Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockstar
Ahhh I see the two great warrior arm chair generals of the internetwebz are stepping up to say Trump was wrong to support Gallagher. Are you saying Gallagher is guilty? Have any of you even bothered looking at the case? Seems to me, by your latest reaction to 'the daily headline' it never occurred to either of you two to even consider that part of it.
|
Oooh, a warning to the Moderators...
I'm gonna have to use an "F" word here...
... Here it comes...
Facts!...
In point of fact, Gallagher was actually found guilty of one of the ten charges leveled against him, in a verdict given by a seven member military jury. I'm not saying he's guilty: a military jury did, and I'm not gonna dispute them. Gallagher's conviction, interestingly was on the only one of the charges that would not, under military law, demand a dishonorable discharge. What Gallagher received was the sort of 'convenient' verdict and sentencing one often sees in civilian trials where, either out of a desire to just be done with a case or out of consideration for a defendants social rank , status, or past good works, a sort of 'plea deal' is made by the jury where they pass on conviction on other more serious or potentially higher penalty charges in favor of a 'token' conviction; it allows the jury to affirm a wrong or wrongs was/were committed and punish the perpetrator while freeing them of having to assess higher penalties. Its kind of like convicting someone facing multiple charges getting on the 'lesser of all their evils'...
Keep in mind, in Gallagher's case we're talking about military justice, which is very substantially different from civilian justice. The standards in military justice are far more stringent and the penalties, in comparison to civilian equivalents, are more often than not more severe. Also, the military justice system is a closed system: all the actions taken under the UCMJ are undertaken solely under military auspices; the judges are military officers, the prosecutors are military officers, the jurors are usually military members of their branch of equal rank, except for enlisted men, where the jurors can be non-coms unless the defendant requests a solely enlisted rank jury. the size of the jury cn vary depending on the nature of the proceedings, with a size of as little as three jurors to as many as twelve, as in mandatory death penalty cases. The closed system of military justice, if transposed into a civilian context, would see an accused plumber tried before a jury of fellow plumbers, a bus driver would have a jury of bus drivers, and so on. The civilian jury is intended to give a cross-section of the community's demographics, although, in practice, it usually falls to those unable to dodge a jury summons, The only close parallel to the military system in the civilian world would be some of the professional oversight associations or committees, like a Bar Association, a Medical Association, etc.
Gallagher really, in truth has gotten preferential treatment in excess of what would be afforded to other military convictees if they didn't have the aura of being a Seal about themselves; and that aura is part of the crux of the matter: being awarded an elite status and all the perqs that attend such a status also means being held to much higher moral, ethical, and performance standard than other members of the service; the individuals, such as the Seals, Green Berets, etc., are held up as being the pinnacle of duty, honor, moral rigor, obedience to and compliance with military law and tradition, and are the best 'face' of their services. As such, when they do fail to meet those standards, they can expect a heightened punitive response; the higher one gets, the longer and harder the fall...
Military justice is not just about the imposition of the UCMJ, it is als about maintaining and reinforcing the military's entire structure of discipline, respect, obedience, and unity of purpose. That is why internal military legal matters very, very rarely feel the intrusion of civilian influence. The military takes care of its own matters and the rulings of military courts are rarely often overturned in clemency pleas; senior officers are very reluctant to second guess the will of military jury or the findings of a military judge. A point can be made that military legal proceedings are not only intended to punish those convicted, but also to serve as an object lesson to deter others who may seek to violate the strict imposition of military law, order, and discipline. In Gallagher's case, he has been afforded extraordinary deference in excess of what is usually afforded convicted defendants, sending the message of, if you can whine about your case to the ears of politicians, you can thumb your nose at military justice and honor. And, the intrusion of Trump into the process flies in the face of the 'hands off' policy of the Oval Office when it comes to matters of internal military discipline and justice, unless there are egregious circumstances attending. Gallagher's case is/was not of a level to warrant such preferential attention. It should be painfully obvious Trump's entire stance in this matter is just Ol' Bone Spurs pandering to his base and hoping to get Brownie points from the Trumpettes. Trump, and, for that matter, almost any President has very little to no knowledge of the USMJ or its processes. Apart from hack political grandstanding, Trump is harming military discipline more than he's helping...
Just another instance of trump and his minions acting on matters way, way, out of their depth...
This link, from early January of 2019, written by an experienced JAG and citing another case of Trump intervention in a military justice matter, might be interesting since it discusses, far better than myself, the issues revolving around military justice and the intervention of a President as Unlawful Command Influence (I know, Trump doing something unlawful; impossible, right?
):
Trump’s Intervention in the Golsteyn Case: Judicial Independence, Military Justice or Both? --
https://www.lawfareblog.com/trumps-i...tice-or-both-0
This link goes into the subject of Unlawful Command Influence on another case in which Trump intervened, but this time to assert for a harsher penalty on a defendant:
President Trump’s Careless Rhetoric, Unlawful Command Influence, and the Bergdahl Court-Martial --
https://www.justsecurity.org/39541/p...and-influence/
Armchair General? I never would have made a good General; just wouldn't be comfortable with the expected puffery. Still, an armchair General who can solidly back themselves up with facts and cites is better than being a curbside, drive-by private who can't keep up his arguments with anything other than a couple or so sentences of generalizations and unsupported, sometimes less than accurate statements...
<O>