Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

what utter twaddle

his statement " complicates " nothing

as - in case no one has noticed - the UCMJ proscribes exactly the same treatment

And the UCMJ also addresses this.

At Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina last month, a judge dismissed charges of sexual assault against an Army officer, noting the command influence issue. At Fort Bragg in North Carolina last month, lawyers cited the president’s words in a motion to dismiss the court-martial against Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, who is accused of forcing a lower-ranking officer to perform oral sex on him, among other charges.

So there is a precedent for it and it is already having consequenses in the military courts.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
[At Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina last month, a judge dismissed charges of sexual assault against an Army officer, noting the command influence issue. At Fort Bragg in North Carolina last month, lawyers cited the president’s words in a motion to dismiss the court-martial against Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, who is accused of forcing a lower-ranking officer to perform oral sex on him, among other charges.

If Shaw Air Force Base has a Christian chapel like most large military bases and Veterans hospitals prosecuting him for rape would be laughable.

We had Christian chapels on bases as small as 1,000 people in the Coast Guard, Granted at the time I never knew the Bible condoned rape.

reply to post by Miracula


I'll ask you again. Please stay on topic.

Thank you

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Miracula

 

I'll ask you again. Please stay on topic.

Thank you

You said separation of church and state didn't you?

Originally posted by Miracula

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Miracula

 

I'll ask you again. Please stay on topic.

Thank you

You said separation of church and state didn't you?

No, I did not in the original OP. Mind if I repeat myself? NO. I did not. You brought it up.

The topic is about how the CinC has interposed himself in legal battles. Legal battles with which he doesn't belong but yet can influence the outcome of.

Some people may walk away from rape/sexual assualt charges because of this, as well as some innocents may end up in prison.

The Military Judicial system is similiar, yet totally different from the civilian court.

Sexual assualt is a pet peeve of mine since I have been a victim of it. But it's in the past and I won my case. But it still irritates me. That is why I ask that you stay on topic.

And before you think I'm a woman...I'm not. I was assualted, then brought up on charges by the two women (you'd think that would be a young guys dream...it wasn't). And it wasn't fun. Thankfully I had witnesses.

That is why I ask you to stay on topic. It's probably as much as a touchy subject to me as it is most women.

Gotta add a touch of humor...Thank you for your consideration.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

I kinda missed where this had anything remotely to do with the Bible, let alone another Religious Bash? What did I miss and what the heck does Christianity have ANYTHING to do with what Obama said regarding the Military Justice System and Rape in uniform?

Stop feeding that troll.
They never give up after you feed them.

As far as Obama goes,
One comment from a president can have deep rammifications.
He still doesn't really understand how much power he actually has.
This is probably a good thing in his case.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Oh alright. Given your past I'll give it a rest.

Originally posted by Miracula

Originally posted by TDawgRex
When President Obama proclaimed that those who commit sexual assault in the military should be “prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged,” it had an effect he did not intend: muddying legal cases across the country.

Why? Obama is a Christian. The Old Testament says it is legal to engage in felony rape as long as you marry the girl afterwards.

That is patently false. If a man rapes an engaged woman the penalty is death. If the woman is not engaged it does not become legal, however the woman would thereafter be bereft of financial security as no man would marry her, preferring to choose a virgin. So mercy is granted to the rapist, so that financial security, through marriage, may be gained. It is not excused, and the father may reject the marriage and the perpetrator would be killed. If the father does not refuse, the rapist loses the right of divorce. It is making the best of a bad situation in favor of the woman who was raped.

So now we can stay on the topic at hand since your comments have nothing to do with this.

Originally posted by Miracula
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

Oh alright. Given your past I'll give it a rest.

why? YOU NAILED IT, it's just that Rape APOLOGISTS don't like being called out on it,

This NATION is a RAPE NATION, always Has been and Always WILL BE. It is because the Abrahamic religions are ALL RAPE APOLOGISTS, every single damn one of them,

The ONLY TIME you'll hear ANY OBJECTION TO RAPE

Is when

MALES are Raped.

Otherwise it's one big raping free for all...and all females are Whores, it's just some are Owned private high class Personal whores,

The rest are dog whores.

THAT IS TRUTH...many just don't LIKE TRUTH because then you see they have to stare ugly human nature in the face and call it what it is...

The ONLY TIME politicians pull out the Rape card is when it's used as a nah, nah, nah see what YOU do oh how horrid Never mind of course we do the same thing...type of thing.

