Conservative Musings

Our goal is to have intelligent discussion of the topics of the day. We realize everyone has their opinion and they should be allowed to express it in a discussion forum without calling each other names. We learn from discussion and not from name calling or argument.We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details

Showing posts with label military justice. Show all posts

Monday, January 22, 2018

First Of All Who Would Vote For A Traitor?

Chelsea Manning could face another court-martial for running for Congress — here’s why

6 hours

Chelsea Manning could face additional prosecution for her Senate campaign, military law experts told a news outlet. That’s because Manning is still considered an active-duty military member. (Image source: YouTube screenshot)

Chelsea Manning officially announced a Senate campaign last week. Military lawyers say the decision has made Manning vulnerable to new prosecution.

What’s going on?

In the days after Manning announced her candidacy, many questioned whether she fulfilled the constitutional requirements to become a senator, given that she has multiple felony convictions.

Manning silenced critics on Thursday when she obtained her certificate of candidacyfrom the Maryland State Board of Elections.

However, Manning’s decision has made her susceptible to future prosecution, military law experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation. That’s because Manning is still considered an active-duty military member — who is non-paid and on excess-leave while she appeals her convictions — and active-duty military are prohibited from participating in partisan political activities, such as running for Congress as a Democrat.

Why is Manning prevented from running?

Dru Brenner-Beck, a retired Army judge advocate, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that Defense Department regulations prohibit Manning from participating in political activities, let alone run for Congress, while she still holds an active-duty ID card.

Specifically, participating in political activities while an active-duty solider violates DOD Directive 1344.10. According to the regulations, running for Senate would require Manning to violate many of the regulations, including most of paragraph 4.1.2, in addition to 4.2.2. The latter reads:

A regular member, or a retired regular or Reserve Component member on active duty under a call or order to active duty for more than 270 days, may not be a nominee or candidate for [A civil office in a State; the District of Columbia; a territory, possession, or commonwealth of the United States; or any political subdivision thereof] except when the Secretary concerned grants permission.

Brenner-Beck went on to explain that violating the regulations would open Manning up to another court-martial.

“That paragraph is punitive and violation of it subjects her to courts-martial for violation of a lawful order or regulation under Article 92,” he said. “Her activities campaigning for herself and fundraising for herself may also violate other provisions of the DoD Directive, themselves separately punishable under the UCMJ, art. 92.”

Will Manning be prosecuted?

Whether or not Manning will be prosecuted is up to the chain-of-command, Brenner-Beck said. However, he told the DCNF that he believes the Trump administration may pursue additional prosecution against Manning because of the hard-line position it took against Bowe Bergdahl, who last year plead guilty to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.

Meanwhile, another former military lawyer, Victor Hansen, told the DCNF that prosecution is unlikely because the military likely wants to separate themselves as far from Manning as possible.

Still, Hansen warned that senior military leaders could be pressured to act against Manning.

“There’s always the risk that somebody could put pressure on that commander or take it to a higher level and prosecute at that level, so there is a risk of unlawful command influence,” he said. “If someone were to decide that we want to bring charges for Manning on this, that would be the very thing I would look into — who made the decision, why, and was there any outside pressures from above.”

Manning, who is is running for the seat currently held by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), is a transgender Army private who was convicted of crimes in 2013 under the Espionage Act for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks.

Thursday, August 11, 2016

Religion Under Attack In The Military

MILITARY COURT CLAIMS POWER TO DECIDE 'IMPORTANCE' OF RELIGION

Attorney fighting for Marine, 'This is absolutely outrageous'

Published: 2 hours ago

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/10/runruh.jpg

BOB UNRUH About | Email | Archive

image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/printer_famfamfam.gif

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/05/monifa_sterling.jpg

Lance Cpl. Monifa Sterling

In a stunning ruling that likely will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, a military court has decided it can determine whether or not a certain religious practice is “important” enough to be protected.

“This is absolutely outrageous,” said Kelly Shackelford, president of First Liberty Institute, after the decision in the case against a Marine who posted a Bible verse at her work station.

