Soldier at Miller campaign incident didn't have permission to be there

[cal04]

Source: CNN

An active-duty soldier involved in a highly publicized altercation with a reporter had not requested permission from his superiors to be part of a security team at an event for an Alaska Senate candidate where the incident took place, a base spokesman said Wednesday.

Fort Richardson spokesman Sgt. Maj. Derrick Crawford said that Spc. Tyler Ellingboe, 22, had not had not requested permission from any chain of command to work outside his regular Army duties.

A second soldier involved in the incident, Sgt. Alexander Valdez, 31, had gotten permission from his previous chain of command, Crawford said, but not from his current chain of command.

(snip)
The Army is also investigating whether the soldiers violated rules forbidding involvement in political campaigns. Fort Richardson investigators are trying to determine whether the soldiers' employment by a third party who was hired by Miller's campaign shielded them from a violation of those rules.

Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/27/soldier-at-miller-campaign-incident-didnt-have-permission-to-be-there/

[The Wielding Truth]

1. Eww... this is weird to have our soldiers detaining the free press!

[LiberalFighter]

2. Were they AWOL?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. No, but they were off duty

[Cheviteau]

7. Off Duty?

I was on active duty eight years. I was on duty from the day I enlisted until the day I was discharged.

[24601]

10. I was "on duty" for 25 years and had plenty of off duty time. As

you know, that's when a soldier's presence is not required at a specific time and place. Soldiers not under restriction are normally released after the duty day and on weekends. They are allowed off base although some units have time or mile restrictions for troops recall.

The infraction here is not seeking permission to hold a 2nd job. It's up there with living off base without official permission and if there is some reason to pursue it, the next question is "did anyone in the chain actually know, and by taking no action, give implied permission" as is often the case.

The inference of improper partisan activity isn't founded by what the stories have reported so far. I have seen military color guards actually participating at National Political Conventions and this case is less than that. No one was in uniform, no one implied that the Army endorsed a candidate. Security duties aren't inherently political in nature - even if they are performed badly as in this case. It akin to being hired by the cleaning crew that sweeps up.

The military interest remains not getting permission for an outside job. The remedy depends on how strictly this was enforced before the publicity of this incident. If a verbal admonition & reprimand was the norm before this case, then that is the standard in place. If 2nd jobs were a big problem and Article 15's were the norm , than that's what's appropriate here.

Civil action is properly aimed at individuals involved - and that doesn't involve the military. There were times people told me one of my soldiers missed car payments or owed another debt. If the soldier agreed, the chain worked with the soldier to get his financial act together. When the soldier disagreed with the charge - as happened about 1/3 of the time, I informed the used car dealer that I was not his enforcement mechanism in the absence of a proper judgment by a court. That rarely happened.

[scribble]

15. Thanks very much ...

... for posting this.

As a progressive who sometimes posts angry dissents here, I am happy to support what you've written. When we progressives see something wrong, it doesn't help our cause to mischaracterize that incident as being worse (or better) than it is. We need to take careful aim at the problem we see.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't ask questions, and the officers here have some questions to answer.

Remember that the reporter has recourse. First; he can file his own criminal complaint against each person involved. Second; he can sue each person involved in Civil Court. I would normally list the ACLU as an option here, but I personally believe the ACLU has become a cliquish, ineffective organization today and is next to useless in this case.

We all see the problem here: Candidates should not be allowed to inflict harm on people who come to their political rallies and meetings. In no case, should the Military be used to enforce laws on civilians. However we slice the facts of the case here, it's still a cyanide pie.

sc

[tblue37]

32. I agree with most of what you say, but this troubles me:

"In no case, should the Military be used to enforce laws on civilians."

The soldiers were not enforcing a law--they were breaking one, because they handcuffed a man who was on public property. That is at least unlawful restraint. He was held in handcuffs--and largely isolated--for 30 minutes. That strikes me as kidnapping.

[tortoise1956]

38. This doesn't fall under what you are quoting

Since they were off duty, unless they were in uniform their actions are not considered part of their military duties. Kinda the same thing as an reservist who is a cop in the civilian world.

Having said that, I hope they fry them for to taking a job with a political campaign without permission. The military has no business being involved in politics.

Disclosure: I retired from the Navy after 6 years active duty and 14 years in the reserve.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. I agree on the possible consequences, much of which will be driven by their prior performance

[Dogtown]

21. Glad to see

You KEEP your OATHS.



