They Always Get Their Man, and Sometimes Woman.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are renown for always getting their man. Well, the Canadian Military Police appears to have done them one better. One cadet instructor appears to have gotten his man and his woman.

Canadian military police have charged an officer with disgraceful conduct and sexual offences against two cadets in B.C.

Capt. Daniel Moriarty, an instructor at the Cadet Instructors Cadre, is accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a 16-year-old girl and sexually assaulting a boy starting when the youth was 15.

The CIC trains youth 12-18 to be cadets in the army, navy and air force. The alleged offences occurred between 2008 and 2011, at the LGen E.C. Ashton Armoury in Victoria and the Vernon Army Cadet Summer Training Centre in Vernon.

Military police began an investigation after one of the teens came forward.

"(They) uncovered the facts of the case, and additional allegations were brought forward," said Capt. Karina Holder, spokeswoman for the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS).

Moriarty was arrested in July and released on strict orders not to have any contact with cadets or attend any cadet functions. He was relieved of his duties without pay, pending the outcome of the charges.

Moriarty is charged with two counts of sexual exploitation, one count of sexual assault or sexual interference and one count of behaving in a disgraceful manner, the CFNIS announced Monday.

Holder declined to reveal Moriarty's age or hometown, but said he is "a younger officer."

"Those in a position of leadership in the Canadian Forces are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner at all times, and this type of alleged behaviour is treated with the utmost seriousness by the military police," said Lt.-Col. Robert Delaney of the CFNIS.

Moriarty is charged under both the National Defence Act and the Criminal Code, and the case will proceed through military court martial, which has the authority to impose criminal sentences. The sexual offences carry maximum penalties that range from five to 10 years in prison. Violating the military's code of conduct could result in a maximum prison term of five years.
Reader's comments »

Killing Americans Citizens Without Due Process.

You may remember that lawyers for the Obama administration have advised the president that using drones to target and kill American citizens without a trial is perfectly legal. If you were outraged by this so-called legal opinion and convinced it was made without any respect for the Constitution's due process requirements, take heart: The American Civil Liberties Union agrees with you.

In fact, the ACLU has now filed suit against the Obama administration to provide details of, believe it or not, the 10-year-old program of using drones to target and kill American citizens.

"The request relates to a topic of vital importance: the power of the U.S. government to kill U.S. citizens without presentation of evidence and without disclosing legal standards that guide decision makers," says the ACLU suit. "Given the momentous nature of the governmental powers that are subject of the request, the fullest possible transparency and disclosure is vital."

Momentous, indeed. The legal organization has said no one knows just how many Americans have been killed since the program began around 2002, but it's a huge concern that has dire constitutional implications, especially following the government's determination that even suspected terrorists can be killed, even if they are Americans by birth and citizenship.

The ACLU's complaint stems from the Obama administration's decision to kill Anwar al Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al Qaeda figure who died following a drone strike on his position in a mountainous region of Yemen Sept. 30. Two other U.S. citizens - al Awlaki's son, Abdulrahman, and Samir Khan, were also killed by drone strikes in Yemen last year. And like al Awlaki, none of them were ever charged with terrorism, and you have to charge Americans with a crime if you think they're guilty of something. That's the way it works.

But instead of being forthright, the president has chosen instead to downplay the program, telling viewers during a digital interview from the White House recently only a few civilians have been killed in drone strikes.

"I want people to understand that drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties," he said in the interview. "For the most part, they have been very precise, precision strikes against al-Qaeda and their affiliates, and we have been very careful about how it's been applied."

Sure.

The truth is, other than a few privileged elites within the administration, no one really knows whether the president is being honest or not. And the ACLU says we have a right to know. The organization is undoubtedly correct on this matter.

"The government's self-serving attitude toward transparency and disclosure is unacceptable," says the ACLU complaint. "Although U.S. government officials, including the president and the secretary of defense, have made statements on the record confirming the existence of the targeted killing program, the government has not disclosed the process by which it adds names to the so-called 'kill lists;' the standards under which it determines which Americans may be put to death; or the evidentiary basis on which it concluded that those standards were satisfied in any particular case."

