious situation than holding hands, then I fail to see that how we should adhere stridently to the UCMJ.

The other side of this is how many women uses the threat of sexual charges to get what they want. There are women who deliberately get pregnant just to avoid deployment.

It is not as simple as rape.

Let me ask you this? Are we not doing enough to enforce the Queen's rules or UCMJ? If it is not, then Obama's comments can be rightfully interpreted as doing more to follow the UCMJ than exercising undue influence upon the judiciary process.

I don't know. I don't have the statistics but it is not Obama's place to order punishment to the fullest extent of the law. That is the pre-orgative of the judge and jury.

[Blademaster]

The other side of this is how many women uses the threat of sexual charges to get what they want. There are women who deliberately get pregnant just to avoid deployment.

It is not as simple as rape.

I don't know. I don't have the statistics but it is not Obama's place to order punishment to the fullest extent of the law. That is the pre-orgative of the judge and jury.

Yes Obama can just as the same way the DoJ can request and order punishment to the fullest extent of the law for convictions of federal crimes. Ever hear of mandatory minimum sentencing?

[Officer of Engineers]

That is not the same as Mandatory Maximum sentencing.

[Blademaster]

That is not the same as Mandatory Maximum sentencing.

Then what are laws that mandated life without parole, or sentencing with no paroles allowed? We have those and they have been held up by the Supreme Court.

[Officer of Engineers]

If I am correct, the death penalty is the maximum sentence in the US and do note that the courts do practice charging lesser crimes (manslaughter vs murder) in plea barginings. What Obama effectively stated is that such will not be allowed.

[Blademaster]

If I am correct, the death penalty is the maximum sentence in the US and do note that the courts do practice charging lesser crimes (manslaughter vs murder) in plea barginings. What Obama effectively stated is that such will not be allowed.

that is no different from the DOJ saying to the judge or defense we will not accept plea bargains for less than this and that. If you don't like it go to trial and get the maximum worst.

[Officer of Engineers]

That is EXACTLY how the Defence is now wording this. In effect, there is no difference between a trial abnd plea bargining.

[Blademaster]

That is EXACTLY how the Defence is now wording this. In effect, there is no difference between a trial abnd plea bargining.

That argument doesn't hold up in the civilian courts. If there is no difference between a trial and plea bargaining, how is it undue influence? In plea bargain, you voluntarily accept your crimes and convictions whereas in trial, you get to protest your innocent and attempt to prove that there was not enough evidence to convict you of guilt. Not the same thing. In plea bargain, you accept the evidence against you. In trial, you get to see the evidence presented and defended and attacked in court.

[Officer of Engineers]

That argument doesn't hold up in the civilian courts.

This is the military. You still have to work for the guy who thinks you're guilty, ie, Obama. Undue Command Influence.

[Blademaster]

This is the military. You still have to work for the guy who thinks you're guilty, ie, Obama. Undue Command Influence.

For a person who is guilty of sex crimes, why would you allow him to continue to work for you? He is a detriment to the unit cohesion and discipline. Put him in brig/stockade/prison and strip him of all ranks, etc.

[Officer of Engineers]

For a person who is guilty of sex crimes, why would you allow him to continue to work for you?

Guilty of what? Fractinization in the Field? Holding hands with your wife?

Let's go up the ladder and even include sex. Even concential, in the Field, it's against the Queen's Rules and at least Discharge with Disgrace. But is it rape? Does the guy need to do time at the Edmonton Barracks?

Let's go further and the case is brought forth a Not Guilty, does the man retains his rank and his chances of promotion after this, right after Obama said he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law? What Officer would now speak up for this man, to get him his promotions, right after your C-In-C said punish him.

Obama should have shut up and leave this to JAG.