"Heritage Brief" 2.0?

11/22/2021

Navy lieutenant commander arrested on sex trafficking charges in Virginia

"In an audio recording of an all-hands meeting with hundreds of sailors which Military Times obtained, then-Vice Adm. John Aquilino, who was responsible for Navy operations in the Middle East at the time, is heard saying that the cases of trafficking “have spanned rates and ranks, and the large number of them are senior and khakis.”

“Who thinks it’s okay to bring foreign nationals into this nation and take their passport and push them out for service to both yourself and anyone else, one of your buds?” Aquilino asked. “Who thinks that’s okay?”

“Floors me,” he said, according to Military Times. “Absolutely floors me.”"

Link to audio.

6 Comments

Anonymous

11/23/2021 09:51:11 am

A system where this would be considered improper is a broken system.

Let’s just follow the statutory text of what UCI is

Brenner

11/23/2021 09:55:37 am

I agree. It can’t be UCI for someone to condemn criminal conduct in the abstract.

Rachel VanLandingham

11/23/2021 01:06:18 pm

I agree with the posters - this condemnation of criminal conduct is just that, and doesn’t signal an inflexible position to disposition of allegations of such offenses or anything else improper. Unless there’s more in the audio, otherwise this was fine. But on the first poster’s note: I’d course there is and should be more to UCI and all of criminal law than just statutory text. Hence why we have courts to interpret and flesh out the text. And the due process clause isn’t limited by any such legislation….not that CAAF has the brains or brawn to do anything than limp the broken system along.

Allan

11/23/2021 01:51:02 pm

UCI? Really?

Let's see.

Commander: AWOL is bad. I cannot see how anyone can condone AWOL.

Commander: Murder is bad. If you see a murder, it is a crime.

Commander: Murder is bad. If you testify on someone's behalf in a murder case, especially in sentencing, you are bad, too.

Commander: I have referred charges against PVT Duffy for human trafficking. He is guilty.

Commander: I have idiots for subordinates, they keep retaining servicemembers who are scum. Don't be an idiot.

The last three can be considered UCI. The first two, not so much.

Philip D. Cave link

11/23/2021 02:59:53 pm

Yes, this is the issue related to the Bahrain cases noted in the original post, in terms of your points 3-6.

Rory Fowler link

12/2/2021 11:30:57 am

Here's a Canadian twist on this discussion for my American friends:

He have a Major-General (MGen) who was pilloried in the press for providing a letter used in mitigation of a sentence for a former service member, who suffered from PTSD, alcoholism, etc., and who had been found guilty of sexually assaulting another former service member (whose spouse was a serving member of the Canadian Forces). All three had known each other for years, and had been friends, due to their military service. The matter was tried in before a civilian court.

Sexual assault in Canada covers a broad spectrum of misconduct ranging from 'touching for a sexual purpose' over clothing to what would be characterized as 'rape' in other jurisdictions. The facts of the case described misconduct at the very low end of that spectrum. The letter in mitigation was but one piece of evidence among many introduced in the sentencing phase.

While the MGen was not overtly pilloried by the senior military leadership, the same cannot be said of the political leadership. And actions were taken by the senior leadership that adversely affected the MGen, largely because of the negative public sentiment aroused by the news report. In fact, this prosecution had arisen over 4 years ago and was 'resurrected' by one of the national news media organizations to 'fuel the fire' of outrage regarding sexual misconduct that has dominated the military news cycle this year.

What is interesting is that the civil matter bore great resemblance to a court martial conducted a couple of years later (2019). A principal difference with the court martial was that the offender and victim were both members of the same unit within Canadian Special Operations Command. As in the civil matter, senior members of the chain of command testified on behalf of the offender regarding similar mitigating factors. Unlike the civil matter, there was an absence of outrage regarding the provision of evidence in mitigation at court martial (although the outrage did not arise until 4 years later).

I would contend that the difference in reaction owed a lot to military tribalism. In the matter before the civilian system, the offender was an unsuccessful applicant for Special Operations Command. The spouse of his victim was a member of Special Operations Command. The MGen in question was, at the time of the trial, the Deputy Commander of Special Operations Command. When sexual misconduct started to dominate the military news cycle this year, the victim and her spouse complained to the media about the fact that the MGen provided evidence in mitigation.

While this incident may seem like a bit of a side-show representative of a 'settling of scores' by a victim and her spouse who were upset with a senior officer (which it is), it has a potential adverse impact on the administration of justice relating to the Canadian Forces. Once the outrage over this relatively innocuous incident reached fever pitch, there were calls for the Acting Chief of the Defence Staff (now the CDS) to issue direction prohibiting military leadership from testifying on behalf of offenders at sentencing, or, at least, to limit what they might be able to do or say.

The judgment of the civil matter is not publicly available. The sentencing of the comparable court martial can be found here:

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/cm/doc/2019/2019cm2019/2019cm2019.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAEQ1NPUgAAAAAB&resultIndex=2

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

CAAFlog

"Heritage Brief" 2.0?

Leave a Reply.

Categories

Archives