Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 50

Thread: Army demotes former defense secretary's 3-star aide after scathing IG investigation

  1. #21
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    The unprofessional relationship was proven, the assault as you said was/is suspected.



    Other than the PTA ... nope.



    This is the second time you say the general lost two grades for sexual assault, he didn't ... it was the frat, adultery etc. If the assault could be proven ... as I said in the other thread ...



    If the assault could have been proven I wish they would have thrown the book at him. I don't know if the the max punishment (which for rape in the UCMJ is death) was appropriate since significant portions of the report were redacted so I don't have all the particulars, but I did read what was available.

    So do I support the policy? Which one?

    That an officer can be reduced and retire at the last grade satisfactorily held? Yes, absolutely.

    That all personnel should be held accountable, regardless of rank? Yes, absolutely.

    That we have laws for people, in the military the UCMJ? Yes, absolutely.

    That we afford people accused of violating those laws due process? Yes, absolutely.

    What I do not support is punishing someone based on rumor or suspicion vice proof (going back to that sexual assault ... it wasn't proven), because ... where do you stop? While NJP is a lower burden of proof, there still is a burden of proof beyond a simple accusation (a preponderance of the evidence), and the accused (unless on sea duty) has the option to refuse NJP and be tried by a court martial (where the burden is higher -- beyond a reasonable doubt). It isn't because I hope to run for office or to avoid getting bitten in the ass, I believe in due process for everyone ... an E1 Private and a 4-star General, you seem to be arguing that the system punish someone for a crime that wasn't proven, at least for someone more senior, which I don't believe in.

    I don't think we make the burden of proof for a crime less for either a Private or General, but what can be done to the General (or 2dLt) is a charge under the loose requirements of Art. 133 (Conduct Unbecoming) which is unique to officers and sometimes (because of due process and protections for the accused) the only thing that we can pin to someone, but sufficient to remove them from service.

    In the case of MGen Lichte, based on what could be proven ... they maxed him out ... which is the same max that was delivered to the LTG who had issues with the GTC, and also a false official statement and conduct unbecoming an officer issues.
    But still no opinion of the policy...just reaffirmation...

    Let's be honest about the sexual assault that wasn't a sexual assault...there's no chance he loses rank if there's no accusation of sexual assault. Even though the official charges were the "unbecoming..." and "unprofessional..." charges there's no chance that if those are the ONLY accusations that it goes anywhere.

    Same goes for the GTC case with false statements...that's simply an additional charge they can throw on. (If there is no dumb ass charge for misusing the card then there would be no false statement made. Now tell me "but there was a charge"...yes yes, I know...)...like the adultery charge (which is stupid as hell, also...if everyone was consenting then give it a rest).

  2. #22
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Do you punish someone (verbal or otherwise) if you suspect they hand their hands in their pockets, or actually saw them with their hands in their pockets?
    What is the max punishment for violating AFI 36-2903 -- probably in line with disobeying an order (Art. 92) I would imagine. [/QUOTE]

    You could make the argument that punishing a 4-star proven to have committed adultery and fraternization (violations of Art. 134) results in a similar punishment as for someone putting their hands in their pockets. It isn't the same argument is to say that MGen Lichte raped someone and got the same punishment as someone who puts their hands in their pockets, because the rape wasn't proven ... unless you want him convicted / punished for a crime without proof.[/QUOTE]

    For cryin' out loud...the hands in the pocket was simply used to point out how you and I approach conversations...there is no equivalency with uniform violation and sexual assault so to talk about punishment for the two is ridiculous. However, first time with hands in pocket would be minimum correction (verbal). I'm pretty sure that we can both agree the same (verbal) should not be used for first time sexual assault?

  3. #23
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,964
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    But still no opinion of the policy...just reaffirmation...

    Let's be honest about the sexual assault that wasn't a sexual assault...there's no chance he loses rank if there's no accusation of sexual assault. Even though the official charges were the "unbecoming..." and "unprofessional..." charges there's no chance that if those are the ONLY accusations that it goes anywhere.