“A few judges decided they could strip a Marine of her constitutional rights just because they didn’t think her beliefs were important enough to be protected,” he said. “If they can court-martial a Marine over a Bible verse, what’s to stop them from punishing service members for reading the Bible, [talking] about their faith, or praying?”

“

WND reported at the end of 2015 when a lower military court delivered the judgment against Lance Cpl. Monifa Sterling, who, at three places in her work space, posted a phrase from Isaiah 54:17, “No weapons formed against me shall prosper.”

According to the brief, her supervisor said, “I don’t like the tone” and told her to remove the verses.

“When Sterling declined, her supervisor took them down at the end of the duty day. Sterling reprinted and re-posted the messages, but she found them in the trash the next morning. She was then court-martialed,” according to the complaint.

“No one in our military who goes to work every day to defend our freedoms should then be court-martialed for exercising those very freedoms,” said Daniel Briggs, a former Air Force JAG officer now with the Alliance Defending Freedom, at the time.

“This case is about Monifa, but it is also about every American who puts on the uniform in service to this country. The question is whether they will be allowed to exercise their faith in the military, or whether they will be denied the same constitutionally protected freedoms they have volunteered to defend and are willing to die for.”

The latest development, this week, was an affirmation by the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces’ punishment of Sterling.

The next step will be an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, her legal team said.

“This is a real-life example of why judges shouldn’t play theologians,” said Daniel Blomberg, legal counsel of the Becket Fund, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Sterling.

“Here, a few judges concluded that keeping scripture nearby isn’t ‘important,’ even though more than half of the world’s population belong to religions that teach the exact opposite. Avoiding obvious errors like this is why RFRA protects all religious beliefs, not just beliefs that government officials deem ‘important.'”

The organization pointed out that Sterling’s co-workers were permitted to keep nonreligious messages on their desks. And it argued her actions were protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

One judge on the military panel disagreed with the punishment, noting that federal law “does not empower judges to curtail various manifestations of sincere religious belief simply by arbitrarily deciding that a certain act was not ‘important’ to the believer’s exercise of religion.”

The Becket Fund’s brief was on behalf of religious faiths, including Anglican, Catholic, Jewish, Lutheran, Mormon, Muslim, Presbyterian, Sikh and Southern Baptist.

“Last I checked, Marines weren’t afraid of anything – and they certainly don’t need to be afraid of religious liberty,” said Blomberg. “In fact, it was the military itself that taught our young country how protecting religious liberty is good for our nation, good for mission accomplishment.”

Mike Berry, director of military affairs for First Liberty, pointed out: “Gen. Patton famously prayed on the eve of battle. According to the majority [court] opinion, if Gen. Patton couldn’t prove how important praying was to him, he could be court-martialed for his prayer.”

Shackelford took up the argument.

“This is shameful, it’s wrong, and it sets a terrible precedent, jeopardizing the constitutional rights of every single man and woman in military service. We will appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. This cannot be allowed to stand.”

The court’s dissenting minority pointed out the failings of the majority’s logic.

“At trial, LCpl Sterling adequately demonstrated that the actions for which she was being court-martialed constituted ‘religious’ conduct. [She] testified that both the substance and placement of her signs were inspired by her Christian faith. The slips of paper that LCpl Sterling placed on her workspace were organized in the form of the ‘trinity,’ an unmistakable Christian motif, and on them was printed a biblically inspired quotation: ‘No sword formed against me shall prosper.’

“There is no doubt that LCpl Sterling’s conduct required further analysis under the provisions of RFRA.”

The dissent warned: “It has long been recognized that courts are particularly ill equipped to govern what does or does not constitute ‘religion.’ … The majority opinion ventures beyond that which is necessary to decide the issue before us. In the course of doing so, the court not only fails to ensure the proper application of RFRA to LCpl Sterling’s specific case, it more generally imposes a legal framework that unnecessarily curtails the religious freedom of our nation’s servicemen.”

Before the decision was announced, Ron Crews, executive director of Chaplain Alliance for Religion Liberty, commented, “Congress and the courts have made it clear that religious freedom is truly our first freedom; it must not be watered down and should be burdened only in the most extreme circumstances.