Military rapes will continue, With IMPUNITY, especially to females, crap They should just make it LEGAL on Paper and be done with it

Besides, the ONLY time there was EVER laws against Rape wasn't because they boo hoo cared about females, oh poo poo,

It was and this was Old Testament and New Testament and Roman Familia laws, and all that, was when some owned Putang property Female of some high class totin nobility was raped, and it cost the Owner some Dowry $$$ or damage of services, etc., then it was an Outage because how dare ya damage the Property of a high class Brotha...otherwise, other dog females were just there for the taking...and could be discarded like the sub human Fck toilets they are. The Problem is too many females Don't want to SEE this REALITY, they Realy think they are "special". Which is why WAR IS TRUTH, that's LWAYS HOW THEY FELT ABOUT FEMALES ALL ALONG AND THEY SHOW IT WITH ZEALOUSNESS. TRUTH...sucks but it IS what it is, only Cowards deny it.

Originally posted by Miracula

We had Christian chapels on bases as small as 1,000 people in the Coast Guard, Granted at the time I never knew the Bible condoned rape.

Did you ever happen to walk up and look at the announcement board that listed every conceivable religion that also utilized the 'religious facility' for worship?

I didn't think so.

Maybe the military has secretly chosen to champion the Wicca faith (pretty sure they don't condone rape), ergo your drivel is moot.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
What was the Britney Spears song. Oh yea! "Oops! I did it again".

www.nytimes.com...

When President Obama proclaimed that those who commit sexual assault in the military should be “prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged,” it had an effect he did not intend: muddying legal cases across the country.

This is just another example of how this President is influencing things, and not in a good way because he speaks emotionally, not rationally. Maybe it's intentional?

In at least a dozen sexual assault cases since the president’s remarks at the White House in May, judges and defense lawyers have said that Mr. Obama’s words as commander in chief amounted to “unlawful command influence,” tainting trials as a result. Military law experts said that those cases were only the beginning and that the president’s remarks were certain to complicate almost all prosecutions for sexual assault.

I thought that he was a lawyer?

I didn't vote for Obama and am not an Obama supporter, nor did I vote repub either...That aside,

This is pure drivel. OK he says, any who COMMIT rape, should be punished, etc., OH MY GOD are you Serious? What a HORRIBLE THING TO SAY,

Why Don't ya Know in AMERIRAPA LAND ESP MILITARY YEEHAW WE DON'T PUNISH RAPE, WE CELEBRATE AND CHEER! GO GO GO

There, is that better? After all those dumb Biats deserve it after all, wink wink, and AMERICANS WE ALL KNOW IT RIGHT. RIGHT!!!

So how does his saying RAPISTS should be punished Taint these court cases? OH MY GOSH

YOU MEAN THEY MIGHT THINK RAPE SHOULD BE PUNISHED NOW???

OH MY GOSH THE WORLD IS GOING TO END, LOOK!LOOK, the SKY IS FALLING RAPE SHOULD BE PUNISHED! NO MORE GO GO GO RAPE PARTIES aka AMERICAN STYLE,

Oh What's a Rape apologist to do? I mean if People, OMG Judges even, even THINK that one who commits rape should be stripped of Senority rather than PROMOTED while the VICTIM is demoted, harassed, ruined, etc., I mean

What has this world come to when ya can't rape and have a beer after words and chalk one up for the team?

Why YEEHAW, Howdy Doody!!! Tragic, dear ole dear.

It would be One thing is Obama said "any who are charged with rape" Then that would be stepping over the bounds per se, but to say for Anyone for that matter that "any who Commit rape"

There is Nothing wrong with that statement, whatsoever UNLESS YOU'RE A RAPE SUPPORTER, and that would be the ONLY REASON ANYONE, regardless of political affiliation, etc., would OBJECT to the statement of

"any who COMMIT RAPE should be punished, etc"

So, using the logic presented in this thread, what he Should have said to appease the mob rule here is YAY RAPE NO BIGGIE, Besides she probably wanted it...or some lame crap like that. Or the Usual, well boys will be boys and why military etc it's just to be expected, etc.

This thread is SO telling of the RAPE CULTURE APOLOGETICS that it could be a fricking ADVERTISEMENT FOR IT. Way to go, bravo for just putting it out there for all to see...

See I know this culture exists, I'm not in Denial, but to the many who are, it's threads like these that Speak better than Any victim advocate could Ever do. Like I said, they may as well just make rape legal on paper because it already is in CULTURE in this nation. At least Then females and subordinates could take precautions, or at least prepare for subjugation and get rid of the whole Liberty nonsense, etc...and all that other hoopla that ONLY APPLIES TO THE BRUTISH AND VIOLENT. YEEHAW!

Hate to break up the Obama hate fest here. (I swear, do y'all just take out a picture of the man and scream at it for two minutes in the morning while watching FOX & Friends?)

The defense lawyers are wrong.

