Life goes on

Well cap’n what kind of medal do you think they should get? Sounds like you’re pro rape. Or like the repubs say it’s not”legitimate rape”.

Thats funny right there.  Maybe you should ask Obama what kind of medal they should get.  As an attorney, he should have known what effect his comments would have on the situation.  

Ahhh, but wait, not having experience in the military, he might not know how the UCMJ works.  I guess thats what happens when you put someone with no experience in a Command Leadership position.  

Maybe he should focus more on learning not only about the issue but the intricacies associated with how the crimes are prosecuted under the UCMJ and focus less on political speeches about them.....

Its not the first time a Dem built a bear trap with his yap, then stepped in it.  Seems they step in it, a lot.

I'm confused by the military courts. If I understand UCI then it means that a commanding officer can't recommend punishment or court martial. Which makes no sense to me. But then again military courts have never made sense to me. It is so different than civil court.

You would think that the Commander and Chief would have the authority to recommend punishment of those under his command.

I would welcome any links or information that better explains this UCI business. So far what I have found mentions it but doesn't really define it in a way that explains its usefulness.

Jank - 

Easiest way to explain it is this - in a civilian crime, the President can speak about what his opinion of the punishment should be if he wishes.  At the end of the day, the jury decides guilt or innocence and the judge decides punishment (within the bounds of the law).  

In the military, when your commanding officer tells you what he would 'like' to see done, its not a request, it's usually an order.  By Obama stating his opinion regarding what should be done to those convicted of rape, he has given what some would look at as an indirect order regarding what the punishment should be.  Whether he meant to or not, what he thinks 'should' be done gets looked at as what 'must' be done, thus tainting the process of administering punishment for the crime base on the rules laid out by the UCMJ.  The only way to undo that damage is to take the punishment recommended by Obama off the table when sentencing takes place.  That way there is no official 'outside influence' (outside of the proceedings for that particular trial). 

I guess it would be like a trial judge in a civilian trial stating what his sentence was going to be for ALL trials for a certain crime, before ever hearing the case or the specifics of the crime itself.

Thats the best way I know to explain it, someone else might do 'better than I'....

Here you go - specifically the information under 'rules in general'

http://usmilitary.about.com/li...weekly/aa103000d.htm

Unlawful Command Influence (UCI) has frequently been called the "mortal enemy of military justice." UCI occurs when senior personnel, wittingly or unwittingly, have acted to influence court members, witnesses, or others participating in military justice cases. Such unlawful influence not only jeopardizes the validity of the judicial process, it undermines the morale of military members, their respect for the chain of command, and public confidence in the military.

While some types of influence are unlawful and prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), other types of influence are lawful, proper, and in certain circumstances a necessary part of leadership. The prohibition against UCI does not mean that a commander may abdicate responsibility for correcting disciplinary problems. Rather, the commander must vigilantly insure that the command action does not encroach upon the independence of the other participants in the military justice system.

Rules In General. Here are some general rules regarding Unlawful Command Influence: The Commander may not order a subordinate to dispose of a case in a certain way. The law gives independent discretion to each commander at every level possessing authority to convene courts-martial. A senior commander may not try to influence the exercise of that discretion. However, a senior commander may:

• Personally dispose of a case at the level authorized for that offense and for that commander
• Send a case back to a lower-level commander for that subordinate’s independent action
• Send a case to a higher commander with a recommendation for disposition
• Withdraw subordinate authority on particular types of cases
• Order charges pending at a lower level transmitted up for further consideration, including, if appropriate, referral
• Mentor subordinates, but do so recognizing that there exists the potential for misinterpreting the commander’s intentions

The commander must not have an inflexible policy on the disposition of a case or the punishment to be imposed. A convening authority must consider each case individually on its own merits

A commander who is the accuser, may not thereafter act as a convening authority to refer the case to a court-martial. The commander is considered to be "disqualified" to act as a convening authority and must forward the charges to a superior convening authority. A commander is considered to be an accuser when he or she:

• Formally signs and swears to the charges on the charge sheet (prefers the charges), or
• Directs that the charges be signed and sworn to by another, or
• Has an interest, other than an official interest, in the prosecution of the accused

The commander may neither select nor remove court members in order to obtain a particular result in a particular trial. Selections must be based upon the criteria contained in Article 25, UCMJ. Those criteria include: age and experience, education and training, length of service, and judicial temperament

• No pressure may be placed on the military judge or court members to arrive at a particular decision
• No person may invade the independent discretion of the military judge. Commanders may not question or seek explanation or justification for a judge’s decision
• Witnesses may not be intimidated or discouraged from testifying
• The court decides punishment. An accused may not be punished before trial, but may be placed in pretrial confinement if there is a risk of flight, if the accused poses a serious threat to the community, or if the accused is likely to engage in further misconduct

What does all this mean, past practice, business as usual, nothing changes

I would say, for the time being, it means anyone in the military that is convicted of a sex crime will be given an honorable discharge once they are convicted and serve their time.  This will entitle them to VA benefits and possibly retirement if they have been in the military long enough.  

In the past, the military had the option of punitively discharging the service member in these cases (dishonorable discharge), which would prevent them from gaining benefits.  This option is off the table for these two cases and a precedent has now been set for future cases.

This is neither past practice or business as usual, its actually less punishment than what could be applied in the past for these crimes.....

Jank,

One more thought on this - i think what you are thinking about is Non-Judicial Punishment, which is the process in which a commanding officer determines the punishment of someone under his command.  It would not apply in a case of rape.  Used more for misdemeanor type offences - dereliction of duty, physical assault on another military member, public drunkenness, etc.

NJP can also be used in addition to civilian charges.  For example, if a soldier receives a DUI, he can be convicted in civilian court AND receive NJP.  He could also receive NJP if aquitted of the DUI in civilian court.

A non-judicial punishment (NJP) in the United States Armed Forces is a form of military justice authorized by Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Non-judicial punishment or "NJP" permits commanders to administratively discipline troops without a court-martial. Punishment can range from reprimand to reduction in rank, correctional custody, confinement on bread and water/diminished rations (aboard ships only), loss of pay, extra duty, and/or restrictions. The receipt of non-judicial punishment does not constitute a criminal conviction (it's equivalent to a civil action), but is often placed in the service record of the individual. The process for non-judicial punishment is governed by Part V of the Manual for Courts-Martial and by each service branch's regulations.

Non-judicial punishment proceedings are known by different terms among the services. In the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force, non-judicial punishment is referred to as Article 15; in the Marine Corps it is called being "NJP'd" or being sent to "Office Hours". The U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard call non-judicial punishment captain's mast or admiral's mast, depending of the rank of the commanding officer. It is known colloquially as "being booked".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-judicial_punishment

cap'n what a ridiculous claim; your post and you just keep on. you best be spending time worrying about your boy Snowden.

Yeah, Rahm...whatever...

Keep up the intelligent posting...

I see you are still hanging out in the men's room roland. iz that dire with hiz big mouth open?

You still rramblin?  I think I was answering Jank anyway 

Do you ever add anything of substance to a discussion?

I really hope this doesn't taint the prosecution of these rapist. It was a bone headed thing for President Obama to say. Hopefully the military judge will be able to find away to not have to enforce the UCI.

Got a new update from military.com on this story today - looks like the UCI issue continues to bring havoc to some of the sexual assault cases.  The UCI ruling can be reviewed by a military court of appeals, but that has not happened yet. 

......the president's words have become a commonplace defense argument in sexual assault hearings. Attorneys for Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, accused of unlawful sexual contact in one of the military's most visible sex crime cases, brought up the argument during pretrial motions last month. Rulings on Obama's comments are pending in other trials in Japan, Hawaii and mainland U.S.

http://www.military.com/daily-...-assault-trials.html