“This is just as true in the military. Though it is a unique institution with a mission that must be accomplished, service members cannot be forced to check their faith when they put on the uniform. Their religious freedom is more precious than ever before and must be strongly defended. Those who are willing to give all deserve nothing less.”

Click here for reuse options!

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/military-court-claims-power-to-decide-importance-of-religion/#XATyDi0E17kf6T8b.99

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Will Bergdahl Be Given The Penalty He Deserves?

Today on Michael Savage's program, he said he was amazed that the Army has the guts to bring charges against Bowe Bergdahl for desertion. We were also surprised. However, on further thought, it all makes sense.

If he had not been charged, the Army would have been blamed for not prosecuting a deserter which would only encourage more of the same behavior. They had no choice in the matter as it was clear that he had left his post and joined the Taliban.

Being charged and being convicted are two different things. Bergdahl might have walked into Taliban hands but proving that will be very tricky.

First of all, the evidence is not a slam dunk. We do not know if the note he wrote to his comrades was preserved or if the email he sent to his father has incriminating information or if the computer he used contained any other information that would be defamatory. If there is evidence, then there is the possibility that a conviction is possible. Plus you have the testimony of his fellow troops who made it very clear that Bergdahl had left his post. We also know that there were deaths and injuries to those who looked for him after he was "captured."

All of this evidence is fine in a normal court. A military court is not the same as a civilian one. There are different rules of evidence and roles of the participants. The Judge (usually a higher ranked officer) can admit or refuse any evidence that he sees fit. The rub is that he is a career military person who, in most cases, wants to rise in rank. A wrong decision or verdict might cause problems for his advancement.

Additionally, it was very clear that President Obama wanted Bergdahl back and in fact authorized giving five high ranking Taliban members in exchange for his return. He also went out of his way in a Rose Garden press conference, attended by Bergdahl's parents, to say how honorable he had been before he was "captured."

So, let's think about what the President might do. He might bite the bullet and admit that his information was incorrect, that he had indeed made a mistake and that Bergdahl was indeed a bad guy and should be punished for his actions. Yes, that might happen--when cows fly!

A more likely scenario might be that he (or one of his staff) could make a call to one of the Judge's commanders and intimate that it would be in the best interests of the Judge's future in the military to hamstring the prosecution, to prevent damaging testimony from being presented. (That would never happen, right?) He might even try some good ole' jury tampering to get the verdict that he wanted.

We fear there is nothing President Obama and his staff will do to get the verdict they desire for Bergdahl. That being a not guilty one where he can get an honorable discharge and that the President can claim, "see, I was right, he was innocent all along. I did the right thing. He can now go on with his life as a free man."

It will be interesting to watch what happens to those on the jury and the trial judge. If their careers turn from ordinary to exemplary, we know they have been bought and paid for. If they render the "wrong" verdict, we assume they will leave the military and write books about the experience.

Our only hope is that Obama will have the same luck influencing the military tribunal as they did with the attempted manipulation the Israeli elections. We expect that as Commander In Chief he has a bit more power here than he did in Israel. Expect a non-guilty verdict.

Conservative Tom

Bowe Bergdahl to be Charged With Desertion

(U.S. Army/Getty Images)

Wednesday, 25 Mar 2015 03:10 PM

By Newsmax Wires

The Army sergeant who abandoned his post in Afghanistan and was held captive by the Taliban for five years will be court-martialed on charges of desertion and avoiding military service, a U.S. official said Wednesday.Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will also be charged with misbehavior before the enemy, said the official, who was not authorized to discuss the announcement on the record and spoke only on condition of anonymity.
The charges are the latest development in a long and bitter debate over Bergdahl's case, and underscore the military and political ramifications of his decision on June 30, 2009, to leave his post after expressing misgivings about the U.S. military's role, as well as his own, in the Afghanistan war.
Desertion can carry a maximum penalty of death, but most military officials have said they believe that is not likely in this case.

The U.S. military planned an announcement at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, which is expected to include the location of the court-martial.
After leaving his post, Bergdahl was captured by the Taliban and held by members of the Haqqani network, an insurgent group tied to the Taliban that operates both in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Last May 31, Bergdahl was handed over to U.S. special forces in Afghanistan as part of an exchange for five Taliban commanders who were imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.