« "Smart Power" at Work | Main | Back to "Tried and True" for Google »

June 19, 2013

Even More Obamalicious Smartness

Unexpectedly (!), our "First Constitutional Law Prof Lecturer" President is sandbagged by the real world:

Two defendants in military sexual assault cases cannot be punitively discharged, if found guilty, because of “unlawful command influence” derived from comments made by President Barack Obama, a judge ruled in a Hawaii military court this week.

Navy Judge Cmdr. Marcus Fulton ruled during pretrial hearings in two sexual assault cases -- U.S. vs. Johnson and U.S. vs. Fuentes -- that comments made by Obama as commander in chief would unduly influence any potential sentencing, according to a court documents obtained by Stars and Stripes.

On Wednesday and Thursday, Fulton approved the pretrial defense motions, which used as evidence comments that Obama made about sexual assault at a May 7 news conference.

“The bottom line is: I have no tolerance for this,” Obama said, according to an NBC News story submitted as evidence by defense attorneys in the sexual assault cases.

‘I expect consequences,” Obama added. “So I don’t just want more speeches or awareness programs or training, but ultimately folks look the other way. If we find out somebody’s engaging in this, they’ve got to be held accountable -- prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period.”
The judge’s pretrial ruling means that if either defendant is found guilty, whether by a jury or a military judge, they cannot receive a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge. Sailors found guilty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s Article 120, which covers several sexual crimes including assault and rape, generally receive punitive discharges.

“A member of the public would not hear the President’s statement to be a simple admonition to hold members accountable,” Fulton stated. “A member of the public would draw the connection between the ‘dishonorable discharge’ required by the President and a punitive discharge approved by the convening authority.

“The strain on the system created by asking a convening authority to disregard [Obama’s] statement in this environment would be too much to sustain public confidence.”

The ruling sets the stage for defense attorneys to use the same arguments in sexual assault cases throughout the military.
Should other judges accept the same line of reasoning, commands would have to consider issuing lesser administrative discharges to servicemembers found guilty of sexual assault. In some cases, this could allow servicemembers found guilty of sex crimes to retain veterans benefits, according to Defense Department regulations.
“I think that as a defense attorney, I would raise this argument in virtually any [sexual assault] case I had,” said Victor Hansen, vice president of the National Institute of Military Justice and former instructor at the Army’s JAG school.

Hansen found Thursday’s ruling surprising, since judges have rejected “unlawful command influence” arguments under the logic that statements by high-level officials lose their effect as they reach the military’s lower levels.

However, in recent months there has been a lot more said -- and in overly specific terms -- about sexual assault by military and political leaders, Hansen noted. Obama’s call for dishonorable discharges is an example of such specificity, which begins to sound to military juries like a direct order from the commander in chief.

“This is bad lawyering on [Obama’s] advisor’s part,” Hansen said. “It’s certainly not a problem to say that sexual assault is a bad thing and we need to weed it out … that’s innocuous. It’s when they get very pointed that it’s problematic.”

Last year, Marine Corps defendants in more than 60 sexual assault cases filed unlawful command influence claims following comments by Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos, according to a May 9 McClatchy Tribune news report.

In one speech, Amos declared that 80 percent of sexual assault claims were legitimate, according to the report. Judges in nearly all of the 60 disputed cases found the appearance of unlawful command influence, according to the McClatchy report.

You would think a brainy legal scholar like Obama might have learned something from that experience.

Posted by Cassandra at June 19, 2013 05:23 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


This may be the first time I've seen someone shove their foot up their own ass via their alimentary canal.
The Stupid.
It burns Us!!

Posted by: Evil Twin at June 19, 2013 05:52 PM

“This is bad lawyering on [Obama’s] advisor’s part,” Hansen said."

I'm tellin' you, Boss, there just ain't no more room under the bus for another advisor!

Posted by: spd rdr at June 19, 2013 05:56 PM

I'm going to the Bad Place for enjoying this so much :p

Posted by: Cassandra at June 19, 2013 06:15 PM

You're going to the Bad Place just for writing that last sentence in the post.
They need a good lounge act down there, yanno.

Posted by: DL Sly at June 19, 2013 06:25 PM

Allegedly brainy scholar.

There are reasons why you hear reporters use the term "allegedly." If you don't provide for the presumption of innocence, a good attorney can ask for a change in venue.

Not something successful District Attorneys want to deal with.

Posted by: OregonGuy at June 19, 2013 08:04 PM

I can mock anyone anytime, and they can return the favor . . .
but only *I* can make a fool out of *myself.*

hat tip to CinC for proving it!

Posted by: CAPT Mike at June 21, 2013 09:00 PM