    Same goes for the GTC case with false statements...that's simply an additional charge they can throw on. (If there is no dumb ass charge for misusing the card then there would be no false statement made. Now tell me "but there was a charge"...yes yes, I know...)...like the adultery charge (which is stupid as hell, also...if everyone was consenting then give it a rest).
    I guess I don't understand what you are asking my opinion on then.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  4. #24
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,964
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    What is the max punishment for violating AFI 36-2903 -- probably in line with disobeying an order (Art. 92) I would imagine.
    You could make the argument that punishing a 4-star proven to have committed adultery and fraternization (violations of Art. 134) results in a similar punishment as for someone putting their hands in their pockets. It isn't the same argument is to say that MGen Lichte raped someone and got the same punishment as someone who puts their hands in their pockets, because the rape wasn't proven ... unless you want him convicted / punished for a crime without proof.[/QUOTE]

    For cryin' out loud...the hands in the pocket was simply used to point out how you and I approach conversations...there is no equivalency with uniform violation and sexual assault so to talk about punishment for the two is ridiculous. However, first time with hands in pocket would be minimum correction (verbal). I'm pretty sure that we can both agree the same (verbal) should not be used for first time sexual assault?[/QUOTE]

    I get what you are saying about the uniform thing ... and my point is do you punish somebody based on proof or based on suspicion?

    I said in the past and will say again (and you will likely ignore it), sexual assault is a serious crime; people who commit it should be punished ... harshly. I do think you should prove the crime.

    Do you think we should convict people of crimes without meeting the burden of proof?
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  5. #25
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,964
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    What is the max punishment for violating AFI 36-2903 -- probably in line with disobeying an order (Art. 92) I would imagine.
    You could make the argument that punishing a 4-star proven to have committed adultery and fraternization (violations of Art. 134) results in a similar punishment as for someone putting their hands in their pockets. It isn't the same argument is to say that MGen Lichte raped someone and got the same punishment as someone who puts their hands in their pockets, because the rape wasn't proven ... unless you want him convicted / punished for a crime without proof.[/QUOTE]

    For cryin' out loud...the hands in the pocket was simply used to point out how you and I approach conversations...there is no equivalency with uniform violation and sexual assault so to talk about punishment for the two is ridiculous. However, first time with hands in pocket would be minimum correction (verbal). I'm pretty sure that we can both agree the same (verbal) should not be used for first time sexual assault?[/QUOTE]

    I get what you are saying about the uniform thing ... and my point is do you punish somebody based on proof or based on suspicion?

    I said in the past and will say again (and you will likely ignore it), sexual assault is a serious crime; people who commit it should be punished ... harshly. I do think you should prove the crime.

    Do you think we should convict people of crimes without meeting the burden of proof?
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  6. #26
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Me: "It's the 11th of February and it's going to be 92 degrees in Wichita Falls...that's fucking stupid, why does anyone live here"

    Mjolnir: It's because of the weather patterns changing drastically from the Canadian air to the air coming from the Gulf of Mexico. The air from the Gulf is much warmer than the air from Canada."

    Me: "Yes, I understand that, but it's going to be 92 FREAKIN' degrees in February...it's annoying as hell. One day we have the heat on and the next day the AC."

    Mjolnir: "If you lived 50 miles south or 50 miles north you wouldn't run into that problem because the changes wouldn't be so drastic. You live in an area that is subject to sharp changes in weather patterns. There's nothing you can do about it...that's the way it is there."

    Me: "Yes, I GET IT...I understand the science...it's still retarded."

    Mjolnir: "Blah blah blah El Nino..."

    Me: "YES...I WATCH THE WEATHER REPORTS AND UNDERSTAND THE FACTS. I'M SIMPLY POINTING OUT THAT IT'S RIDICULOUS."

    Mjolnir: "I...I don't understand what you're trying to say. People in other areas get similar types of weather patters. The upper air flow...."

    Me: "FML."

  7. #27
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,964
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    Me: "It's the 11th of February and it's going to be 92 degrees in Wichita Falls...that's fucking stupid, why does anyone live here"

    Mjolnir: It's because of the weather patterns changing drastically from the Canadian air to the air coming from the Gulf of Mexico. The air from the Gulf is much warmer than the air from Canada."

    Me: "Yes, I understand that, but it's going to be 92 FREAKIN' degrees in February...it's annoying as hell. One day we have the heat on and the next day the AC."

    Mjolnir: "If you lived 50 miles south or 50 miles north you wouldn't run into that problem because the changes wouldn't be so drastic. You live in an area that is subject to sharp changes in weather patterns. There's nothing you can do about it...that's the way it is there."

    Me: "Yes, I GET IT...I understand the science...it's still retarded."

    Mjolnir: "Blah blah blah El Nino..."