U.S. lawmakers and international legal bodies also want more information about the program. But like the ACLU's complaint makes clear, those who deserve answers most are us - the taxpayers and citizens the Constitution was written to protect.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.naturalnews.com/034587_anti-government_targets_Obama.html

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/02/43592.htm

http://news.yahoo.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rPMPMqOjKY

http://www.washingtonpost.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034869_ACLU_Obama_drones.html#ixzz1lfoieSUQ

Color Blind Justice.

Color Blind Justice.

Air Force Academy Cadets Evenson, Claxton, and Cressy.



The Air Force Academy announced on January 5 that three male cadets had been charged with sex crimes stemming from unrelated incidents between February 2010 and May 2011. Academy officials said the three cases were announced together because the investigations happened to end at about the same time.



Cadet Robert M. Evenson Jr. is charged with rape. Evenson, for his part, allegedly masturbated over a cadet and ejaculated on her stomach while holding her down sometime during the month of November 2010. Between March and July of that year, he's also suspected of forcing sex "using power or strength or restraint to her person sufficient that she could not avoid or escape the sexual conduct." In addition, in February 2010, the Charge Sheet contends that he helped a cadet in an Honor case "in return for a dating relationship and sexual favors, requiring her to violate her probation in return for helping her, and threatening to harm her military career if she did not comply."



Cadet Stephan H. Claxton is charged with abusive sexual assault. Claxton is charged with illicit acts in March and November of last year. In the first, he's said to have placed a cadets hand on his penis while engaging in underage drinking. In the second, he is accused of striking a fellow cadet on the face with his fist and unbuttoning and unzipping her pants without her consent, as well as forcibly kissing and choking her.



Cadet Kyle A. Cressy is charged with aggravated assault. The Cressy incidents date to May 2011. The charges state that he penetrated a female cadet's vagina with his hand or finger, as well as his penis, while she was "substantially incapacitated."



Evenson and Claxton face other, non-sex-related counts.



It is not clear how many cases the Air Force Academy could have prosecuted; but, at least, they did not simply try to paint the crime with a black face.

The sexual assault charges against the Air Force Cadets are serious but they are not worthy of a Court-martial. Only Cadet Robert M. Evenson, Junior deserves stronger discipline. He abused his position as an Honor Code enforcer to obtain sexual favors. He should receive a Special Court-martial, not a General Court-martial. He should be held to a higher standard of conduct because he was in a position of trust. He abused that trust by taking advantage of a younger and less mature female cadet. Article 15, Non-judicial punishment, would be the appropriate forum to dispose of all the other charges. These few incidents of bad behavior should not become the most significant factors in determining their futures. Courts-martial should be reserved for terrorists and mass murderers. To bring out the big guns for such minor offenses would be a bad lesson in judgement to teach all the other cadets in the Academy.


Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, said in an interview the day of Panetta's announcement that the military culture has "run amok" and the rules for handling sexual abuse need an overhaul. She has introduced a bill that would create a separate system within the military to investigate and prosecute sex crimes.

Currently, a victim's commander might be part of the decision-making process. That creates a conflict of interest; the commander could suffer career damage if a subordinate is victimized; the commander could be a friend of the suspect; or the commander could be the suspect, Speier said.

"We've got to do something fairly dramatic to get the academies back on track and the military back on track," she said.



"How do you measure prevention?", asked Teresa Beasley, the Air Force Academy's sexual assault coordinator.



Are these cadets simply a reflection of the same social dating forces at play in American society at large? It isn't clear whether the disturbing news means sexual predation is on the rise at the Military academies. It could simply reflect the better efforts to encourage cadets to report any kind of unwanted sexual contact.



The Air Force Academy's sex assault prevention campaign starts before freshman studies begin. Among other things, cadets are told the Department of Defense definition of sexual assault includes "intentional sexual contact ... when the victim does not or cannot consent."

