Update to the General Sinclair court-martial

[Peter1469]

Update to the General Sinclair court-martia (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/generals-court-martial-could-shape-the-future-of-military-justice-system/2014/03/03/13771df0-a2ee-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=%2ASituation%20Report&utm_campaign=SITREP%20MARCH%204%202014)l:

Unfortunately it looks like the Army let politics get in the way of its court-martial.


The defendant, Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair, is accused of carrying on a long affair with a junior officer and sexually assaulting her on two occasions, among other crimes (http://www.fortbraggpresscenter.com/go/doc/5287/1663395/). He is only the third Army general to face court-martial in more than a half-century.




But after two years of investigation and preparation, the prosecution is in disarray.


The Army’s lead trial counsel, Lt. Col. William Helixon, abruptly stepped down last month after confiding to superiors and the general’s defense team that he had qualms about the case.


Sinclair, a married paratrooper (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-the-strains-of-war-lead-to-infidelity/2012/11/15/1d6c020e-2f49-11e2-9f50-0308e1e75445_story.html) and former commander with the storied 82nd Airborne Division, is scheduled to return to the dock Tuesday in a small Fort Bragg courtroom. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges, although his attorneys have acknowledged that he had an affair with the captain. The Army has set aside most of the month for the court-martial.


The Army’s handling of the case is being watched closely in Washington, where the Senate is scheduled to soon consider a major bill that would strip military commanders of their long-standing authority to prosecute sexual assaults and other major crimes.




In court filings, Scheff has said that Helixon, the former lead prosecutor, bluntly told him in a Feb. 9 telephone conversation that he had come to the conclusion that the sexual assault charges against the general should be dropped, but senior Army leaders had insisted the case go forward because of “politics and outside pressures.”


In an interview, Scheff said he was taken aback that a prosecutor would admit such a thing to a defense attorney. “Was I stunned? Yes, in bold, large font,” Scheff said. “He wanted to do the right thing. He’s got strong ethics and a strong moral compass.”

[donttread]

Please tell me the affair was before the assault?

[Peter1469]

Please tell me the affair was before the assault?

Yes.

[Peter1469]

And the trial began today, with lots of procedural stuff. (http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-general-sinclair-sex-assault-trial-porn-20140305,0,2318689.story)


FT. BRAGG, N.C. – A military judge spent his lunch break Wednesday reviewing a trove of pornography as he decides whether to allow prosecutors to show the images in court during the sexual assault trial of Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair (http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/sex-crimes/jeffrey-a.-sinclair-PEOCVC000253.topic).


The judge, Col. James L. Pohl, said he would rule later Wednesday on whether to allow prosecutors to show up to 125 pornographic images and 50 videos during their opening statements, scheduled for Thursday.


Sinclair, 51, a one-star general, is also charged with possessing pornography in a war zone while serving as deputy commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.


http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-general-sinclair-sex-assault-trial-porn-20140305,0,2318689.story#ixzz2v8eZpzA4


That judge is one hard ass. Good judge.

[Blackrook]

It looks and smells like a witch hunt. Since when are soldiers prosecuted for having pictures of naked women? This is absurd.

[Peter1469]

General Order #1: if it is fun it is illegal. Lots of soldiers and officers have been prosecuted on those charges.

The Brits actually make fun of us over it.

But this case is also about forceable sodomy.


It looks and smells like a witch hunt. Since when are soldiers prosecuted for having pictures of naked women? This is absurd.

[Blackrook]

Well, if the prosecutor thinks the charges should be dropped, the general is probably innocent of the alleged rapes. But the military is prosecuting anyway to appease the liberals in Washington. That's a witch hunt.

[Max Rockatansky]

Well, if the prosecutor thinks the charges should be dropped, the general is probably innocent of the alleged rapes. But the military is prosecuting anyway to appease the liberals in Washington. That's a witch hunt.
Agreed that political pressures are part of this, but the General is guilty of fraternization and possession of contraband. Nothing worth him losing a star over much less going to prison, but guilty nonetheless. He already admitted the fraternization and other charges. He should be allowed to resign.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/05/brig-gen-jeffrey-sinclair-to-admit-guilt-on-criminal-charges-but-denies-sex/

Sinclair's lawyer Richard Scheff said the general will plead guilty to having improper relationships with two other female Army officers and to committing adultery with his mistress, which is a crime in the military. He will also admit violating orders by possessing pornography in Afghanistan and to conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman.