:patriot:

[Winterblues]

25. When I was in, we had to have liberty passes to leave base

You could get a three day pass if you were a good boy and twenty four hour passes were common. This would have never happened in those days.. Not saying it was a good thing just reminding people of how it used to be..

[iverglas]

26. thank you too

html fixed

I was curious about the situation here in Canada (where until not too many years ago public servants were not allowed to participate actively in candidates' campaigns; that has changed). I was having a hard time with google, but found the answer where I expected: a military discussion forum. ;)

I'll reproduce a bit just because I thought some here might find it amusing.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=91014.15

QR&Os Chapter 19 - Conduct and Discipline:
<Queen's Regulations and Orders, Code of Service Discipline, where I'd been looking in vain>

19.44 – POLITICAL ACTIVITIES AND CANDIDATURE FOR OFFICE

... (7) No member of the Regular Force shall:
(a) take an active part in the affairs of a political organization or party;
(b) make a political speech to electors, or announce himself or allow himself to be announced as a candidate, or prospective candidate, for election to the Parliament of Canada or a provincial legislature; or
(c) except with the permission of the Chief of the Defence Staff, accept an office in a municipal corporation or other local government body or allow himself to be nominated for election to such office.

The interpretation is that members of the CF may join and contribute to parties, but not be candidates or engage in campaigning.

The amusing comment:

While I agree that publicly the US military is honourably apolitical, my very strong impression is that the officer corps is overwhelmingly Republican, just as many Cdn soldiers tend to identify with the Tories.

;)

[Old Troop]

31. Very well stated. I can only add that DoD publishes the regulations

regarding political activities in eye-watering detail every major election season and all troops are made aware of them.

[karynnj]

3. Not to mention - should soldiers be with militia groups?

[Blacksheep214]

4. How about violating a citizens constitutional rights

while under the employ of the government.

That is a direct violation of the oath they swore upon enlistment!

They discharge gays for no just cause so I'm sure the brass can find some way to BCD these assholes!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. What kind of punishment they get will depend on how good a troopers they are

Could go from a serious ass chewing with some informal punishment up to an Article 15 with loss pay and rank as possible outcomes. I could not see a BCD for their actions unless they were already headed that way.

The real impact is that every other member of the command who is working outside will get a very heavy handed review of their activities, and some of them need the extra income badly.

The bubba who gets off untouched is the owner of the security company, who is the one who should be hurt over the incident

[24601]

13. Yet if one of them had gone wacko and thrown a grenade at

President Bush, you would be the first, OK maybe 2nd or 3rd, arguing he should receive a medal and promotion vice a GCM & Life in Leavenworth.

Ah yes, military ethics seen through the political filter.

[tpsbmam]

14. WTF? Where the hell do you get all of that out of the post you're responding to? n/t

[24601]

18. It was a hyperbolic response to the post suggesting a BCD

(Bad Conduct Discharge - handed out by Special & General Courts Martial) for a non-military offense on a non-government 2nd job.
So I recalled the posts after the show throwing incident and the kudos the thrower received on DU. Extrapolating on a linear scale I predicted what would be said here of a soldier tossing a grenade. Search your heart - you know it's true because this is very much an "ends justifies the means" forum.

[Dogtown]

22. Actually, it was total bullshit

from a bullshit poster.

[24601]

29. And if you think a BCD is even a remote possibility, you don't

know bullshit from batshit. We'll see when the "case" reaches a conclusion.

[LanternWaste]

34. I believe your confusing "extrapolation"

I believe your confusing "extrapolation" with reductio ad absurdum.

[No Elephants]

19. You don't have a political filtier?

[HuckleB]

36. Say what?

:shrug:

What a bizarro, painfully over-the-top post.

[Dawson Leery]

8. A Dishonorable Discharge would be fair.

There must be NO TOLERANCE for military treating the citizenry in such a horrible manner.

[glinda]

9. He. Then they will go join a Militia or Repug Security or better yet, the Police.

[Crowman1979]

49. Anyone who joins a militia or Repug Security company will only screw themselves in the long run.

Think about it, benefits that aren't guaranteed unless you pay out your ass for insurance, you won't earn ANY income in a militia, your frequently be using defective equipment and to top it off--being left behind when the shit hits the fan.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Article 15 is about as bad as it will get

I am not alone in that opinion on this thread

[Scruffy1]

48. From my experience you are right.

You would have to be convicted of a crime to get much worse, and I don't see that happening. I'm sure the GOP sugar daddies all ready paid off the journalist to quiet this down.

