Theresa Carpenter & Eric Gilmet
The Crisis Destroying Military Justice
Imagine facing criminal charges where your commanding officer—not evidence, not law—determines your fate. For thousands of service members, this isn't a hypothetical nightmare. It's the reality of America's military justice system, where unlawful command influence (UCI) has metastasized into a crisis that mocks the Constitution our troops swear to defend.
The Promise and Failure of Military Justice
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was born from noble intentions. Established after World War II to replace the archaic Articles of War, it promised fair trials and due process for those who wear the uniform. Over decades, Congress refined it to mirror civilian justice reforms. Today's UCMJ contains 146 Articles, with Article 37 explicitly prohibiting UCI—the improper use of superior authority to interfere with court-martial proceedings.
Yet Article 37 has become a paper tiger. The pattern repeats with numbing regularity: commanders interfere with trials, lives are shattered, convictions collapse on appeal—and the officers who poisoned justice face zero consequences. Three cases expose this systemic corruption, where the powerful escape accountability for violations that would destroy any junior service member.
Case One: A Conflicted Commander Who Caved to Political Pressure
In 2014, Navy SEAL Senior Chief Keith Barry was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to three years in prison. He lost his rank, received a dishonorable discharge, and was branded a sex offender for life. The verdict seemed final—until Rear Admiral Patrick Lorge made a stunning confession. In a sworn affidavit, Lorge admitted he harbored serious doubts about Barry's guilt and wanted to overturn the conviction. But senior officials, including Vice Admiral James Crawford III, a top Navy lawyer, pressured him to uphold it anyway saying “Don’t put a target on your back.” Lorge's testimony revealed the ugly truth: "the political climate regarding sexual assault in the military was such that a decision to disapprove findings, regardless of merit, would bring hate and discontent on the Navy from the President, as well as senators including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand."
No comments:
Post a Comment