......The defense will present evidence at trial that the female captain lied under oath during a pretrial hearing in January about her handling of old iPhone containing messages between her and the general. Lawyers for Sinclair have painted the woman as a scorned lover who only reported the sexual assault allegations after the general refused to leave his wife.

[Blackrook]

My guess is that at least half or more of the people in the military have committed adultery and/or sodomy and probably 90% of them have pornography under their bunks, so prosecuting this general is just an exercise in hypocrisy.

[Peter1469]

The prosecutor in the military doesn't have a say in whether a charge is dropped or not. I got caught in that when I was an army prosecutor. So I just didn't present any evidence at all on a charge and tried to rest the governments case. The judge pointed out that, and I said that I knew and he asked why I didn't move to dismiss the charge. I then said I didn't have that authority, and he caught on and then did it himself.


Well, if the prosecutor thinks the charges should be dropped, the general is probably innocent of the alleged rapes. But the military is prosecuting anyway to appease the liberals in Washington. That's a witch hunt.

[Blackrook]

Well, this prosecutor who called the defense and admitted he had no case may get in trouble for what he did, but in my opinion the ethical rules that bind all attorneys (including military attorneys) gave him no other way out. The charges of a spurned mistress that she was raped are so suspect to begin with that this case should never gone this far.

[Peter1469]

The military will make him pay behind the scenes.


Well, this prosecutor who called the defense and admitted he had no case may get in trouble for what he did, but in my opinion the ethical rules that bind all attorneys (including military attorneys) gave him no other way out. The charges of a spurned mistress that she was raped are so suspect to begin with that this case should never gone this far.

[Blackrook]

The military will make him pay behind the scenes.
He's an attorney so what can they do to him? It's not like they can give him a suicide mission in Afghanistan or K.P. duty. Maybe they will send him to Greenland. But he will get out of the military at some point and get a good civilian job with a firm that respects honorable practice of law.

[Peter1469]

He's an attorney so what can they do to him? It's not like they can give him a suicide mission in Afghanistan or K.P. duty. Maybe they will send him to Greenland. But he will get out of the military at some point and get a good civilian job with a firm that respects honorable practice of law.

A bad evaluation report = no promotion. But he is an LTC now so he can just ride it out to 20 years and retire.

[Max Rockatansky]

My guess is that at least half or more of the people in the military have committed adultery and/or sodomy and probably 90% of them have pornography under their bunks, so prosecuting this general is just an exercise in hypocrisy.

1) The higher the rank, the higher the standards expected from their conduct.
2) While adultery is still on the books, it's rarely prosecuted. Conduct unbecoming and fraternization is a different matter and is often prosecuted.
3) The "bu..bu...but, Mooooom, everyone else is doing it" excuse is juvenile.

[Peter1469]

1) The higher the rank, the higher the standards expected from their conduct.
2) While adultery is still on the books, it's rarely prosecuted. Conduct unbecoming and fraternization is a different matter and is often prosecuted.
3) The "bu..bu...but, Mooooom, everyone else is doing it" excuse is juvenile.


The crime called adultery in the UCMJ is not just sex with someone not your spouse. It has three elements and each must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt with its own evidence.

1. Sex (defined as intercourse in the military, not oral or anal)
2. One of the parties is married and the other party isn't the spouse of the other (with knowledge of course)
3. Conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the armed forces or service discrediting conduct.

And example that I used to use for commanders:

A. A private is married. His wife leaves him. He gets into a relationship with a woman who has no ties to the military. He gets caught. Element 1 and 2 are not in doubt. What about element 3?

B. A captain who is married. His wife leaves him. He gets into a relationship with the wife of one of his platoon leaders. He gets caught. Element 3 is easy to prove in this case, assuming that the platoon leader doesn't kill him before trial.

