Army Maj. Gen. Ralph Baker, commander of the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa, was relieved of his duties on March 28. Military officials claim that the grounds for his termination are loss of confidence in his ability to command. But Baker is allegedly facing allegations of harassment and inappropriate conduct, which officials were not authorized to discuss publicly, the Associated Press reports.Since his termination by Gen. Carter Ham, head of the US Africa Command, Baker has returned to Washington, DC, where he is temporarily serving as a special assistant to the vice chief of the Army. Such positions are often filled by general officers who are under investigation for a crime, as well as those who are waiting for their new job to open up.The major general has appealed his termination to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, with the hope that he can get reinstated in Africa. Unnamed officials familiar with the case told AP that Baker has received a pay cut, which the defendant is also trying to appeal. Officials believe Hagel might have more of a say in the extent of the financial punishment, but is less likely to override the termination decision made by Gen. Ham, who is a senior commander.Baker had been stationed as head of the task force, located at Camp Lemmonier in Djibouti, since last May.Problems with officials at the US Africa Command have occurred before: Ham’s predecessor, Army Gen. William “Kip” Ward, was demoted from four stars to three after investigators found he had been misusing government funds and “lavishly spending”.But cases of sexual assault are increasingly popping up in the military – a common problem that lawmakers have complained about. Last month, sexual assault victims who claimed they were harassed by military leaders testified in front of a Senate subcommittee hearing. One victim, Former Army Sgt. Rebekah Havrilla, said her rapist never faced charges – even though the perpetrator took pictures of her during the rape and posted them on a pornographic website.“The military criminal justice system is broken,” Havrilla told members of Congress.Research by the Department of Veteran Affairs last year found that almost half of all US women deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan say they were sexually harassed, while nearly one-quarter claim they were sexually assaulted.Baker is just the latest of a number of officers who have been reprimanded or are under investigation for possible sexual misconduct. Earlier this year, Air Force Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin reversed a sexual assault conviction against Lt. Col. James Wilkerson – a move that infuriated lawmakers and shed further light on the problem of sexual assaults in the military.Hagel has recently ordered a review of Franklin’s decision, but has not yet made any comments regarding Baker’s termination and appeal. … Read More
Brickbat: Might As Well Jump
Two Sarasota County, Florida,
sheriff’s deputies seemed a bit miffed when Charles Ross jumped
over a
picnic table they were sitting on. But when they noticed he was
recording them they got really angry. Threatening to ruin his day,
they pulled him to the ground, handcuffed him and arrested Ross for
breach of the peace and disorderly conduct. … Read More
Church volunteer busted for spiking kids’ Easter eggs with ADHD meds
A volunteer at an Alabama church was arrested on Tuesday after he allegedly put his prescription medication inside Easter Eggs that were given out to children. According to the Press-Register, Daphne Police charged 21-year-old Jarret Anthony Helm with one count of disorderly conduct after a…
Air Force officer’s sex assault sentence thrown out by commander despite jury’s decision
Lt. Col. James Wilkerson, a pilot who was also the inspectorgeneral of the 31stFighter Wing at Aviano Air Base inItaly, was found guilty of aggravated sexual assault and sentencedto one year in military prison in November. His charges included“abusive sexual contact, aggravated sexual assault and threeinstances of conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman,”the Air Force Times reported.But last month, Lt. Gen. Craig A. Franklin, commander of theThird Air Force base, dismissed the sexual assault conviction –even though there was plenty of evidence of the defendant’s guilt.On Feb. 26, the case was dismissed and Franklin even recommendedWilkerson for a promotion, the New York Times reported.The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) allows commanders tooverturn military convictions – a law that has been a source ofoutrage, especially among victims of sexual assault. The victim inthe Wilkerson case, a civilian physician’s assistant, was so upsetwhen she heard about the dismissal that she reached out to anadvocacy group.