Thanks, but again, did the General consult with the legal staff as directed by the UCMJ? Did the legal staff present some proof or evidence as well that may have contributed to the General’s doubts?
The UCMJ permits a convening authority the right to set aside a conviction, regardless of whether the accused was convicted by a jury of peers...so even if we disagree with the General, the feminists, etc...the General was still within his rights to exercise the set aside.
If and I qualify this statement with IF, the General failed to comply with the UCMJ, then I agree that he deserved what happened. However, facts are sticky things and the media has proven time and again that inconvenient facts will be omitted from the story.
I’m beginning to wonder if the General is falling on his sword to protect the legal staff who may have presented a recommendation that he acted on.
And I do suspect the case being tainted in the sense that it was “seen as a test of willingness to tackle such crimes.” I would be a tad apprehensive about being the defendant in such a “case”. Wouldn’t you?
I agree and I normally don't trust the media at all, but it just seemed peculiar that the jury convicted him, the general set it aside and then the other allegations come out.
How many times have we seen stories on FR and everyone is all jacked up about the mean old boss, or the crazy bus driver etc.... and it turns out that they did the right thing. I was just saying I wanted to hear the whole story, and it seemed the general did not have the whole story.