Not knowing the military, how should “command influence” affect the outcome of Gen. Mattis’s rulings in this case? Does it give him more leeway in granting a complete dismissal?
Also, do you think the Murtha debacle will keep other senators and congresspeople from weighing in on the other end of the spectrum, i.e., stopping , or never starting, favorable investigations in what I call Malicious prosecutions of our soldiers?
Essentially, command influence is anyone in any soldier’s chain of command attempting to prejudice his case. One could argue that Murtha is not in these Marines’ chain of command. That is true, but Murtha is in a unique position as the head of the money for all the services, so that he can influence the chain of command.
If it is true that the Commandant of the Marines conversed with Murtha and told him this was cold-blooded murder or ANYTHING at all, then that Commandant IS in the chain.
Investigating a crime is not command influence. Command influence, however, could prejudice the investigation so that the investigators only looked for signs of guilt and hardly looked for signs of innocence.
A Senator could ask for an investigation in a neutral way and that would not be command influence. First, because the Senator would not technically be in the chain of command, but also because it would simply be a search for more information.
For a congessman to say, “These guys are cold-blooded murderers and their commandant says so, too” would constitute influence.
Personally, I think that a congressman can exert influence detrimental to the cause of justice in any soldier’s legal case. Since the nature of the military places that soldier at the mercy of his branch of service, then that congressman would be affecting the command climate in that service to the detriment of that soldier’s receiving justice.