“She was devastated,” Nancy Parrish, president of ProtectOur Defenders, told the Huffington Post. “Franklin hadn’tbothered to speak with her as a part of his decision and he hasn’treached out to her since… Just when she felt like she was gettingher life back, this happened.”In response the overturn of the conviction, which has sparkedanger even among lawmakers, a group of senators are preparing toannounce legislation that would amend the code.”What this case has done is it has opened a window into whatI think are some very weird provisions of the UCMJ, and they arethe kind of provisions that are offensive to most Americans,”Sen. Claire McCaskill, who will announce the legislation, told TheHuffington Post. “The notion that this convening authority canoverturn a jury decision for any or no reason at all.”Angered by the case that allowed Wilkerson to get away withsexual assault, senators of the Armed Services Committee haveorganized the Senate’s first hearing on military sexual assault innearly 10 years, where military officials will face toughquestioning about the case.Amid widespread criticism from senators about Franklin’sdecision to overturn the sexual assault conviction, DefenseSecretary Chuck Hagel this week announced that he would review theUCMJ provisions – but that he lacks the authority to overrule theAir Force general’s decision.”Under the [UCMJ], the convening authority’s action is afinal decision,” Hagel wrote in response to a letter from Sens.Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H). “Thedecision of the convening authority cannot be changed.”But although Hagel said the decision cannot be reversed, headmitted that it would be worth examining the law that permitted itin the first place.”I believe this case does raise a significant questionwhether it is necessary or appropriate to place the conveningauthority in the position of having the responsibility to reviewthe findings and sentence of a court-martial,” Hagel wrote.With Wednesday’s hearing about sexual assaults in the military,the Senate Armed Services subcommittee will bring further review toa case that has already garnered national attention and promptedlawmakers to take action.The issue sheds light not only on the UCMJ provision, but alsoon the US military culture that makes sexual assault cases sorecurrent. There were 3,191 reported cases of sexual assault in themilitary in 2011, but according to Secretary of Defense Leon E.Panetta, the actual number could be as high as 19,000. Documentsconnected to the Wilkerson case describe testimonies by women whosay that the culture among Air Force fighter pilots encouragesmisogynistic behavior. And with the ability for lieutenant colonelsto dismiss any and all charges, military personnel are able to getaway with their crimes.“For women who have been sexually assaulted, it means thattheir bosses decide whether charges are brought against theirassailants, and that information about their assaults is shared intheir workplaces,” writes James Risen for the New YorkTimes.And for the victim in the Wilkerson case, going back to workafter being assaulted by one of the military’s top leaders isintimidating and disheartening.“The defense did everything they could to drag my name andcharacter through the mud. I still went to work and did myjob,” she wrote in a statement for the Senate hearing. “Whatreally scares me is that (the perpetrator) will remain in aposition of military leadership. Really? Leadership?” … Read More
Don’t talk ‘tu’ suspects like that: French police ordered to be polite
The law enforcement officers have been explicitly banned fromspeaking to any members of the public using ‘tu,’ which isnormally used to address friends, family or younger children,according to a new 33-article code of conduct that comes intoeffect next month.Using ‘tu’ to a stranger can be considered derogatory orimpolite. However, French police are prone to employing the termwhen speaking to suspects.“For many police officers, using the familiar ‘tu’ is in theirDNA… it carries an implied threat,” an anonymous youth toldlocal news radio channel France Info. “It’s the kind of thingthat can quite naturally ignite a violent reaction and it’s alwaysthe youths who come off badly.”“Quite rightly a lot of young people refuse to be spoken to thisway,” he added.Instead, officers must now use ‘vous,’ a polite form ofaddress generally reserved for addressing those who are older, lessfamiliar or of higher standing.The new code was proposed by French Minister of the Interior ManuelValls, who hopes it will help the police “improve relations”with the population as a whole, which he believes should be centralto police training, France Info reported.Article 12, which deals with the police’s relationship with theFrench population, commands that officers “behave in allcircumstances in an exemplary fashion and with complete respect forthe dignity of individuals,” in the hope that it will inspiregreater respect in return.However, given the nature of police work, especially in areasdeemed to be inhabited by ‘troubled youths,’ this may meanthat officers have to deal with unpleasantness or impoliteness fromsuspects, who may not reciprocate the politeness.An unnamed officer told the radio station that using ‘tu’was “an indispensable tool for asserting authority.”The new code of conduct also instructs French policemen to giveassistance “within the limits of the means at his disposal,”and not to carry out identity checks based on physicalcharacteristics or distinctive signs. … Read More
How the Gay Marriage Case Pits Liberty Against State Power
On March 26 the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in
Hollingsworth v. Perry, the legal challenge to
California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 voter initiative that amended
the state constitution in order to forbid gay marriage. Leading the
challenge against Prop. 8 are two of the country’s most powerful
lawyers, Theodore Olson, former solicitor general under President
George W. Bush, and David Boies, former chief counsel of the Senate
Judiciary Committee and former lead counsel for Vice President Al
Gore in the 2000 case of Bush v.
