| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Marine Corps commandant, legal staff targeted in IG complaint |
| 2013-05-20 |
| The top Marine general and four of his legal advisers are implicated in a complaint to the Defense Department Inspector General charging they inappropriately inserted themselves into the prosecution of cases stemming from the infamous video showing scout snipers urinating on dead insurgents in Afghanistan. The complaint, filed by Marine Maj. James Weirick, an attorney assigned to Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va., alleges Commandant Gen. Jim Amos, or others acting on his behalf, deliberately sought to manipulate the legal process, effectively stacking the deck against the scout snipers in the video. WeirickÂ’s complaint, a copy of which was obtained by Marine Corps Times, also alleges Amos showed preferential treatment to ensure the promotion of then-Maj. James B. Conway, the son of AmosÂ’ predecessor as commandant, retired Gen. James T. Conway. Conway was executive officer of the scout snipersÂ’ unit, 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines. According to the complaint, Conway was initially placed on administrative hold once the video became public in January 2012. But while the unitÂ’s commander, Lt. Col. Christopher Dixon, remained on administrative hold, ConwayÂ’s hold was released last year, after the case was discussed during an executive offsite meeting of the CorpsÂ’ top leaders, according to emails obtained by Marine Corps Times. He was allowed to move from Camp Lejeune, N.C., to Marine Corps Base Hawaii in July 2012, and eventually took a coveted assignment as a battalion commander. Dixon remains on hold today, nearly a year later |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #2 Resign for the good of the |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-05-20 14:11 |
| #1 Article 134 - (Wrongful interference with an adverse administrative proceeding) (1) That the accused wrongfully did a certain act; (2) That the accused did so in the case of a certain person against whom the accused had reason to believe there was or would be an adverse administrative proceeding pending; (3) That the act was done with the intent to influence, impede, or obstruct the conduct of such administrative proceeding, or otherwise obstruct the due administration of justice; (4) That under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. Explanation. For purposes of this paragraph “adverse administrative proceeding” includes any administrative proceeding or action, initiated against a servicemember, that could lead to discharge, loss of special or incentive pay, administrative reduction in grade, loss of a security clearance, bar to reenlistment, or reclassification. Examples of wrongful interference include wrongfully influencing, intimidating, impeding, or injuring a witness, an investigator, or other person acting on an adverse administrative action; by means of bribery, intimidation, misrepresentation, or force or threat of force delaying or preventing communication of information relating to such administrative proceeding; and, the wrongful destruction or concealment of information relevant to such adverse administrative proceeding. Lesser included offenses. None. Maximum punishment. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-05-20 13:57 |