[Doctor_J]

11. Republicans (all of them) don't feel like they have to obey any laws

at all

[orbitalman]

12. Oh! Let's just declare marshall law, for Christ's sake...

Then it'll be every man for himself. :sarcasm:

[glitch]

24. I'd prefer a Marshall Plan. :) nt

[No Elephants]

20. Huh? Don't they know, one way or the other?

"The Army is also investigating whether the soldiers violated rules forbidding involvement in political campaigns."

[brendan120678]

23. I believe the question is...

was the soldier actually "involved in the campaign," or was he just acting as a private security detail to someone who happens to be a political candidate?

[krkaufman]

27. How about reviewing their conduct, in detaining a citizen/journalist illegally?

How are these guys not fit for dishonorable discharges?

[24601]

28. This is still the USA, so let's start with the presumption of innocence.

Then move on to which article of the UCMJ are you planning to charge? The only military offense alleged is failure to receive permission for a 2nd job while off duty. After that, everything else is civilian and more likely to be in civil court as a tort rather than in criminal court.

So on the military side, what's the unit's history of corrective action for this? Most likely a verbal dressing-down by the First Sergeant and on the very high side, a Company Grade Article 15 - maxing out at a fine of 7 days pay and possible reduction of one grade. This is highly unlikely in the eyes of someone who has actually administered them. The military isn't going to be disproportionate on a military offense just because there may be non-military charges involved separately - especially in a charged political environment.

I'd also postulate that the the individual's citizenship and occupation are not relevant to any charge on either the military of civilian side. The law doesn't give citizens and journalists any priorities over non-citizens and non-journalists. The fact that he's a journalist just gives him a platform - I recall some wisdom about not getting into a pissing contest by anyone who buys ink by the barrel.

[iverglas]

30. was there not at least potentially a criminal offence?

If the facts were as I've read.

In order for a member of the public (which is what a private security guard is) to lawfully arrest someone, don't certain conditions need to be met? Like ... that the person was committing or had committed a criminal offence?

Otherwise, handcuffing someone certainly looks like a criminal offence to me: under my own criminal law, a common assault (assault level 1), pretty surely. Regardless of whether the victim was a journalist or an ordinary member of the public.

Whether a criminal conviction in the non-military criminal justice system warrants some military discipline action, I wouldn't know, but the minor measures you suggest sound appropriate.

Col. Russell Williams has just been released from the Canadian Forces for “service misconduct”, the most serious possible ground for release, and has the distinction of being the first officer to have his commission revoked by the Governor General. But then, he did commit two murders and a host of other crimes to which he pleaded guilty in the ordinary courts ...

[24601]

33. My experience doesn't include the Canadian military justice

system, so I'd be just guessing. In our system, civilian authorities generally take jurisdiction for off-base, off-duty conduct unless there is a clear military connection. Conversely, conduct on base is normally is subject to military jurisdiction. The law evolved over time on this with the greatest separation being O'Callahan v. Parker (USSC 1969). In more recent years the strict separation has been relaxed but the military doesn't want to preempt civilian jurisdiction where the local courts are up and running. And in the case of civil action - Joe suing Fred - there isn't an equivalent military court.

The possibility of administrative action following a civilian criminal court conviction is theoretically possible. This stretches back over 30 years, but I believe an officer could be discharged after serving in jail (post conviction) and for enlisted, there was a time limit for missing duty time due to jail - it might be more than 30 days.

It should be noted that these are only administrative discharges. Bad Conduct and Dishonorable Discharges (of Dismissal for Officers) are adjudicated only by Court Martial.

[iverglas]

35. this is pure idle curiosity

Just because you know the stuff, and now I'm curious. ;)

Col. Williams committed his crimes on his own time, in his own communities off base. (He was the commander of CFB Trenton, the air base most of our military operations overseas start from.) His sentencing only happened last week, so the case was fresh in my mind. In case you're curious:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/10/20/russell-williams-day-3.html
The 7-hour video of his interrogation, from when he walked in chewing gum and acting collegial with the detective in charge, to him realizing they had him and then confessing in detail and directing police to the body of his second victim, is going to be the basic curriculum for police interrogators for the rest of time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzh3adTWZOg

There were no grounds for court martial, as he had committed no offences that a court martial had jurisdiction over.

In an equivalent case in the US, I'm betting there's some way the military would get rid of the person! Would committing a serious crime completely unrelated to military duty be grounds for a court martial there?

[Sirveri]

37. Murder is against the UCMJ, he would have gone to court martial for that.

Article 118 specifically.
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl118.htm

[iverglas]

39. ah, so

The US military really does have jurisdiction over persons, and not offences -- the offence of murder is covered by ordinary law, but when committed by a member of the military, no matter against whom, it is subject to court martial. Presumably it could also be prosecuted in the ordinary courts? But not both, or double jeopardy, so I assume the military takes precedence ... I have to pay more attention to Law & Order.

Actually, it looks like just about every run-of-the-mill common crime is included in the UCMJ ... except common assault (with no intent to cause bodily harm).

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm.htm

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm128.htm

[Sirveri]

40. Actually, the military can and WILL prosecute after the ordinary courts finish.

Plenty of guys on my boat (#1 in alcohol related incidents for the submarine fleet in '07!) got DUI's. They went to court and then they went in front of the CO (Captains Mast aka Article 15).

[Hassin Bin Sober]

41. I could be wrong but I thought I saw (on some dumb show) double jeopardy doesn't apply.

It was one of those re-enactment shows based on true cases.

I'm thinking of a case of a sailor who killed his wife and got acquitted in one court but found guilty in another after further evidence was discovered.

[24601]

42. You don't need to court martial somebody to get rid of them. If

they are safely tucked away in a Texas prison for 20 years, the service will just administratively discharge the individual. There's just no reason to try to extend concurrent jurisdiction for essentially the same crime. Look at the Ft. Hood Shooter for example for the other side. Fort Hood is in Texas; however, nobody is talking about a trial in nearby Bell County. It was a crime on base committed against military personnel - absolutely service connected - and it will go to a General Court martial where the Death Penalty is a possibility. Should he go to military death row for a violation of the UCMJ murder article, there is no reason for the US to expend the resources of trying him in federal court on basically the same charge - or even a different one like a civil rights crime (the Rodney King case as an example).

[iverglas]

43. that's what I was getting at ;)

Somebody convicted of a crime in the ordinary courts can be discharged from the military for that reason.

Col. Williams here got life with no possibility of parole for 25 years, the max, and by the day of his sentencing, everything was already in place for his release and stripping him of his medals and commission and thus rank. He keeps his pension; it's an accrued benefit and there are no provisions for denying it.

(Although one of his victims, the first woman murdered, was a member of the military under his command, she was killed in her home off base, and the local police forces were the ones who investigated all the crimes because until the end, no member of the military had been suspected. It's a fascinating case. Two truck drivers on the highway noticed a vehicle in the middle of a field late one night, just because it was unusual to see. Next day they read of what turned out to be the second murder, and realized the vehicle had been at the home of the victim. They reported what they had seen, and the police found clear tire tracks in the snow at the scene. They put up roadblocks and checked tires, and matched them to Williams' when he was stopped. From then until the interrogation he was under surveillance 24/7, and when he wore the same shoes to the interview that had left tracks at the murder scene, and they took prints and showed him them and the tire prints, he knew he'd been caught.)

[24601]

44. Something about the Mounties always getting their man. OJ had

those "ugly-assed" shoes and still walked on the murder charges.

[Old Troop]

46. During the past several decades, the military has ceded jurisdiction

of members to civilian authority for cases that are mostly civilian in nature, when committed off of a military installation (some military installations have joint jurisdiction with local authorities or even have waived jurisdiction for any but purely military infractions to local authorities). What his commander could look at would be violation of a general order (not getting permission for an outside job) or bringing discredit on the service (for his actions).

[iverglas]

47. thanks to everybody who responded to my curiosity

The issues were in my mind because of the Canadian case ... and I'm just generally curious. ;)

Thanks!

[cyr330]

45. That asshole

should be court martialed! Not only was he AWOL from active duty, but he was involved in an illegal activity and should be in fucking J-A-I-L for unlawful detention that could also be characterized as assault. Somebody posted earlier that this wouldn't be classified as AWOL, so I DO understand that part, but it is quite sickening to see military members threatening & intimidating members of the public who are only exercising their free rights as American Citizens.

[jkilvik]

50. More than a lack of permission...

Equally problematic is that two US soldiers thought it a good idea to go to work for a company so closely associated with Alaska's white separatist movement.