Gore (where Boies squared off against Olson before the
Supreme Court).
Yesterday, Olson and Boies submitted their
main brief in the case to the Supreme Court, and, in the words
of SCOTUSblog’s
Lyle Denniston, it’s nothing short of an “all-out assault” on
the notion that banning gay marriage is consistent with the
constitutional principles of liberty and equality.
It’s a sweeping document. In its 54 pages, the brief repeatedly
cites the Supreme Court’s most significant civil rights decisions,
from Brown v.
Board of Education (1954), which nullified the doctrine of
separate but equal, to
Loving v. Virginia (1967), which struck down a state
ban on interracial marriage. But it is the Supreme Court’s 2003
ruling in Lawrence
v. Texas that exerts perhaps the greatest influence over
the case against Prop. 8. Not only is Lawrence cited more
than a dozen times in the brief, but that ruling’s central
theme—liberty vs. state power—runs consistently throughout the
Olson-Boies argument.
It’s a bold strategy, but it may pay off. Justice Anthony
Kennedy, the likely swing vote in the Prop. 8 case, also wrote the
majority opinion in Lawrence, and as the libertarian legal
scholar Randy Barnett has noted,
Kennedy’s Lawrence decision struck down Texas’ ban on
homosexual conduct not as a matter of “gay rights,” but as a matter
of liberty. Kennedy’s ruling, Barnett observed, “requires the
government to justify its restriction on liberty, instead of
requiring the citizen to establish that the liberty being exercised
is somehow ‘fundamental.’ In this way, once an action is deemed to
be a proper exercise of liberty (as opposed to license), the burden
shifts to the government.” Texas, of course, could offer no
legitimate reason to ban private homosexual conduct, therefore the
Homosexual Conduct Law had to fall.
The Olson-Boies brief makes a similar claim about California’s
ban on gay marriage, arguing that the burden of proof should be on
the government, and that Prop. 8’s defenders have offered no
rational justification for the restriction on liberty, and have
instead endorsed “a cramped definition of marriage as a utilitarian
incentive devised by and put into service by the State—society’s
way of channeling heterosexual potential parents into ‘responsible
pro-creation.’” Indeed, the brief argues, this “state-centric
construct of marriage means that the State could constitutionally
deny any infertile couple the right to marry, and could
prohibit marriage altogether if it chose to pursue a society less
committed to ‘responsible’ procreation.”
Will this emphasis on liberty over state power prove successful?
In his dissenting opinion in Lawrence, Justice Antonin
Scalia attacked Kennedy for crafting a ruling that “dismantles the
structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to
be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as
formal recognition in marriage is concerned.” We’ll soon find out
whether Scalia was right to worry. … Read More
Video shows NYPD brutalizing Queens teen
A video garnering viral attention Wednesday appears to show NYPD officers piling on top of Queens teenager Robert Jackson. The footage, caught on a cell hone in early January, shows two officers restraining the 19-year-old outside a YMCA. “I can’t, I can’t, please stop,” the young man can be heard shouting while police demand he puts his hands over his head when he is pinned to the pavement.
The number of officers around the young man then increases to seven, and a number can be seen delivering punches and kicks to the restrained suspect. According to the New York Post, police arrested Jackson and charged him with obstructing governmental administration, resisting arrest, unlawful possession of marijuana and disorderly conduct. But Jackson is taking his case to the Civilian Complaint Review Board. His lawyer, Jacques Leandre, said he wants the charges to be dismissed because his client is “an innocent victim of police brutality.”
According to HuffPo, “photos released to the press show a gruesome, crescent-shaped wound that the 19-year-old sustained in the incident as his left cheek was ground into the cement sidewalk.”
Warning, the video below includes graphic content:
