our modern army leadership
Posted on 12/29/2023 3:27:08 PM PST by Yo-Yo
Last December, Brigadier General Warren Wells was appointed and confirmed by the Senate to serve as the Army’s Lead Special Trial Counsel. The newly created position was part of a sweeping effort by Congress to reform the military justice system to insulate against unlawful command influence in cases involving serious criminal offenses, such as those involving sexual assault and violence.
At the time of Wells’s appointment, Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth hailed him as “the experienced leader the Army needs to lead the Office of Special Trial Counsel and ensure its independent oversight of the Army’s most complex cases.”
Yet earlier this month, Wells was relieved of his position over a single decade-old email. This came after he had served only a year as the Army’s top independent prosecutor and within weeks of the statutory deadline for the new office to become fully operational.
In 2013, serving in his leadership role, Wells had urged a group of fellow defense attorneys to uphold their duty in the face of high-pressure sexual assault cases. The email read in part, “hopefully a Soldier will be able to get a fair trial. You and your teams are now the ONLY line of defense against false allegations… [y]ou literally are the personal defenders of those who no one will now defend, even when all signs indicate innocence.”
That email was the essence of leadership. Wells exhorted defense counsel to do their job and remain independent from outside influence. Service members deserve nothing less from appointed defense counsel. What American would want otherwise?
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Author spelled judgment wrong.
Both spellings are considered correct.
I appreciate this article by Mr. Newton, but I wish he could have written it using more of a conversational form of English and less bureaucratic terms.
He was fired mainly, based on an email from years back.
What was that email?
Even still, I’m glad this development has been brought to the attention of the general public. No one else seems to be talking about this.
our modern army leadership
Professor Newton is right over the target on this one. I served 7 years. If I were 18 today with military service on my mind and knowing what I know of the Biden communist cabal running our government I would erase any thought about serving.
That said, the active duty component of my 7 years was spent overseas and decades later I consider my military service a highpoint of my life. That’s the real shame of where we are today in this country.
This guy wanted fair investigations of alleged harassments. That is not appropriate in todays gynocentric military.
Not in the US it’s not.
This certainly does not fit with the current regime.
They are the only line of defense against false allegations. Their job is to find the truth and facilitate justice, whatever that might be. (democrap courts, justices, and politicians dont do this anymore)
Uh huh. “Leadership”
Has anyone been able to find the full text of the email in question?
Probably won’t be able to find an interacted version because the letter concerns a specific case over which privacy protections of the accused or the alleged victim may apply.
One that correctly identified bias among "Congress and our political masters" and instead sought objective, non-PC judgment. Thus he was identified as a threat and shot down with a conservative-seeking missile.
The head of the Army's new independent office responsible for prosecuting major crimes, including sexual assault, was removed on Friday, Dec. 1, after a 2013 email surfaced in which he said, "the sexual assault ridiculousness continues." (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/army-secretary-fires-prosecutor-warren-wells-2013-email-questioning-sexual-assault-claims/)
In the email, obtained by CNN, Wells shared a news article with his subordinates regarding the relief of the US Forces Japan commander for failing to investigate a sexual assault allegation.
Expect no commander to be able to make objective decisions involving [sexual assault] allegations as long [as] Congress and our political masters are dancing by the fire of misleading statistics and one-sided, repetitive misinformation by those with an agenda,” the email reads. “Hopefully a soldier will be able to get a fair trial. You and your teams are now the ONLY line of defense against false allegations and sobriety regret. You literally are the personal defenders of those no one will now defend, even when all signs indicate innocence.”
In a statement to CNN on Tuesday, Wells confirmed that he sent the email and said his “comments were inappropriate in my description of policy makers’ concern about sexual assault.”
“My intent was to reinforce that defense counsel were a critical protection for Soldiers accused of wrongdoing. I do not want my comments to divert attention from the excellent work being done by the new Office of Special Trial Counsel to prosecute special victim crimes and care for victims,” he continued. - https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/05/politics/army-sexual-assault-prosecutor-relieved-duties/index.html
I am not sure if any major cases influenced his statement. the Duke lacrosse case was in 2006 case and the University of Virginia story was in 2012 was reported in 2014.- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37879151
Related: According to Statistics Canada, 19% and 14% of sexual assault allegations were deemed unfounded in 2016 and 2017, respectively.[27] It also declared, however, that more severe and violent cases of sexual assault were less likely to be declared unfounded than less severe ones.[28] Cases declared to be unfounded are cases where police determined that the assault did not occur and was not attempted.[27]
According to the Globe and Mail, the statistics about unfounded cases are often kept secret, providing no incentive for police forces to analyze and account for them.[29]
A 2009 study of rape cases across eleven countries in Europe found the proportion of cases designated false ranged from 4% to 9%.[23]
However, estimates of false allegations are in fact estimates of proven false allegations. These are not estimates of likely, or possible, false allegations. Accordingly, estimating a false allegation rate of 5% (based on proven false allegations) does not allow an inference that 95% of allegations are truthful. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
See post above
Thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.