The breadth of the definition comes as a surprise to some.

"When they come in at basic, you see the 'deer-in-the-headlight' look — 'Wow, I didn't realize I'd been assaulted,'" said Teresa Beasley.

Coast Guard Academy Cadet Webster Smith.

The Coast Guard had more than 10 cases of rape or sexual assault prior yo 2005. All of the sexual predators were white. None were prosecuted. Then, along came Webster Smith. He was African American and several women accused him of sexual assault. The Coast Guard Academy spared no effort or expense in prosecuting him in 2006. There was an attempt to make Webster Smith the poster child of sexual assault at the Coast Guard academy. It did not work.

In the book CONDUCT UNBECOMING an Officer and Lady I paint an accurate picture of the Coast Guard Academy sexual predator based on actual eye witness interviews. https://www.amazon.com/author/cgachall.blogspot.com

Crime and Punishment and Military Tribunals.

Staff Sgt. Frank G. Wuterich, 31, a U. S. Marine Corps squad leader in Iraq was charged with war crimes, tried by a military court-martial, found guilty and sentenced to a maximum of 90 days in jail and a reduction in pay and rank.

He will not serve a day in jail. Because of a plea bargain with prosecutors he will avoid brig time all together. The military judge was obligated to abide by the plea bargain between prosecutors and the defense.

The bottom line is that the sentence amounts to a cut in pay and a reduction in rank to private.

As part of his guilty plea, Sgt. Wuterich accepted responsibility for giving negligent verbal instructions to the Marines under his command. He reportedly told them to "shoot first and ask questions later," which resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians.

In a pre-sentencing statement, Sgt. Wuterich said when he gave that order, "the intent wasn't that they should shoot civilians. It was that they would not hesitate in the face of the enemy."

He was accused of being the ringleader in a series of November 19, 2005, shootings and grenade attacks that left two dozen civilians dead in Haditha, a city west of Baghdad.

The killings were portrayed by Iraqi witnesses and military prosecutors as a massacre of unarmed civilians -- men, women and children -- carried out by Marines in anger after a member of their unit was killed by a roadside bomb.

Defense lawyers argued the deaths resulted from a fast-moving combat situation and that the Marines believed they were under enemy fire.

Did the punishment fit the crime?

LT. William Calley was charged on September 5, 1969, with six specifications of premeditated murder for the deaths of 104 Vietnamese civilians near the village of My Lai. As many as 500 villagers, mostly women, children, infants and the elderly, had been systematically killed by American soldiers during a bloody rampage on March 16, 1968. Had he been convicted, Calley could have faced the death penalty.

It was the military prosecution's contention that Calley, in defiance of the rules of engagement, ordered his men to deliberately murder unarmed Vietnamese civilians despite the fact that his men were not under enemy fire at all.

Calley's original defense that the death of the villagers was the result of an accidental helicopter or aerial airstrike was quashed by the few prosecution witnesses. In his new defense, Calley claimed he was following the orders of his immediate superior, Captain Ernest Medina. Twenty-one other members of Charlie Company also testified on Calley's defense corroborating the orders. But Medina publicly denied giving such an order. Medina was acquitted of all charges relating to the incident at a separate trial in August 1971.

Calley was convicted on March 29, 1971, of the premeditated murder of 22 Vietnamese civilians. On March 31, 1971, Calley was sentenced to life imprisonment and hard labor at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Of the 26 officers and soldiers initially charged for their part in the My Lai Massacre or the subsequent cover-up, only Calley was convicted.

On April 1, 1971, only a day after Calley was sentenced, U.S. President Richard Nixon ordered him transferred from Leavenworth prison to house arrest at Fort Benning, Georgia. He served only three and a half years of house arrest.

In 1974, President Nixon tacitly issued Calley a limited Presidential Pardon. Consequently, his general court-martial conviction and dismissal from the U.S. Army were upheld, however, the prison sentence and subsequent parole obligations were commuted to time served, leaving Calley a free man.