    Me: "YES...I WATCH THE WEATHER REPORTS AND UNDERSTAND THE FACTS. I'M SIMPLY POINTING OUT THAT IT'S RIDICULOUS."

    Mjolnir: "I...I don't understand what you're trying to say. People in other areas get similar types of weather patters. The upper air flow...."

    Me: "FML."
    I get it, I am saying the way it is ... which may be BS to you but the facts are:

    -the former 4-star was not convicted of sexual assault, based on the statute of limitations for adultery, frat etc, the most that could be done was reduction of his retired grade. It isn't accurate to say that the punishment for the GTC issue is the same for a sexual assault, since there was not a substantiated allegation or conviction for assault, if there had been and the punishment as it is now, I would be saying it was BS ... which means you find a way to argue ... Barring not affording him legal due process, there isn't anything more that could be done.

    Not sure what you would want though, and I ask again:

    Do you think we should convict people of crimes without meeting the burden of proof?

    Should we suspend legal due process for people for certain alleged crimes?

    Would you lower the burden of proof to obtain a conviction for certain alleged crimes? If so, for everyone ... or just senior personnel?

    It is not AT ALL that I think the punishment for sexual assault should be low or similar to violating the rules for a GTC (as I said in the other thread) ... but to punish someone I do think you have to prove your case first ... not just go off an allegation. In the case of MGen Lichte, the assault was not proven, what he admitted to had passed the statues of limitations on. I say again, it is a shame they couldn't punish him more severely, but I don't think we should suspend the law.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  8. #28
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    I get it, I am saying the way it is ... which may be BS to you but the facts are:

    -the former 4-star was not convicted of sexual assault, based on the statute of limitations for adultery, frat etc, the most that could be done was reduction of his retired grade. It isn't accurate to say that the punishment for the GTC issue is the same for a sexual assault, since there was not a substantiated allegation or conviction for assault, if there had been and the punishment as it is now, I would be saying it was BS ... which means you find a way to argue ... Barring not affording him legal due process, there isn't anything more that could be done.
    Right...so a rapist isn't a rapist once the SoL runs out...because that's what the law says...right?

    Do you think we should convict people of crimes without meeting the burden of proof?
    Nope

    Should we suspend legal due process for people for certain alleged crimes?
    Nope

    Would you lower the burden of proof to obtain a conviction for certain alleged crimes? If so, for everyone ... or just senior personnel?
    Nope...and the senior personnel comment is crap...the GTC incident was a "senior personnel" and I fully support him

    It is not AT ALL that I think the punishment for sexual assault should be low or similar to violating the rules for a GTC (as I said in the other thread) ... but to punish someone I do think you have to prove your case first ... not just go off an allegation. In the case of MGen Lichte, the assault was not proven, what he admitted to had passed the statues of limitations on. I say again, it is a shame they couldn't punish him more severely, but I don't think we should suspend the law.
    He admitted to it..fuck the statute...I've said the before, the statute of limitations lasts longer for a failed PT test. He ADMITTED to it...the statute of limitations should NOT apply. I realize it does, but it shouldn't.

    What I know is this...we've got two people...it could be ANY two people...make one an E5 and one an E6. The E5 went to a strip club with his GTC and lied about it, the E6 cheated on his wife and slept with his subordinate and, although the SoL had run out, admitted to certain things that are considered criminal. Now they are both E4s, equal to each other, getting paid the same. Sounds kinda fucked up to me.

  9. #29
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,964
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    Right...so a rapist isn't a rapist once the SoL runs out...because that's what the law says...right?
    No, still a rapist ... see below.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    Nope...and the senior personnel comment is crap...the GTC incident was a "senior personnel" and I fully support him
    Wasn't sure. Didn't know if you were going the route that more senior people should be more accountable.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    He admitted to it..fuck the statute...I've said the before, the statute of limitations lasts longer for a failed PT test. He ADMITTED to it...the statute of limitations should NOT apply. I realize it does, but it shouldn't.
    Why shouldn't the statute of limitations apply? Because he admitted to it? Do you think he would have had the statute of limitations for adultery and fraternization not expired? He may not have. Who knows.

    Have you read the report? He admitted to sleeping with her, stated it was consensual. She stated it was consensual but coerced ... there was no evidence it was assault. There were allusions that the sex was coerced, but not assault ... am going to assume you didn't read the report ... the coercion was considered as falling under Art. 134-6: Bribery ... but again ... the evidence of the coercion was interesting ... made me think he likely was pressuring her ... but the JAG also said it likely would not hold up in a trial (he said it wasn't coercion) and it had been over 5 years.