Obama's quote was...

“prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged,”

So, lawfull prosecutions of those accused of sexual assault in the military shouldn't happen according to y'all?

So, people convicted of sexual assault in the military shouldn't be stripped of their positions?

So, people shouldn't be court-martialed for sexual assault?

What? Should these people be given medals? "Heroic sexual assault in the face of an unpopular administration cross"?

This won't muddy the waters. Military judges will just laugh this defense out of the courtroom.

reply to post by ThreeBears


You obviously didn't read the article did you? You just saw a headline and ran with it.

I guess that's the problem in the U.S. these days.

reply to post by HauntWok


You are failing to see where things like this could go in a courtroom. Command influence is a big deal. As a individual, I totally agree with what Obama says.

But he's not just some person like you or I. He is the Commander in Chief and as such can hold sway over a court martial proceeding. It's already affecting cases.

It's legalese, not an emotional thing. But I'm afraid that guilty may walk because of it. Too many have already. Or innocents may end up in prison, of which many have as well.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Am I confused? Are presidents barred from speaking personal opinion? Do they have free speech? Why SHOULDN'T those things listed by the president happen to rapists? What insider information did I miss out on?

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

what utter twaddle

his statement " complicates " nothing

as - in case no one has noticed - the UCMJ proscribes exactly the same treatment

And the UCMJ also addresses this.

At Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina last month, a judge dismissed charges of sexual assault against an Army officer, noting the command influence issue. At Fort Bragg in North Carolina last month, lawyers cited the president’s words in a motion to dismiss the court-martial against Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, who is accused of forcing a lower-ranking officer to perform oral sex on him, among other charges.

So there is a precedent for it and it is already having consequenses in the military courts.

Who the f*** are these moron f***ing judges? They dismissed the case because the president agrees that sexual assault is bad? These judges need to lose their positions. So, in reality, these lawyers are saying that the case should be dropped because the presidents influence now made the rapists case indefensible? That's a huge load of bulls*** and EVERYONE knows it.

In this thread: people defending rapists because of political correctness.

Edit here: To reiterate my statement. Anybody that believes what the president said will "muddy up the waters" is both moronic and illogical.

reply to post by Dystopiaphiliac

Am I confused? Are presidents barred from speaking personal opinion?

Only if you dislike the personal opinion of the president.

Do they have free speech?

Not according to opponents of said president.

Why SHOULDN'T those things listed by the president happen to rapists? What insider information did I miss out on?

This president according to some has absolutely no rights whatsoever. The audacity that this president actually exists instead of doing the right thing and committing hara–kiri on national TV offends some people.

I imagine that some of these people wake up, go turn on FOX & Friends, take a picture of the president out, and scream at it for two minutes. Blaming him for absolutely every single thing wrong with the universe, including their male pattern baldness and erectile dysfunction.

But yes, according to these people, the president saying something will absolutely influence a judge to make a poor decision based only on the president's words instead of the evidence and testimony presented in a court of law.

Originally posted by Dystopiaphiliac
Who the f*** are these moron f***ing judges? They dismissed the case because the president agrees that sexual assault is bad? These judges need to lose their positions. So, in reality, these lawyers are saying that the case should be dropped because the presidents influence now made the rapists case indefensible? That's a huge load of bulls*** and EVERYONE knows it.

In this thread: people defending rapists because of political correctness.

Edit here: To reiterate my statement. Anybody that believes what the president said will "muddy up the waters" is both moronic and illogical.

edit on 15-7-2013 by Dystopiaphiliac because: Edit

I happen to personally agree with what President Obama said. However because of his status his words have more weight (than perhaps they should), and in a military culture that already has a precedent for sweeping sexual assault cases under the rug, this comment is being used as just one more way that they can do that. It's not fair, and it's not right, but this does not change the fact that it is.

I am not a fan of the Obama Administration, or the man himself, but I certainly could not have anticipated those potential consequences; and as much as they may attempt to paint it as if they could, I doubt that anyone else on here could have either. However, considering his educational background, and the position of authority he is in, it is reasonable to hold President Obama accountable for not anticipating those potential consequences. Although starting an entire thread on one ill-thought out comment is excessive in my opinion. Also, comparing this comment to Bidens foot-in-mouth syndrome is absurd.

The motivation for this entire thread is even more the emotionally based social-steam vent than the President's comment was, but we are far freer to pop off willy-nilly to vent that frustration without consequences that will negatively affect others.

Dont they wright the scrips for obama to read?
then this is deliberate !

That's an absurd take on the president's comment.

Also, being a constitutional lawyer doesn't mean you're an expert in military law. I'm not going to get a divorce lawyer to defend me in a murder trial.