Did the punishment fit the crime?

On June 26, 2006 Cadet Webster Smith pleaded not guilty in the first court-martial of a cadet in Coast Guard Academy history. The charges ranged from rape, sodomy, and extortion to assault of four female cadets.

With no physical evidence in the case, defense attorneys had hoped to persuade jurors that the testimony of the women was unreliable. There was no DNA evidence, no forensic evidence, no rape kit and no crime scene photos. It was a classic case of “he-said, she-said”. It was one cadet’s word against another.

On June 28, 2006 after about eight hours of deliberation, the panel found Cadet Webster Smith guilty of indecent assault, extortion in exchange for sexual favors and sodomy, which in military parlance includes oral sex. All those charges involved only one of the four female accusers.

He was acquitted of several charges that stemmed from alleged sexual encounters with the other three female cadets. The defense had argued that the sex was consensual and that the women had colluded against Webster Smith. They were all scorned lovers of one sort or another.

Before any charges had been filed against him, Cadet Smith had spent about six months at hard labor and pre-trial confinement. He was sentenced to an additional six months in jail at a Navy brig, and dismissal from the Coast Guard Academy. He served five months in jail and was released early because of good behavior as a prisoner.

Webster Smith appealed his conviction all the way to the Supreme Court. The U.S. Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals held oral argument on January 16, 2008 in Arlington, Virginia; but the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) became the final decision in the case because the U. S.Supreme Court, the nation’s court of last resort, denied the appeal without comment.

Did the punishment fit the crime?

https://www.amazon.com/author/cgachall.blogspot.com

Is Bradley Manning A Hero or A Criminal?

Was it journalism or espionage?

In publishing the cables passed on by US soldier, Bradley Manning, was WikiLeaks engaging in journalism or espionage? Can he be convicted under the Espionage Act?

Or is this a case of "Shoot the messenger"?

In setting up WikiLeaks, Julian Assange wanted to bring to light secret agreements between countries. That he succeeded is clear from the number of companies and governments who have tried to shut him down, says

Philippe Rivière

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
– George Washington

In order to get to Julian Assange, it appears that the US Justice Department is trying to "flip" Bradley Manning and make his a state's witness against Julian Assange. If Assange is forced to return to Sweden to answer for certain sex charges, he could be snatched off the street and whisked to the USA to stand trial for espionage. That is if he ever gets to trial. Under the new authority granted in the National Defense Authorization Act the military has to detain indefinitely, Assange could disappear into the gulag never to be hear from again.

On 21 January 2010, in an important speech that would not have shamed the founding father of the United States, Hillary Clinton gave her views on the freedom of the internet. She criticised countries that “have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks [and] expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results”, and took up President Obama’s credo: “The more freely information flows, the stronger societies become.” In the name of that “faith” in freedom of expression and information networks that “[help] people discover new facts and [make] governments more accountable”, the administration launched a programme to support “the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their rights of free expression by circumventing politically motivated censorship” and warned against governments that, like “the dictatorships of the past... are targeting independent thinkers who use these tools”.

Stirring stuff. But rather like someone whose mobile is stolen in the street and then wants to bring back hanging, Clinton found herself the victim of piracy and on 30 November 2010 announced her intention to take “aggressive steps” in order to prosecute Julian Assange’s website, WikiLeaks. His alleged crime was that in revealing, among other things, that Clinton had asked her diplomats at the UN to spy on UN staff and collect as much biometric data and as many passwords and credit card numbers as possible, WikiLeaks was putting the “international community” in danger.

Outrage soon took hold among commentators on all sides, who flocked to the television studios to demand they “illegally shoot the son of a bitch” (journalist Bob Beckel on Fox News), charge him with “terrorism” (Peter King, House Homeland Security Committee), or consider him an “enemy combatant”, like the prisoners in Guantanamo (Newt Gingrich on Fox News). There was more than a whiff of McCarthyism according to one peace activist – a lynch mob fever of the sort that grips the US periodically.

In setting up WikiLeaks, Julian Assange intended to bring to light real “plots” and secret agreements between powers, which were carefully hidden from the public. The proof of his success came with the number of companies and governments who tried to shut his website down. In the days following the publication of the diplomatic memos, China blocked access to WikiLeaks. The US government recommended students not talk about the site on their blogs, and the US Air Force forbade looking at The New York Times, Der Spiegel and The Guardian websites, which had republished the information.

The three main online banking services, Visa, Mastercard and PayPal – which still allow you to make donations to the Ku Klux Klan – refused to handle payments to his organisation. They thereby revealed themselves to be “instruments of US foreign policy”, according to the WikiLeaks frontman. PostFinance, a subsidiary of the Swiss post office, also closed the Australian hacker’s account. Tableau Software, a data visualisation software company, censored not the data itself but a simple summary of the “leaks” on the unconvincing grounds that WikiLeaks didn’t have “the right to make [the data] available”. Amazon, as a site host that was protected from legal liability for content which was not its own, closed WikiLeaks’ account on its own initiative. When WikiLeaks then hired servers from OVH, a French hosting company based in Roubaix, France’s minister for the digital economy, Eric Besson – entrusted a few months earlier with the defence of the national identity of the land of Voltaire – asked the CGIET technology agency to tell him “as quickly as possible how to end the hosting of this site in France”. The judge in chambers to whom OVH referred the case rejected it on the grounds that there had not been a full adversarial hearing.

EveryDNS, a domain name system management service whose function is to enable users to find sites on the net, simply dropped WikiLeaks.

org from its entries. All the weaknesses of the net (its centralisation, its dependence on the US) and all the methods of coercion that web libertarians have been warning against for years (sometimes crying wolf) came into play. The demonisation of WikiLeaks’ spokesman went a stage further with an accusation of sexual misconduct and rape, charges that Assange rejects as “politically motivated”. A bizarre chase then ensued in order to get the Australian – by now in the south of England – to testify. If the UK extradited him to Sweden over the sex charges, would Sweden send him on to the US over the publication of State Department documents? The diplomatic and legal soap opera became frontpage news, catapulting WikiLeaks to the top of the list of the world’s best-known websites and Assange onto Time magazine’s list of personalities of the year, just behind Mark Zuckerberg, the creator of Facebook (see Facebook: the magic mirror).

Now that the powers-that-be had identified the WikiLeaks organisation as simply one man, they just had to convince us that he was not worthy of exercising his freedoms. Which leads to the crucial question: in publishing the cables passed on by a US soldier (probably the analyst Bradley Manning, who has been locked up for 23 hours a day since May 2010 at Quantico base in Virginia, and who faces a 52-year prison sentence if found guilty), was WikiLeaks engaging in journalism or espionage? “To convict [him] under the espionage Act, a trial must prove bad faith on the part of the accused. With WikiLeaks, that’s easy,” claimed an article in The Wall Street Journal on 9 December by Gabriel Schoenfeldt, the author of a book on secrets, national security and journalism. The great care with which the State Department representative Philip J Crowley asserted that WikiLeaks “isn’t a media organisation” then prepared the legal ground for bringing him to book. For if WikiLeaks is just a receiver of stolen goods, a spy, indeed a terrorist organisation, its condemnation would not be a violation of the First Amendment, which grants freedom of expression under the US constitution. “Assange obviously has a particular political objective behind his activities,” Crowley added, “and I think that, among other things, disqualifies him as being considered a journalist.”This strange concept of apolitical journalism was tested in the past in the Pentagon Papers trial. In 1971, the military analyst Daniel Ellsberg revealed to The New York Times and 17 other papers 7,000 pages of a secret study that he had photocopied and smuggled out of the Pentagon, which showed that “the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance” – the Vietnam war. The government’s attempts to prevent publication went all the way to the Supreme Court, which in the end found in favour of freedom of the press.

Since then the lies have resumed. False premises were the basis for the US invasion of Iraq. According to The Washington Post, the number of documents classified as secret in the US has rocketed since 1996 (5.6m), reaching 54.6m by 2009.

(From The Diplomatic World by Philip Rivers)

Journalist Sues Obama in New York Federal Court to Stop Indefinite Detention of American Citizens

Here is a story you will not find in the mainstream media. You will not read it in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, or hear about it on CNN, MSNBC, or anywhere else.



Less than a month after the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was signed into law, President Barack Obama faces a lawsuit because of its highly controversial provisions regarding the detention of suspected terrorists.

Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint against Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta Friday in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on behalf of journalist Chris Hedges. The complaint states that the law violates the First and Fifth Amendments.



The $662 billion defense spending bill contained a controversial section that required terrorism suspects to be detained by the military without trial, regardless of where they were captured.



Despite language in the law that states it does not affect existing authorities relating to the detention of U.S. citizens or others captured within the U.S., Hedges claims that it still allows the government to detain Americans indefinitely without trial.



“I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge,” Hedges explains. “I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have ‘disappeared’ into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.”



While signing the bill, Obama issued a signing statement in which he pledged that the new laws would not violate Americans’ constitutional rights. But human rights advocates said that did not prevent future administrations from abusing the law.



The complaint alleges that Hedges could fall within the scope of the law. As part of his job as a journalist, he has direct communications with persons who are likely to be deemed engaged in hostilities with the United States. The detention provisions cover anyone who has “substantially supported” or “directly supported” “al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”

Hedges says that the controversial bill passed “because the corporations, seeing the unrest in the streets, knowing that things are about to get much worse, worrying that the Occupy movement will expand, do not trust the police to protect them. They want to be able to call in the Army. And now they can.



This will render null and void the Writ of Habeas Corpus, that is, Latin for "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. In family law, a parent who has been denied custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition. Also, a party may file a habeas corpus petition if a judge declares her in contempt of court and jails or threatens to jail her.



In Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1778 (1992), the court observed that the Supreme Court has "recognized the fact that`[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.' Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969). " Therefore, the writ must be "administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected." Harris, 394 U.S. at 291.



The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. The writ is "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action." Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969). Because the habeas process delays the finality of a criminal case, however, the Supreme Court in recent years has attempted to police the writ to ensure that the costs of the process do not exceed its manifest benefits. In McCleskey the Court raised barriers against successive and abusive petitions. The Court raised these barriers based on significant concerns about delay, cost, prejudice to the prosecution, frustration of the sovereign power of the States, and the "heavy burden" federal collateral litigation places on "scarce federal judicial resources," a burden that "threatens the capacity of the system to resolve primary disputes." McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 467.

Cadet Used Honor Code To Obtain Sexual Favors.

Cadet Robert M. Evenson Jr. is alleged to have forcibly raped a female cadet in the spring of 2010. He's also charged with breaking cadet regulations by having an ongoing relationship with a female freshman. He also is suspected of abusing his power position as a "cadet non-commissioned officer for honor cases" to extract sexual favors from a female fellow cadet. This is serious. He was charged with enforcing the Honor Code. He may have used it to supply gris for his mill. As one of the cadets entrusted with enforcing the Academy's Honor Code, he would have been in a very coveted position. He was expected to punish those who lie, cheat, steal or tolerate others who do. Those who violate the Honor Code face a maximum punishment of expulsion from the Academy. Allegations of corruption in the Honor Code enforcement system will likely send shock-waves through the Cadet Corps and the Academy alumni. The Honor Code is the very touchstone of the Academy's culture.



Who will watch the watchers? This exploitation of a power position was inevitable. It is as impossible to avoid detection indefinitely as it is to plans your own surprise birthday. This is probably not the first time this cadet has done this. It appears that he had momentum; that is, forward motion fueled by a series of wins.