    As far as the PT test and it biting you later, you have a point ... failing a PT test isn't a felony conviction either ... you are comparing administrative repercussions to felony conviction ... while I will agree that there should be a limit on repercussions for a PT test (which could force someone out) getting kicked out of the military over an old PT test may suck big time ... it isn't a felony conviction ... you are comparing apples and oranges.

    So while you keep /kept saying that the punishment for sexual assault is the same as for misusing a GTC, you are ignoring that he wasn't convicted of an assault. Hell, he wasn't punished for assault at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    What I know is this...we've got two people...it could be ANY two people...make one an E5 and one an E6. The E5 went to a strip club with his GTC and lied about it, the E6 cheated on his wife and slept with his subordinate and, although the SoL had run out, admitted to certain things that are considered criminal. Now they are both E4s, equal to each other, getting paid the same. Sounds kinda fucked up to me.
    Not both equal, one retires as an O7 (the GTC) the other an O8 (the USAF one). I think it is fucked up that Lichte retires as a flag officer at all (for just the adultery and frat ... even without the assault) ... but I don't think we should throw out his due process and abandon or change the law, THEN go after people after we have changed it ... too Orwellian or Sword of Damocles for me. I think our system gets it right the majority of the time, but the same system that does well, sometimes protects / let's those who should get crushed through ... while imperfect ... it is better than changing the rules for every individual case to satisfy what turns out to not really be justice, but vengeance. I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater on our justice system.

    MGen Lichte committed the more serious offense (adultery & fraternization, no question there ... however ... the statute of limitations had expired. You don't think the statute should apply, so I will ask what crimes or under what circumstances would you throw that out?
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  10. #30
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    No, still a rapist ... see below.



    Wasn't sure. Didn't know if you were going the route that more senior people should be more accountable.



    Why shouldn't the statute of limitations apply? Because he admitted to it? Do you think he would have had the statute of limitations for adultery and fraternization not expired? He may not have. Who knows.

    Have you read the report? He admitted to sleeping with her, stated it was consensual. She stated it was consensual but coerced ... there was no evidence it was assault. There were allusions that the sex was coerced, but not assault ... am going to assume you didn't read the report ... the coercion was considered as falling under Art. 134-6: Bribery ... but again ... the evidence of the coercion was interesting ... made me think he likely was pressuring her ... but the JAG also said it likely would not hold up in a trial (he said it wasn't coercion) and it had been over 5 years.

    As far as the PT test and it biting you later, you have a point ... failing a PT test isn't a felony conviction either ... you are comparing administrative repercussions to felony conviction ... while I will agree that there should be a limit on repercussions for a PT test (which could force someone out) getting kicked out of the military over an old PT test may suck big time ... it isn't a felony conviction ... you are comparing apples and oranges.

    So while you keep /kept saying that the punishment for sexual assault is the same as for misusing a GTC, you are ignoring that he wasn't convicted of an assault. Hell, he wasn't punished for assault at all.



    Not both equal, one retires as an O7 (the GTC) the other an O8 (the USAF one). I think it is fucked up that Lichte retires as a flag officer at all (for just the adultery and frat ... even without the assault) ... but I don't think we should throw out his due process and abandon or change the law, THEN go after people after we have changed it ... too Orwellian for me. I think our system gets it right the majority of the time, but the same system that does well, sometimes protects / let's those who should get crushed through ... while imperfect ... it is better than changing the rules for every individual case to satisfy what turns out to not really be justice, but vengeance. I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater on our justice system.

    MGen Lichte committed the more serious offense (adultery & fraternization, no question there ... however ... the statute of limitations had expired. You don't think the statute should apply, so I will ask what crimes or under what circumstances would you throw that out?
    I'm completely with you that, in this case, the General got screwed, literally and figuratively. I don't think either of these guys should have gotten in trouble. I stated so at the beginning of this argument. However, taking person A who fraternizes and has an unprofessional relationship and person B who uses his GTC at a strip club and lies about it, there is no doubt that the punishment for person A should be much stronger than person B...One offense (person A) can actually lead to something inappropriate happening and it could possibly impact the mission. Person B going to a strip club doesn't hurt anyone.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •