Thursday, April 11, 2013
God Bless Lt. Gen. Craig A. Franklin, USAF
Google "news" for Lt. General Craig A. Franklin.
He's the Commander of the U.S. 3rd Air Force.
His career is over now.
Here's why...
I urge you... spend ten minutes reading the General's letter to his civilian boss.
Browse the ravings of the Left you'll find by googling news and reading liberal pundits.
Then re-read the General's letter and think about what courage... what moral and ethical fortitude it took for him to do what he did... to take this action which ensures his career is now all but over.
Thank you, General Franklin!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Okay, I read the letter. I still don't believe that one person should be allowed to overturn evidence that convinced an entire jury.
In the letter, the Lt General repeatedly excuses away discrepancies, makes up "what ifs" to throw out legitimate evidence (see phone records section), and puts a lot of weight on 91 letters he received from people who really like the general a lot.
I don't know the case, haven't seen the evidence, but I do believe one person shouldn't be able to overturn a jury. It just doesn't make sense.
Umm... you DO realize that judges have this power... right?
And then of course there's the long-standing tradition of executive pardons.
(*SHRUG*)
So... you're against both of the above... or just one... or neither?
I'm not baiting you; just trying to track the logical consistency of your position.
Also... just as a clarification... let's say YOU had been the convening authority (thus the "executive" with regard to the "pardon" power being exercised) and you had done exactly as the general had done and come to the same conclusion based upon your review. Are you saying you'd allow someone you yourself viewed as "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" (and frankly it's clear that it goes beyond that; the general sure as heck seems to believe there's a preponderance of direct and circumstantial evidence tending to discredit the accuser) you'd allow them to be punished anyway... even though the law gave you the power to "pardon" them... to "overturn" the jury verdict?
Again... NOT trying to bait you. Simply throwing scenarios - and facts - at you.
Here's why I disagree with you:
Mistakes are UNAVOIDABLE. Whatever system of justice you have you're gonna have innocent people found guilty and guilty people found innocent. We agree on that - right?
In line with this there's the old saying "Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be unjustly punished."
(By the way... do you agree with that sentiment? I myself have "some" problem with it...)
Anyway... I bring up that saying because this system of one person being able to overturn a jury verdict is weighted in the favor of the defendant; in other words, it doesn't work in reverse... there's no power to reverse a non-guilty verdict... and then of course putting that aside there's the prohibition on double-jeopardy... SO THEREFORE even if the "pardon" was the wrong choice it was a lesser wrong choice than sending an innocent man to prison - or so it seems to me.
Ultimately, though, why I support the general having this power... and why I support the executive pardon/clemency provision within our federal constitution and most (all?) state constitutions and why I support a judge's power to overturn a decision "in the interest of justice" based on his and his perception alone... is that INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY is being taken.
General Franklin OWNS this pardon.
If you or I or a NYT reporter or even the prosecutor or a jury member or the alleged victim wants to get a hold of every bit of evidence the general looked at and then rebutt it... fine... and that leaves the public with the final determination of who was right or wrong.
BTW... I believe that military juries - unlike civilian juries - decide cases based upon majority vote - not unanimous vote. I'd be curious to know what the jury vote was.
Also... being a cynic... today's military is strangled by political correctness. I'm not accusing any of the jury members of anything... but I will throw out that in a politically charged case such as this one, the "lesser risk" for an ambitious officer serving on the jury would have probably been to vote "guilty."
As I note, by acting as he did Franklin effectively ended his own career.
To me... this buttresses his case... or at least the case behind believing his decision was as non-biased and independent as he claims it was.
BILL
Post a Comment