The government’s case in the court-martial of PFC Bradley Manning is drawing to a close, reports from AP (via WaPo) here and

MAJ. Nidal Hasan will enter a not guilty plea to capital charges in the Ft. Hood shootings. And, as AP points out, here, if Hasan tries to plead not guilty (he’s representing himself) Judge Osborn will enter a NG plea d0for him thanks to a screwy provision of the UCMJ and MCM that does not permit guilty pleas to capital charges.

Army Times reports, here, that a Ft. Stewart soldier already facing double murder charges in civilian court is before an Art. 32 this week on charges that he smothered his wife to get the life insurance proceeds from her death. See our prior coverage here.

I would like to report on what a recent DoD IG report said about recent senior officer misconduct (I think), but this USA Today report is so bad I have no idea. Anyone have a better report on this? I couldn’t find the report on the DoD IG’s website. In related news the commander of NAF El Centro was fired, Navy Times report here. [Updated:  Sadly this is an example of how news organizations have become less about providing quality journalism and more about being a glorified Twitter feed:

5 Responses to “Military Justice News for Tuesday, July 2, 2013”

  1. Paleo says:

    Some of the commentary, talking about news organizations and glorified Twitter feeds, is entirely misplaced. The DoD IG graphic IS a Twitter feed, and yet no report can be found. There’s a problem in itself. If there’s a beef here, it’s with DoD IG.
    And please, let’s stop with accusing the media of something, or anything. To have 88 substantiated claims of misconduct by senior officers, investigated by DoD IG is disturbing. We all know there were many others that were substantiated but neglected in reporting for various reasons. Next, still others where misconduct was present but not sufficiently proven. Now add the multitudes unreported due to a lack of faith that anything will be done. 
    The problems have nothing to do with the media and everything to do with the military. 

  2. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    Where does the DOD IG graphic say it is 88 senior officer cases?  It doesn’t.  This should not have been a news story until someone confirmed what the heck the DOD IG graphic meant.  I agree the Twitter post fromt he DOD IG isn’t particularly good either, but don’t make it worse and pretend that there is a story.  I have a problem with both.

  3. anonymous says:

    It’s from the DoD IG’s Semi-Annual Report.  Check out pages 53-54 and figures 2-3 and 2-4 for all the breakdowns:  http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/sar/SAR_MAR_2013%20Book-06102013-small.pdf
    (Finally, writing my undergrad thesis on the IG’s pays off! /sarcasm)
     

  4. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    Thank you anon.  That is exactly the kind of research USA Today should have undertaken.  Asked DOD IG where this Twitter post was from, read the report and then told us that yes, these 88 cases are “Investigations of Senior Officials,” which includes 1-stars and above, SES employees, and senior political appointees.  Insteazd we get a report that tells us none of that and, given the other content included, leads us to incorrectly believe that the 88 are senior officer cases as Paleo assumed.

  5. anonymous says:

    And don’t even get me started on substantiated complaints (47) which apparently is a 1:1 ratio of investigation to individual vice substantiated allegations (88) which I can only conlude would mean that some, but not all, complaints involved multiple allegations (much like a court-martial to charges analysis).  But the report (and its subsequent twitter feed) is horribly worded and subject to a heck of a lot of misinterpretation.  Sadly, this is par for the course for the Inspectors General, and I include the other agencies, not just DoD and its components, in that opinion.  After all, who watches the watchdogs?