From CNN Security Clearance blog here

8 Responses to “Possible UCI in Taliban Corpse Desecration Cases”

  1. Devildwglt says:

    Interesting…….It seems General Amos and LtCol Palmer have the same views lets see how this one plays out 

  2. The Crucible of Cross Examination says:

    Beyond the facts of the urination cases, what will this do to all of the UCI cases arising from the Heritage Briefs?  Excerpts from Gen Amos’s answers to interrogatories on 31 Jul 12.   
    CMC: “To the contrary, my decisions and actions are, and have always been, founded on and consistent with the law”
    CMC: “My intent is not to influence the outcome or response in any particular case . . .”
    CMC: “At no time did I directly or indirectly intent to dictate any course of action in any particular case or type of cases.”
    The memo to LtGen Waldhauser would have been of some assistance in cross-examination, no? 

  3. k fischer says:

    The CMC’s answers to those interrogatories were true.  From the February 2012 memo to Lt. Gen. Waldhauser:
     “I believe some of my comments during our recent conversation could be perceived as possibly interfering with your independent and unfettered discretion to take action in these cases.”
    You see, the CMC believes that UCI did not occur, and any hint of UCI was because Lt. Gen. Waldhauser had a “perception”  that the CMC interfered with his subordinate’s unfettered discretion to take action in the case.  If Waldhauser could read the CMC’s mind, then he would have realized that his perception was completely mistaken, and that by commenting the Marines should be “crushed” and discharged, he was merely discussing some of the many actions that could be taken in that particular case. (sarcasm intended)
    As a member of the public, I wonder if the CMC’s thoughts on military justice, particularly on sexual assault, has filtered down into courts-martial?  The irony is that he is saying everything that people like Senator Gillibrand would want him to say on sexual assault, yet, he is making the prosecutions more difficult because of UCI.  If I were Sen. Gillibrand, I would join forces with the CMC and explain that Article 60 is the reason why prosecutions should be taken out of the hands of Commanders.  Commanders are hamstrung and cannot lead on this issue out of fear that what they will say will come back to haunt them in the courtroom.

  4. Babu says:

    The Marine Times has more details, including excerpts from a brass balls email sent by Weirick:

  5. anon says:

    Every JAG should read the link provided by Babu. That would appear to be the clearest UCI issue I’ve recalled in the last decade.

  6. k fischer says:

    Wow…..not quite as bad as a conspiracy to convict two Marines for a death resulting from an order you gave, but this seems a lot like the plot line from A Few Good Men.  

  7. paleo says:

    Prediction: this and many other cases within the military will see the unjust end to many careers (whistleblowers etc). It will take 5+ years for the truth to be fully aired. Those with the time, resilience, and money to sustain the fight to federal court may win back their career and/or reputation. Others will give up. Those responsible for the injustices will be retired and will never see punishment. 

  8. Neutron73 says:

    Of course!  That’s the way the military bureaucracy works.  It’s a shame that the CMC talks a big game about accountability and blows away C.Os like Rambo through a Vietnamese camp but won’t pull the trigger on himself or his advisors over this fiasco.  I think Majors Weirick and Grimm will have their career options severely limited, and others will be unjustly enriched (either allowed full retirement or promoted to bigger, better things).  It’s a shame, really, as people who are nowhere near qualified will see success (and the Corps will continue to suffer as a result) but those with the integrity and determination to call out the miscues of the “leadership” get “crushed”, as the CMC would like to say.