Just what is the Honor Code. each of our military academies has an Honor Code or an Honor Concept. How do they differ? Read all about it in my book CONDUCT UNBECOMING an Officer and Lady. Read it for free in Kindle format at

https://www.amazon.com/author/cgachall.blogspot.com



The Coast Guard Academy Cadet Handbook (2010) tells the new cadet recruit that when you take the oath of office as a Cadet in the United States Coast Guard you begin your development as a commissioned officer in the Armed Forces of the United States. You will be expected to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and to selflessly serve the American people.



In the Honor Concept there exists a higher standard of conduct that can neither be delineated by laws nor defined by regulations. It is the concept of Honor. Because Coast Guard cadets are called to a life of public service, and desire to attain that special trust and confidence which is placed in our nation’s commissioned officers, their actions must be straightforward and always above reproach. As future law enforcement officers, each cadet’s word and signature must be regarded as verification of the truth. The Coast Guard Academy’s Honor Concept is exemplified by a person who will neither lie, cheat, steal, nor attempt to deceive. It is epitomized by an individual who places loyalty to duty above loyalty to personal friendship or to selfish desire. While the Coast Guard Academy’s Honor Concept differs from a code, in that failure to report an honor offense is not itself an honor violation, cadets are required to report all activity that does not incriminate themselves. Moreover, the condoning of an honor violation is a Class I offense under the Cadet Regulations. Dis-enrollment is a very possible outcome. The Corps of Cadets are stewards of their Honor Concept.



At the center of their new world is adherence to a Concept or Cadet Honor Code to which they swear: “A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do.” Their whole new world is shaped around these principles. This initially shapeless reality begins to form into principles of rigid honesty, loyalty to their fellow cadets, and respect for their classmates and all with whom they associate.



What is conduct unbecoming an officer and a lady? Does it violate the Honor Concept? Does conduct that violates the UCMJ constitute a higher standard than the Honor Concept? Times are changing so rapidly, one wonders if cadets and officers of today can be held to the same standards of conduct that were intended by the drafters of the UCMJ and the MCM promulgated in 1951? Not everyone can be expected to meet ideal moral standards, but how far can the standards of behavior of cadets and officers fall below contemporary community standards without seriously compromising their standing as officers and ladies? Have the changes in ethics and values of American society been reflected in the military?



Both the United States Military Academy and the United States Air Force Academy have adopted a Cadet Honor Code as a formalized statement of the minimum standard of ethics expected of cadets. Other military schools have similar codes with their own methods of administration. The United States Naval Academy, like the Coast Guard Academy, has a related standard, known as the Honor Concept.



The Cadet Honor Code at the Air Force Academy, like that at West Point, is the cornerstone of a cadet's professional training and development — the minimum standard of ethical conduct that cadets expect of themselves and their fellow cadets. Air Force's honor code was developed and adopted by the Class of 1959, the first class to graduate from the Academy, and has been handed down to every subsequent class. The code adopted was based largely on West Point's Honor Code, but was modified slightly to its current wording:

We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does.

In 1984, the Cadet Wing voted to add an "Honor Oath," which was to be taken by all cadets. The oath is administered to fourth class cadets (freshmen) when they are formally accepted into the Wing at the conclusion of Basic Cadet Training. The oath remains unchanged since its adoption in 1984, and consists of a statement of the code, followed by a resolution to live honorably:

We will not lie, steal or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does.

Furthermore, I resolve to do my duty and to live honorably, so help me God.

Cadets are considered the "guardians and stewards" of the Code. Cadet honor representatives throughout the Wing oversee the honor system by conducting education classes and investigating possible honor incidents. Cadets throughout the Wing are expected to sit on Honor Boards as juries that determine whether their fellow cadets violated the code. Cadets also recommend sanctions for violations. Although the presumed sanction for a violation is di-senrollment, mitigating factors may result in the violator being placed in a probationary status for some period of time. This "honor probation" is usually only reserved for cadets in their first two years at the Academy. (Cadet Honor Code, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)