Tag Archives: Military justice

When Is A Coup A Coup?

Posted on by

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about the coup attempt against President Trump. It is a long, involved article, so I suggest that you follow the link and read the entire article, but I will try to hit the high points here:

The article reports:

The “Coup” Against a Sitting U.S. President Became Official on October 29th, 2019…

The word “coup” shifted to a new level of formalized meaning last week when members of the political resistance showed up to remove President Trump wearing military uniforms.

Not only did U.S. military leadership remain silent to the optics and purpose, but in the testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman he admits to giving instructions to ignore the instructions from a sitting United States President.

In the absence of push-back from the Joint Chiefs, from this moment forth, the impression is tacit U.S. military support for the Vindman objective.

…Beyond the debate about the optics of the “coup“, within the testimony of Lt. Col Vindman, the witness readily admits to understanding the officially established policy of the President of The United States (an agreement between President Trump and President Zelenskyy), and stunningly admits that two weeks later he was giving countermanding instructions to his Ukrainian counterpart to ignore President Trump’s policies.

The coup against President Donald Trump went from soft, to hard.

What Lt. Col Vindman has done is against the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).

Article 88 of the UCMJ states (from quora.com):

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

In the NCO courses I took, we were told that we were not to insult the POTUS or other officials while we were in an official capacity. So, if we had any negative opinion of the President or other officials, we weren’t to express it to our troops while serving in the capacity of their squad/platoon/company NCO.

All soldiers are allowed to attend political rallies, protests etc. as long as we are out of uniform and aren’t using our position to promote them. So, if I say, “My name is J. Pearson and I am for/against this”, it’s okay. If I appear in uniform and say, “I’m SSG Pearson of the US Army, and I’m for/against this”, then I could be punished under UCMJ.

The article at The Conservative Treehouse includes excerpts of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s testimony. It also includes a link to his full testimony.

Please read both to understand what the media and the Democrats are attempting to do here.

Using The American Judicial System Against America

Posted on by

Yesterday’s New York Daily News posted an article about the circus that the trial of the 9/11 conspirators at Guantanamo has become. As you remember, one of the female defense lawyers had demanded that all female lawyers in the court wear Muslim dress. Other antics of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow defendants are detailed in a May 5th article in the U.K. Daily Mail. These antics include such things are refusing to answer the judge’s questions, delaying the trial by kneeling in prayer, removing their headphones (for translation) and reading magazines. Generally, the defendants have done anything they could to turn the proceedings into a circus. The only reason their antics are not on the front page of every newspaper is that the trial is taking place in Cuba in a military tribunal–thus illustrating the wisdom of a military trial in Cuba rather than a civlian trial in New York City.

The Daily News reports the latest antic:

As shown by their past offensive behavior, including at their all-day, long-into-the-night arraignment, the intent is to make as much of a joke of the proceedings as possible.

Their enablers now include Navy Cmdr. Walter Ruiz and four fellow defense lawyers who have demanded that President Obama, former President George W. Bush and other top officials be compelled to testify.

The petition has about as much chance of success as a snowball in the Cuban heat. It is designed to undermine the credibility of the proceedings in those precincts where KSM has fans. The insinuation is that the tribunal judge is prejudiced against the defendants by virtue of harsh presidential statements made about them in the past.

In the past America has upheld some measure of decorum at military tribunals. I am hoping we will not be manipulated into abandoning that decorum during this trial (although it seems that we already have). We already have confessions from the men on trial, the questions should be, “Do we execute them and let them become martyrs or do we let them live out their lives enjoying a lifestyle they would never achieve in their home countries–electricity, running water, beautiful weather, etc.?” It’s an interesting dilemma.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Misplaced Charity

Posted on by

Today’s New York Post posted a story about Blake Allison, the husband of one of the victims of the terror attacks on 9/11, who is one of the 10 relatives of victims to win a lottery for tickets to the arraignment of confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four of his evil accomplices.

It seems that Mr. Allison has also used the opportunity to see his wife’s murderers to meet with the terrorists’ lawyers to offer his services as a witness in order to try to prevent the terrorists from receiving the death penalty.

The article reports Mr. Allison’s statement:

“My opposition to the death penalty does not say I don’t want the people who killed my wife and [the other 911 victims] brought to account for their crimes,” he said.

“But for me, opposition to the death penalty is not situational. Just because I was hurt very badly and personally does not, in my mind, give me the go-ahead to take a life.”

He said that “9/11 was a particularly egregious and appalling crime,” but added, “I just think it’s wrong to take a life.”

Just for the record, the Judeo-Christian ethic allows for the killing of murderers. I appreciate the unwillingness of this man to want to see anyone executed for murdering his wife, but what about the families of the other victims?

The behavior of the 9/11 terrorists resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. Islamic terrorism has killed innocent civilians for more than thirty years. Should this continue without consequences? Does Mr. Allison believe these people can be rehabilitated? Does Mr. Allison believe that if these men are imprisoned anywhere other than Guantanamo they will not be eventually freed in a terrorist attack?

The military tribunals at Guantanamo have a basic difficulty–if the terrorists are sentenced to death and executed, they become martyrs; if they are sentenced to life, we will always have the threat of a hostage situation calling for their release or an attack by fellow terrorists on whatever facility they are imprisoned in.

I think I would rather have the terrorists become martyrs than risk the further loss of innocent civilians to keep there murderers alive.

Enhanced by Zemanta