A wonderful conversation with a military mother about her sons case and my own case
We both have REAL comprehensive recommendations on How to Change UCMJ
Please feel free to forward our recommendations to Secretary of Defense Hagel, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs GEN Martin Dempsey, Secretary of the Army John McHugh, Sen Kristen Gillibrand and Sen Claire McCaskill
nancy nordin writes:
Excellent in-depth analysis of common sense signs to look for when investigating allegations of sexual assault/misconduct. One would conclude such signs of being routinely employed in an investigation as "How to 101." Clearly and for reasons of their own objectives and disregard for real fact finding investigative work, the military is missing this information in the Judge Advocate's training manual or you nor my son and how many others lives would be very different as a result of the actual practice of due process of law owed to every individual under the Constitution. We need mandatory liability amounts i.e. $1,000,000 per year served by the wrongfully accused with all military benefits restored as well as rank, accommodations with an honorable discharge; fines and imprisonment for person(s) making false allegations and more accountability within the USMCJ to ensure that thorough investigations were conducted; implementation of procedures including creation of independent legal oversight where case files are randomly reviewed to support performance(s) during investigation, at court martial and throughout appeals process with access by the media to any proceeding unless deemed inadvisable by CAAF or The Supreme Court having made public the reason for denied access. Penalties for failure to follow all guidelines for investigations by CID, prosecution and defense attorneys to provide full disclosure as well as full documentation of pre-trial investigative work, a checklist of steps taken and explained to defendant and acknowledged by the signature of the accused; any reimbursement of expenses incurred by counsel must provide proof that is clearly identifiable as "case specific," and implementation of measures for discipline of legal counsel(s), Judges, ACCA et al when evidence of failure to uphold due process of law including fines, disbarment, dishonorable discharge with possible prison sentences when deemed necessary. If the military/government is liable for substantial restitution to the wrongfully accused, there are severe consequences to person(s) making false allegations and strict regulations as well as oversight outside of the military legal system with public access by the media; I believe the wrongful convictions diminish rapidly. It seems impossible to "us" given our experiences, but it is the only way I know to get real change in a government institution as large and powerful as the military. Our son's case was dismissed in Cumberland County, NC for lack of substantial evidence. The Army returned him to his Firebase in Afghanistan and was told nothing to support the allegations was discovered during the investigation. So, military says no, Cumberland County says no, husband wants divorce which could lead to deportation so wife raises hell with CID and whoever would listen to threats of going public despite several dates attested to were times that our son was away from Bragg training for deployment. 5 years of a 25 year sentence served, we have a witness affirming the fabrication who came forward 4 months after he arrived @ USDB & it is up to CAAF.
We can never stop telling our stories. Our families can now only hope that the Appeals process will restore, not just our lives, but a confidence in the framework of our Nation for Liberty and Justice for all.
I will never stop telling my story.
The process is broken.
Your recommendations for accountability and a liability ($) are perfect.
I would take it one step farther...tie the liability dollars directly to the Command that prosecuted the soldier. A non-reimbursable hit to OPTEMPO dollars at those levels will have a direct impact on the decision making process. We give Commander's an incredible responsibility and I want to make them incredibly responsible to be absolutely sure they hold their staff responsible to advise that a full and fair investigation has been completed. The decision briefing that follows for any General Courts Martial recommendation should be as detailed as any Operations brief with details, details and more details.
When that Commanding General signs off on a recommendation to prosecute he should have full confidence that is was the right decision and that he is putting his name/career on the line. Any doubt...I don't care how small.. should be grounds for that Commander to STOP the Process. (This in my mind would also answer the current call by SEN Gillibrand and her desire to reform the decision process)
Lastly, I would take the clemency decision process away from that Convening Authority Commander and elevate it to the first 3-star Commander in the Chain of Command. In most cases, that is the Corps Commander. If there is one thing I know about "managing generals" it is they don't like to look bad in front of their boss!
It also puts another layer of scrutiny in the decision process and it takes the Convening Authority out of the post trial process.
These recommendations could be easily adopted.
As a Force Manager from the Army G3 staff, I know the spaces are available and easily transferred to enable the Corps SJA staff in the Clemency review process.
SO many senior leaders seem to pay lip service to "change" Real change is difficult but we owe it to our soldiers, family members and the Nation to get every single decision to prosecute 100% right.
I will never stop telling my story.
The process is broken.
Your recommendations for accountability and a liability ($) are perfect.
I would take it one step farther...tie the liability dollars directly to the Command that prosecuted the soldier. A non-reimbursable hit to OPTEMPO dollars at those levels will have a direct impact on the decision making process. We give Commander's an incredible responsibility and I want to make them incredibly responsible to be absolutely sure they hold their staff responsible to advise that a full and fair investigation has been completed. The decision briefing that follows for any General Courts Martial recommendation should be as detailed as any Operations brief with details, details and more details.
When that Commanding General signs off on a recommendation to prosecute he should have full confidence that is was the right decision and that he is putting his name/career on the line. Any doubt...I don't care how small.. should be grounds for that Commander to STOP the Process. (This in my mind would also answer the current call by SEN Gillibrand and her desire to reform the decision process)
Lastly, I would take the clemency decision process away from that Convening Authority Commander and elevate it to the first 3-star Commander in the Chain of Command. In most cases, that is the Corps Commander. If there is one thing I know about "managing generals" it is they don't like to look bad in front of their boss!
It also puts another layer of scrutiny in the decision process and it takes the Convening Authority out of the post trial process.
These recommendations could be easily adopted.
As a Force Manager from the Army G3 staff, I know the spaces are available and easily transferred to enable the Corps SJA staff in the Clemency review process.
SO many senior leaders seem to pay lip service to "change" Real change is difficult but we owe it to our soldiers, family members and the Nation to get every single decision to prosecute 100% right.
No comments:
Post a Comment