[Peter1469]

The defense has decided to plead guilty (http://Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair -- once one of the U.S. Army's top commanders in Afghanistan and accused of "sodomy ... by force" and other military crimes -- is to set to plead guilty Thursday to some charges but not the most serious levied against him, his lawyer said.Sinclair will plead guilty on three of the eight charges he's facing in military court, according to the office of lawyer Richard Scheff. These include "wrongfully engaging in ... inappropriate relationships" with three women soldiers from 2009 to 2012 overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan and Germany as well as domestically at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and Fort Hood, Texas.He'll also admit to having requested and possessed "pornographic and sexually explicit photographs and movies," having "sexually explicit communications with a female Army captain, and trying "to engage in an inappropriate relationship" with another woman. And the brigadier general will plead guilty to impeding the investigation into him by deleting nude photographs and an e-mail account, his lawyer said.) to the lesser charges. This is a tactically risky move and guarantees a dismissal from the Army, and maybe some jail time. But it will likely help destroy the prosecutions' apparently very weak case on the more serious charges.

@Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863), would you plead out the lesser offenses in a case like this? It has to be a naked plea- no deal with the government. I would have been the first prosecutor- the guy who dropped out of the case. (Based just on the news, I don't have any inside knowledge with this one).



Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair -- once one of the U.S. Army's top commanders in Afghanistan and accused of "sodomy ... by force" and other military crimes -- is to set to plead guilty Thursday to some charges but not the most serious levied against him, his lawyer said. Sinclair will plead guilty on three of the eight charges he's facing in military court, according to the office of lawyer Richard Scheff. These include "wrongfully engaging in ... inappropriate relationships" with three women soldiers from 2009 to 2012 overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan and Germany as well as domestically at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and Fort Hood, Texas. He'll also admit to having requested and possessed "pornographic and sexually explicit photographs and movies," having "sexually explicit communications with a female Army captain, and trying "to engage in an inappropriate relationship" with another woman. And the brigadier general will plead guilty to impeding the investigation into him by deleting nude photographs and an e-mail account, his lawyer said.

[Alyosha]

The defense has decided to plead guilty (http://Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair -- once one of the U.S. Army's top commanders in Afghanistan and accused of "sodomy ... by force" and other military crimes -- is to set to plead guilty Thursday to some charges but not the most serious levied against him, his lawyer said.Sinclair will plead guilty on three of the eight charges he's facing in military court, according to the office of lawyer Richard Scheff. These include "wrongfully engaging in ... inappropriate relationships" with three women soldiers from 2009 to 2012 overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan and Germany as well as domestically at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and Fort Hood, Texas.He'll also admit to having requested and possessed "pornographic and sexually explicit photographs and movies," having "sexually explicit communications with a female Army captain, and trying "to engage in an inappropriate relationship" with another woman. And the brigadier general will plead guilty to impeding the investigation into him by deleting nude photographs and an e-mail account, his lawyer said.) to the lesser charges. This is a tactically risky move and guarantees a dismissal from the Army, and maybe some jail time. But it will likely help destroy the prosecutions' apparently very weak case on the more serious charges.

@Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863), would you plead out the lesser offenses in a case like this? It has to be a naked plea- no deal with the government. I would have been the first prosecutor- the guy who dropped out of the case. (Based just on the news, I don't have any inside knowledge with this one).


What do you mean no deals with the government?? :)

Here's the thing Peter1469 as you know military law and military justice is completely different than what we civilians get to work with. Even state to state it's hard to keep up.

We actually have a lot more to work with when you're talking about the civilian world. I could get him to take a plea that included charges ranging from public exposure (A Class Misdemeanor) to forcible touching (A Class Misdemeanor) or even (better yet) a straight A Class Misdemeanor Assault which would make it seem on his record for future employers that he maybe got into a bar fight.

Military law is kind of interesting though. I'd rather be charged in the civilian world than military.

[Peter1469]

Alyosha. As far as courts-martial go, military law is very similar to criminal law at the federal level. The military rules of evidence mirror the federal rules of evidence, with some minor additions to account for secret stuff.

The big difference is the jury (panel in the military). In the civilian world you get yahoos that couldn't get out of jury duty. Typically a bunch of day-time TV watchers. In the military, the vast majority of people on juries have at least masters degrees. And, the lawyers tend to know them all. So it is strange in that element as well.


What do you mean no deals with the government?? :)

Here's the thing @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) as you know military law and military justice is completely different than what we civilians get to work with. Even state to state it's hard to keep up.

