Major Christian “Kit” Martin is shown at the controls of an AH-64A Apache helicopter in Iraq. Click on image above to read other articles about his case.
During the hearing, which began late Monday morning and continued through Tuesday, a military judge heard from attorneys on both sides about the matter of whetherunlawful command influence and prosecutorial misconduct was present in the sexual assault prosecution ofMajor Martin. Though I’m not at liberty to share details at this point, I’m told by people who attended the hearing that it seemed to go well for the defense.
UPDATE 12/7/2015 at 8:26 a.m. Central: A military judge continued the military trial date for Army Maj. Christian “Kit” Martin to sometime in March 2016, though no specific date has been set.
UPDATE 12/10/2015 at 11:14 a.m. Central: I’ve learned that Major Martin’s military trial date is set for March 14-18, 2016.
Thanks in advance for reading and sharing the article above and those to follow, and please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same. To learn how to order signed copies, click here.
In an earlier article, I highlighted unlawful command influence and prosecutorial misconduct as reasons cited by defense attorneys William L. Summers and R. Tucker Richardson III to warrant the dismissal of all charges against their client, Army Maj. Christian “Kit’ Martin. In this piece, however, I focus only on what those same attorneys wrote about the current political environment and the impact it’s having on members of the U.S. military.
Major Christian “Kit” Martin is shown at the controls of an AH-64A Apache helicopter in Iraq.
Taking up almost three pages of the 37-page Motion to Dismiss document dated June 28, the attorneys’ words speak volumes not only about the case of Major Martin, 47, but also about others like him, including Sgt. 1st Class Kelly A. Stewart, an elite Green Beret combat veteran whose life story and wrongful conviction are chronicled in my first nonfiction book, Three Days In August.
Without further ado, I share the attorneys’ words below while taking the editorial liberty of deciphering some of the military jargon as needed and adding a few notes:
Major Martin’s case is just another example of how far some commanders are willing to go to gain political favor. Brigadier General Mark Stammer’s* Memorandum, Policy Letter 7 dated October 4, 2013, was posted on the Fort Campbell Portal and distributed to all commanders. It states that any allegation of domestic violence will result in immediate steps, including a 12 point checklist. It then states that these are the minimum actions commanders will take, they can make more if they wish (hint). The allegation does not have to be proved and no evidence is required. This is definitely a guilty until proven innocent policy and clearly shows BG Stammer’s inherent bias with regard to alleged domestic violence and sexual assault cases.
Many commanders like Brig. Gen. Stammer are now circumventing standard Uniform Code of Military Justice procedures and overruling Investigating Officers as a means of covering themselves and preventing further congressional inquiry into changing the role of commanders in the UCMJ process. Some commanders are also sacrificing soldier’s careers and lives in order to gain political favor and earn their next star, as well as a means of facilitating the army downsizing process. The stench of elitism and double standards has most recently been revealed by the case of General (Ret.) David Petraeus. General Petraeus had an extra marital affair, maintained private Top Secret information at his home including undercover agent’s identities, Security Council notes, etc. and then went to his paramour’s house and turned over these same highly classified documents to her. After all of this he then lied about his actions to the FBI. In return he received only a two year probation and $100,000 fine. Compare his proven actions to MAJ Martin’s allegations of mishandling classified information and how his case has morphed from a divorce, to an EPO, to a spy investigation, and now into now a court martial with sexual allegations.
1. Presidential UCI
The Unlawful Command Influence of BG Stammer at Fort Campbell is just one of many military examples of UCI throughout the armed services starting with the Commander in Chief and working its way down. In fact a military court has already ruled that President Obama as Commander in Chief has exerted UCI. In the trial of United States vs. SH2 Ernest Johnson, the judge ruled that the President’s statements did constitute unlawful command influence.
The President stated “The bottom line is this; I have no tolerance for this, I expect consequences…they got to be held accountable, prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court martialed, fired, dishonorably discharge. Period.”
This is almost verbatim what has happened to MAJ Martin.
Judge Marcus N. Fulton** found that “the Presidents statement raises concern that a particular result is required and this impinges on a convening authority’s discretion to refer or not refer a case to court martial.” He also stated that “these words must be evaluated for their capacity to improperly influence or appear to influence those with roles” (in a court martial). The court found that the case of United States vs. Johnson and United States vs. Simpson that the Presidents statement did “present some evidence of unlawful command influence.” He further found that the Presidents statement “could be interpreted as administrative steps that ought to be taken in addition to the specified judicial action and punishment.” He also stated that “the overall atmosphere surrounding the topic of sexual assault in the military…tends to exacerbate rather than ameliorate the effect of the comments in question.”
**NOTE: One source for comments similar to those attributed to the judge above is this one.
Judge Fulton also said these statements “constitute some-indeed substantial-evidence that the President would tend to impinge on the discretion of the convening authority to come to an independent decision” (EX U Military Authority Article, EX V US. vs Ernst Johnson)
2. CSA General Odierno***
The Chief of Staff of the Army has stated that “Sexual assault is the greatest threat to our service.” As the U.S. Army is still engaged in combat operation in Afghanistan, Iraq, most of the Middle East, and facing huge potential adversaries in North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China, this shows how politically pressured senior commanders are to show they are taking sexual assault and domestic violence seriously. (EX W.)
***NOTE: General Odierno retired from the Army after the Motion to Dismiss was submitted. See also my video related to General Ordierno here.
3. BG Stammer
General Stammer asserted, that if assaults occur in his military jurisdiction, he insists that they stay there because he has-
“absolute trust, faith, and confidence in the chain of command and our judges that they will address these issues fairly and timely…The Commander… is the leader…he is singularly responsible… him and him alone…I am going to hold him personally accountable for doing his job. He is not going to have an excuse.” (EX X.)
In a June 16, 2013, article**** in the Fort Campbell Courier, General Stammer reportedly said,
“I believe that leadership responsibility and accountability are crucial to successfully addressing the sexual misconduct issue. Most important, we need responsible leadership to change the culture of even the slightest bit of tolerance for ill-disciplined and criminal behaviors.” (EX Y)
****NOTE: The article actually appeared in the June 6, 2013, issue of the cited newspaper.
4. Policy Letter 7
BG Stammer’s Policy Letter 7 shows blatant UCI in that it directs commanders to take negative actions against Soldiers based merely on an allegation, even if this is an obvious ploy by an ex-spouse, and even if they no longer live together. Among its many requirements it directs that commanders will issue a protective order, move the Soldier to the barracks, require them to turn in their private weapons, and consider separation from service. Commanders will also contact social workers, consult the Family Advocacy Program, trial counsel, the victim advocate program, etc. all based on one person’s allegation.
Another obvious example of BG Stammer’s UCI at Fort Campbell was the recent picture of a male soldier on an electronic billboard. The billboard was in front of the Family Resource Center directly across the street from the senior leadership housing at Gate 1, and the house of Acting Senior Commander BG Stammer. The message concerned sexual assault and depicted a male soldier, the sign read:
“Your new year’s resolution is to get the F$*K (bleep) away from him.” (EX Z.)
This billboard, along with BG Stammer’s public comments and interviews represent Undo Command Influence (UCI) of a personal interest and inflexible attitude toward Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Cases at Fort Campbell. (Article 37 sections III and IV). In January of 2015, the National Coalition for Men posted a picture of the billboard on their website and sent a letter to the CG, Major General Gary J. Volesky***** requesting the removal of the offensive picture and message, which thereafter rapidly occurred. (EX AA.)
*****NOTE: General Volesky is the commanding general at Fort Campbell now.
I’ve mentioned it before, and I’ll mention it again: there’s much more to come for Major Martin, a man who put on his first military uniform as a private in 1986, marking the beginning of a career that would not only include serving as an Army Ranger, cavalry scout and attack helicopter pilot but also include becoming a Regular Army officer and serving three combat tours in Iraq.
Learn more about Major Martin and his case by reading this story as well as others. After you read them, please SHARE THEM and stay tuned for more updates!
On Wednesday night’s edition of NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams offered what his network would later describe as “clarification” about an incident that had allegedly taken place more than a decade earlier. In reality, the network anchor recanted his claim that he had been aboard a military helicopter as it was shot down while he was covering the 2003 invasion of Iraq by U.S. and coalition forces. He admitted he had been lying for 12 years.
Unlike some people, I wasnt’ surprised to learn about this news. Why? Because I had dealt with him before — almost 14 years ago — while serving my country in uniform at Moody Air Force Base near Valdosta, Ga. Yes, it’s only about 30 minutes downwind from the site where they filmed the swamp scenes in the 1972 movie, Deliverance.
In the spring of 1991, Williams was a rising star, then working as evening anchor for WCBS-TV, CBS’s flagship TV station in New York City. At the same time, I was an Air Force captain serving as chief of public affairs for the 347th Tactical Fighter Wing, then the host unit at Moody.
U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Christopher Boitz
Operation Desert Shield was about to turn into Operation Desert Storm (a.k.a., “the first Persian Gulf War”), and Williams wanted to do an up-close-and-personal story about the folks who would soon be flying their F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft into harms way over the skies of Iraq. The folks at the Pentagon sent him to our base deep in the heart of South Georgia.
In addition to arranging interviews with fighter pilots and others at the base, we were told to provide Williams with a ride in the backseat of an F-16. Before anyone rides in the back of a fighter jet, however, he has to have a physical exam and complete pre-flight training that includes learning how to get out of the jet in the event of an emergency. Part of that training was something called “hang and harness” training.
Hang and harness training is just like it sounds. A person hangs from a harness to get an idea of what it feels like to use a parachute. Standing on a platform several feet off the ground, Williams had a parachute pack strapped on his back and was connected by cables to a mechanical rigging device suspended from the ceiling.
The gear worn by Williams included two main straps, each of which extended from his shoulder area, down across his chest and under his crotch where they passed by his “family jewels” –- one strap on each side –- and continued up his back side where they connected with the bottom of the parachute sack.
Despite being told more than once by his Air Force instructors that he should tighten those straps until they were very snug, the anchorman ignored the advice. When the time came for him to jump from the platform to the ground below, simulating the feel of a real jump, the anchorman’s less-than-snug straps suddenly became snug –- and in an oh-so-painful way.
Though tempted to describe his appearance as 50 shades of gray, that wouldn’t describe how he looked. More accurately, his skin color had taken on a strange blend of greens and purples as he gasped.
These days, I can’t even watch him on the NBC Nightly News without thinking back to that painful moment which, by the way, he failed to mention when the story aired. Thanks for the memories, Williams. Thanks for the memories.
UPDATE 2/5/2015 at 6:47 a.m. Central: Below is Williams shamefully recalling his big lie on Late Night with David Letterman in 2013.