In 2013, Boyce was accused of rape and assault of his ex-wife, who had filed no charges against him. The case came to the attention of investigators via third parties who pressured the woman into filing a complaint. As most of us are aware, the Obama Administration was aggressively stamping out any remaining vestiges of male heterosexual behavior in the Military, and cases of this kind were encouraged.
The important thing about this ruling is that the Court recognized the political extortion behind Boyce's conviction in its decision. According to the Court, Boyce's case "had been compromised by apparent unlawful command influence." This is a very rare grounds for dismissal in the Military Courts, and may signal a significant shift in how these cases are handled.
The Court stated that USAF Lt. General Craig Franklin, Boyce's commander, had been told by Obama's Air Force Secretary Deborah James and USAF Chief-of-Staff General Mark Welsh to "retire or be fired" because of his perceived leniency in pursuing sexual assault allegations.
"If the Secretary had come to believe that Lt. General Franklin was 'obstinately' refusing to refer 'another' meritorious case to a General Court-Martial, she could have removed him immediately from his command, which likely would have created adverse public attention and post-military career opportunities." the Court said, "James and Welsh failed to take the necessary prophylactic steps to ensure that Franklin's handling of subsequent sexual assault cases did not lead to the appearance of a conflict of interest. After losing confidence in him, James and Welsh failed to direct Franklin not to take any further action in regards to Court-Martial matters pending before him; or to refer them to another authority, as they should have done."
The Military Tribunal was saying---in the most diplomatic language possible---that it appeared that General Franklin was being extorted into getting sexual assault cases railroaded through the system. Franklin actually did resign shortly after referring Boyce's case for prosecution; his conscience apparently suffering under the strain. The thug Welsh resigned in 2016 after a 40-year career of such injustices.
Boyce's exoneration opens legal channels now for other servicemen wrongfully convicted on politically-motivated grounds. Better still, it will lead hopefully to an internal investigation of Pentagon political corruption which has both wrongly convicted the innocent and covered up for the guilty. This type of extortion was apparently not uncommon during the Obama Administration. Attorney-General Jeff Sessions has been probing similar allegations in the Justice Department.
Not a bad start to the Memorial Day weekend, eh?
Great news for Memorial Day! I'm glad you shared the story.
ReplyDelete"The case came to the attention of investigators via third parties who pressured the woman into filing a complaint."
This is actually a real problem. Rape is a crime against the state and a victim is really only a complaining witness. So people can be tried in court absent a witness, against the will of the alleged "rape victim." Sometimes women are heavily pressured, threatened even, and often will cave. Some have actually resisted and gone to jail for contempt of court, refusing to testify
Marital rape laws are the absolute worse because they totally convolute both marriage and the justice system. A third party can allege a husband raped a wife, in an act of political revenge for example. Not long ago a man was drug through the court system and eventually found not guilty for having sex with his wife who had dementia. Dementia renders you incompetent which means you cannot legally consent, but they were married and fortunately a jury eventually did the right thing.
Thanks for listening. This is an issue that irks me no end.
You're welcome! This case is going to be a game-changer. I may be wrong, but I don't think that overturning a Court-Martial on grounds of Unlawful Command Influence has happened since the 19th Century. This shows that some officers are growing a spine and standing up to bureaucratic bullying.
DeleteYou're right too about how women are often coerced into this kind of testimony---that appears to have happened in this case too. It's especially bad if the female happens to be legally a minor. Social workers will pressure very young and impressionable women into testifying with techniques that come very close to torture.
Being falsely accused would probably be my worst nightmare if I were male. From what I have gathered from reading about this, many members of the military (both officers and rank and file) hate the Obama-induced social engineering but fear speaking up because of loss of position and thus benefits (including salary and pension). Those close to retirement are largely keeping their mouths shut to get their pensions.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand, the atmosphere is a bit like East Germany, where no one knows who to trust. It's a tough situation all right if you have family responsibilities. Morevoer, losing a job in America today, especially with the destruction of reputation that go on in these cases, is something that any young or middle-aged individual would rightly fear. The situation is completely diabolical and calls for radical courage. Let's hope under our new Alpha Male, pro-Christian president that the tide is finally beginning to turn.
As for the corruption in the non-military judicial system - that's another story entirely.
Thank you, that's a good analysis. A radio talk-show a few years ago posed the question as to why 'red-blooded American males' in military, police, intel, and other places didn't speak out. The calls he got from employees and their families said exactly what you did. Most of them were extremely demoralized; the older ones were trying to hang on their positions and the younger ones with potential usually quit and went into the private sector. This decision in the military may make it more likely for people to start standing up.
DeleteAnother practice that I wish they'd go back to in these bureaucracies is promoting people from within who have experience. Instead, presidents choose people from the outside to head cabinets. Trump changed that a little by at least (mostly) choosing cabinet secretaries who were familiar with how the various agencies worked.