We actually have a lot more to work with when you're talking about the civilian world. I could get him to take a plea that included charges ranging from public exposure (A Class Misdemeanor) to forcible touching (A Class Misdemeanor) or even (better yet) a straight A Class Misdemeanor Assault which would make it seem on his record for future employers that he maybe got into a bar fight.

Military law is kind of interesting though. I'd rather be charged in the civilian world than military.

[Peter1469]

Oh, no deals with the government- I suspect in this case the defense did not enter into an agreement to plead guilty on the minor charges- a naked plea. So there isn't an agreed maximum sentence with the government on those charges.

[Mini Me]

Well, if the prosecutor thinks the charges should be dropped, the general is probably innocent of the alleged rapes. But the military is prosecuting anyway to appease the liberals in Washington. That's a witch hunt.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but liberals don't do witch hunts!

That is a Rethuglican specialty; Ken Starr, Sen. Joe McCarthy, HUAC, Nixon, etc.

[Mini Me]

General Order #1: if it is fun it is illegal. Lots of soldiers and officers have been prosecuted on those charges.

The Brits actually make fun of us over it.

Help! help! The SODOMITES are coming!

Just rip a star off his uniform and be done with it!

Can't a man have a little fun anymore?


But this case is also about forceable sodomy.

[Max Rockatansky]

I recall a case in the Marine Corps in the 1980s when an unmarried officer was being charged with "sodomy" for having consensual oral sex with an unmarried sergeant. I don't know exactly how it came about, but the defense somehow put the question to the prosecution that if he had ever had oral sex with his wife that must recuse himself. He did and those particular charges were dropped. The case then revolved around fraternization and the officer ended up resigning his commission.

[Peter1469]

Consensual sodomy is no longer a crime under the UCMJ.

I never included it on any of my charge sheets. :wink:


I recall a case in the Marine Corps in the 1980s when an unmarried officer was being charged with "sodomy" for having consensual oral sex with an unmarried sergeant. I don't know exactly how it came about, but the defense somehow put the question to the prosecution that if he had ever had oral sex with his wife that must recuse himself. He did and those particular charges were dropped. The case then revolved around fraternization and the officer ended up resigning his commission.

[Max Rockatansky]

Consensual sodomy is no longer a crime under the UCMJ.

I never included it on any of my charge sheets. :wink:

Good to hear!

[pragmatic]

Update to the General Sinclair court-martia (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/generals-court-martial-could-shape-the-future-of-military-justice-system/2014/03/03/13771df0-a2ee-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=*Situation Report&utm_campaign=SITREP MARCH 4 2014)l:

Unfortunately it looks like the Army let politics get in the way of its court-martial.


The general pleaded not guilty to the most serious charges against him. They include twice forcing the captain to perform oral sex, groping her, committing sodomy, engaging in public sex and threatening to kill the captain and her family if she revealed their three-year affair.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sinclair-guilty-plea-20140305,0,7276908.story#ixzz2vPIpYBBf

(http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sinclair-guilty-plea-20140305,0,7276908.story#ixzz2vPIpYBBf)


Not sure where the case is being distorted by politics. Will have to wait and see what the final verdict is.

But at this point the General may end up getting off easy. The charges he has already plead guilty to are potentially worth 15 years. If he got any plea bargain allowances for the more serious charges may avoid spending the rest of his life in jail.

Am thinking the Army really frowns on Generals threatening to kill subordinate officers....



//

[Peter1469]

The general pleaded not guilty to the most serious charges against him. They include twice forcing the captain to perform oral sex, groping her, committing sodomy, engaging in public sex and threatening to kill the captain and her family if she revealed their three-year affair.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sinclair-guilty-plea-20140305,0,7276908.story#ixzz2vPIpYBBf

(http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sinclair-guilty-plea-20140305,0,7276908.story#ixzz2vPIpYBBf)


Not sure where the case is being distorted by politics. Will have to wait and see what the final verdict is.

But at this point the General may end up getting off easy. The charges he has already plead guilty to are potentially worth 15 years. If he got any plea bargain allowances for the more serious charges may avoid spending the rest of his life in jail.

Am thinking the Army really frowns on Generals threatening to kill subordinate officers....



//

Those are allegations. Unfortunately the victim / star witness has contradicted herself. That is the hardest thing with prosecuting these sex crimes. I know. I did it.

The politics are the changes that Congress wants to make in the military justice system with regards to sexual offenses. In case you missed it.

[pragmatic]

Those are allegations. Unfortunately the victim / star witness has contradicted herself. That is the hardest thing with prosecuting these sex crimes. I know. I did it.

The politics are the changes that Congress wants to make in the military justice system with regards to sexual offenses. In case you missed it.

Yep. Have missed that. Is there a post or a link that expands on that element....??

[Peter1469]

Here (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2014/0307/Is-military-better-handling-its-sexual-assault-problem-Congress-is-watching.-video).

Congress also tried to strip Commanders of their UCMJ (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/us/politics/military-sexual-assault-legislation.html?_r=0) authority regarding sexual crimes. But so far it has failed.
Yep. Have missed that. Is there a post or a link that expands on that element....??

[Max Rockatansky]

I was surprised a Democratic Senate failed to pass that bill. Even though it was close, it goes to show they recognize the necessity of a military chain-of-command.

OTOH, military commanders need to fix this sexual harassment/assault problem. No doubt some women are lying, but there is also no doubt many are telling the truth.

[Peter1469]

It is a complicated situation that is not helped by the publicity.


I was surprised a Democratic Senate failed to pass that bill. Even though it was close, it goes to show they recognize the necessity of a military chain-of-command.

OTOH, military commanders need to fix this sexual harassment/assault problem. No doubt some women are lying, but there is also no doubt many are telling the truth.

[Max Rockatansky]

Agreed it's complicated. Exposing everything to public view isn't always smart, but sometimes it does work best.

If I had a female member of my family or a friend who joined and they were assaulted, I'd want justice. I see no reason why every soldier, sailor, airman or Marine, regardless of gender, doesn't deserve justice.

All of our military personnel deserve to live in a just society. If anyone, they've earned it.

[Peter1469]

Agreed it's complicated. Exposing everything to public view isn't always smart, but sometimes it does work best.

If I had a female member of my family or a friend who joined and they were assaulted, I'd want justice. I see no reason why every soldier, sailor, airman or Marine, regardless of gender, doesn't deserve justice.

All of our military personnel deserve to live in a just society. If anyone, they've earned it.

Of course.

I have also been at a get together in Korea where one on my colleagues put his hand on the shoulder of another colleague. She filed a sexual harassment complaint. There were 3 army prosecutors there. 4 army defense attorneys. And two military judges (army and air force).

The lesson becomes, if you don't know the female colleagues go as boring as possible with all contact. Never have them in your office without a witness. It sucks, doesn't it.

[Max Rockatansky]

Of course.

I have also been at a get together in Korea where one on my colleagues put his hand on the shoulder of another colleague. She filed a sexual harassment complaint. There were 3 army prosecutors there. 4 army defense attorneys. And two military judges (army and air force).

The lesson becomes, if you don't know the female colleagues go as boring as possible with all contact. Never have them in your office without a witness. It sucks, doesn't it.

Sucks, yes. OTOH, if a boy has been abused by Priests, it's understandable if he's a little jumpy when a priest sneaks up behind him, places a hand on each shoulder and says, "Hey! How ya doin'?"

Same goes for a black man reacting to being called "boy". It's just a word, but I can understand why a black man may take more offense of it than a white man. It is right that they do? No, but then it's not right that some people have abused the term in reference to black males.

Sexual harassment of women, no matter how subtle, has a long history in our country. Did the woman overreact in the situation you described? Probably. She certainly didn't react like a man but then, how often do senior officers put their hands on junior male personnel?

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. Just understandable.

[Bob]

Well, if the prosecutor thinks the charges should be dropped, the general is probably innocent of the alleged rapes. But the military is prosecuting anyway to appease the liberals in Washington. That's a witch hunt.

Maybe the military has changed from my days as a soldier, but back then one did not date their junior officer.
The junior could be seen as using sex to gain rank and the senior as taking advantage of the junior.

Very unhealthy when combat is taken into account.

The woman Captain had to know her rules as did the then less than General officer. I hear he is a brand new one star, thus he also was a Col.

We warned and warned to not have women with our military guys.

[Bob]

I was surprised a Democratic Senate failed to pass that bill. Even though it was close, it goes to show they recognize the necessity of a military chain-of-command.

OTOH, military commanders need to fix this sexual harassment/assault problem. No doubt some women are lying, but there is also no doubt many are telling the truth.

The military chain of command is rife with abuse. I am speaking not only of daily interaction, but the use of the Article 15 and lesser, the courts-martial.

I used to have a saying that one ought not be saluted below the rank of Captain. I know, it is not fair to the decent and good officers in the first two O ranks.

Second Lt's have learning permits. They still don't have the hang of command. While they are told they do, too many die in combat at the hands of their own men.
First Lt's are still not Captains but are getting closer. Taking into account the short time spent as an O-1, being an 0-2 is slightly better.

Let me give you some examples. Most of the 0-1; 0-2 grade are still too close to having left high school. They do not have the same maturity one has past age 25. Captains are rarely under 25. And a Captain has probably at least 5 years as an Officer. I saw very few Captains in the Army in my days who were dumb fucks. I recall one who was still a Captain though he had well over 15 years as an Officer. Imagine a guy stunted as a Captain. They are dumb fucks.

I recall my unit X-O who was a recent promotion to X-O and this clown thought it his duty or privilege to put the hammer down on the enlisted. And he was snotty as hell to other Officers he had position on. He was disliked by both his own rank Officers and also disliked by some senior to him. The dumb fuck took Company HQ on some wild goose chase causing the Colonel to rip his ass but good. The Captain was off doing other things for the Col.

But as to Article 15s, this XO flat abused people. If he could put them in jail, he would have. As it was, he was way too hard on enlisted who had long been in the Army as he was still some snotty nosed rich child in lower grades of school.

[Max Rockatansky]

I used to have a saying that one ought not be saluted below the rank of Captain.
You're saluting the uniform, not the man. Those being saluted return the salute for the same reason.


Let me give you some examples. Most of the 0-1; 0-2 grade are still too close to having left high school. They do not have the same maturity one has past age 25. Captains are rarely under 25. And a Captain has probably at least 5 years as an Officer. I saw very few Captains in the Army in my days who were dumb fucks. I recall one who was still a Captain though he had well over 15 years as an Officer. Imagine a guy stunted as a Captain. They are dumb fucks. College graduates and butter bars are typically 22. First Lieutenant 18 months later at 23-24. Captains at five years after initial commissioning putting the youngest at 27. That's how it went with me and my peers in the 1980s. Obviously experience and age often bring more wisdom and maturity, but people have to start learning sometime and that's an education that has to be earned, not bought nor given.

A few months into my Fleet squadron, after almost two years of training, the Captain in my department pulled me aside and said "You aren't making enough mistakes". I was obviously confused about what he meant. He told me "You are playing it too safe. You need to take more risks. You'll make mistakes and you'll learn from those mistakes." It was a good lesson.

Leaders aren't born, they are made. I've seen some lousy leaders, but I've seen plenty of good ones too such as the Captain just mentioned.

[Bob]

You're saluting the uniform, not the man. Those being saluted return the salute for the same reason.

College graduates and butter bars are typically 22. First Lieutenant 18 months later at 23-24. Captains at five years after initial commissioning putting the youngest at 27. That's how it went with me and my peers in the 1980s. Obviously experience and age often bring more wisdom and maturity, but people have to start learning sometime and that's an education that has to be earned, not bought nor given.

A few months into my Fleet squadron, after almost two years of training, the Captain in my department pulled me aside and said "You aren't making enough mistakes". I was obviously confused about what he meant. He told me "You are playing it too safe. You need to take more risks. You'll make mistakes and you'll learn from those mistakes." It was a good lesson.

Leaders aren't born, they are made. I've seen some lousy leaders, but I've seen plenty of good ones too such as the Captain just mentioned.

LOL

I realize that the text is the uniform is saluted but if the Lt pulls of his uniform and is seen on the street, he still ought to be respected.

You pretty much confirmed what I reported. We had a staff of officers in my unit that as I recall was close to 30. I might be wrong but we had every rank from 2nd Lt up to and including full bird Col. We had S-1 to S-4. I worked directly for the company commander. I typed the organization so many times and typed the various names that I still to this day recall many names of officers and some enlisted in my unit.

Major Daniel F Blatt had commanded the company but with promotion was bumped up to S-4. I never worked for Blatt. But my company XO had. And he approached Major Blatt with some supply comments or maybe complaints and the Major looked up from his desk at the 1st Lt and pointed at his door.

But, Sir protests the Lt, I have to talk to you.

Again Blatt points at the door in silence.

I was not the only one that found this 1st lt sucked big time.

I could tell you how the XO talked to fellow officers too. Maybe that would do it.

One story I recall is some Lt of the same rank as the XO filled out the HQ/HQ duty roster of Officer duties, such as OD or a range officer and the like.

He and I crossed paths on my way to HQ where the Col had his office. He asks me if I was going back soon to my HQ and I says I was. He tells me will I please hand to the XO the duty roster. I says, sure. He laughs telling me that he knows how the XO will rant and rave and prefers not being the one with the news.

All this took place in 1963.

I will say this about my time in the US Army. I can only recall one dunce captain and the dunce XO I speak of.

I happened to be surrounded by officers and it gave me plenty of perspective.

Since you fly, let me tell you of the dunce captain.

He had the job as the airfield commander in Germany. He had pilots under him and he was also a pilot.

This one day, due to zero zero weather, the airfield was closed to take off or landings.

We got this call from 3rd Division HQ at Wurzburg Germany that Major General Mildren wanted to know of our weather since he had business at our area so figured if he could come by helicopter, he would. This dunce captain who closed the airfield told the General or his spokesman (I am not sure who this Captain was talking to) how he would hop into a helicopter at our field and fly the 35 miles over to pick him up.

The General turned him down given the zero zero.

But worse, this Captain was a drunken lush. I can't recall any Captain who was such a loser. He had a hard time making any decision unless he saw it as saving his career. Now, this guy had I was told over 15 years in the Army and to keep from being pushed out, he learned if he changed his MOS, it would give him more chances. So he swapped one MOS for a different one. I of course only know about this due to what he did as well as pilots working for him had the same opinion as I did. I can't recall any of the pilots respecting him at all.

[Bob]

Leaders aren't born, they are made. I've seen some lousy leaders, but I've seen plenty of good ones too such as the Captain just mentioned. (Max said)

Max, I worked for a couple of company commanders in Germany. The last guy, Captain Griffith and I were almost best pals. Maybe it was his way more than fact. But I sure liked him.

This story is about me refusing to salute some "butter bar".

I was out on the sidewalk coming back from the HQ/HQ Battalion building. I went there often and back to my building. I sauntered by this young guy, without a salute. He barks at me, come back. Then he lectures me and takes down my name and unit.

I got back to my building and went to see the Captain and told him what I had done. He seemed amused and told me not to worry.

Part of this has to do with me being based for a few months at Ft. Benning where in the Airborne training rank was taken off uniforms. We had no clue if this guy was an officer or not. The training was done by Sgts so it would be hard for them to train saying yes sir and no sir all day long to his trainees.

Maybe at this time, the officers in training have rank on the uniform. But not when I was there.

[Max Rockatansky]

Maybe at this time, the officers in training have rank on the uniform. But not when I was there.

There's always going to be people who let rank go to their head, but in fairness, this was a 23something with less than 18 months active duty.....and the US Army. http://imageshack.us/a/img21/2374/tgx.gif

I've heard of officer wives letting it go to their head that they being saluted at the gate. They have to have it explained to them it's not them, but the position that blue sticker represents.

As an "airdale", I was always in officer-heavy units. Most of the time we were either inside a hangar or aboard ship so it wasn't as big a problem for enlisted personnel to wear out an arm saluting officers and vice versa.

Speaking of officer-enlisted relationships, one time when I was on a cross-country at some AF base, instead of letting my LCPL crewman be by himself at an E-Club full of Zoomies, I took him with me and my copilot to the O-Club for a beer....after a stern warning not to talk to anyone but us.

[Alyosha]

Sorry to dissapoint you, but liberals don't do witch hunts!

That is a Rethuglican specialty; Ken Starr, Sen. Joe McCarthy, HUAC, Nixon, etc.

Do you selectively watch television?