82nd's Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair removed from job in Afghanistan

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Team

I'm pretty sure there was a time that he could have gotten away with this. It would have all been swept under the rug, and he would have quietly retired. I guess rank doesn't have as many privileges as it used to, which actually brightens my day. After 20 years of seeing NCO's get crucified, it's nice to see officers get publicly crushed under the same rules that they would enforce on the rest of us.

I guess that will depend on whether he was sodomizing a female, or a male.

TR

[69harley]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I guess that will depend on whether he was sodomizing a female, or a male.

TR

With the new rules on homosexuality it really shouldn't make a difference?

[mark46th]

Under the new guidelines, he will probably get leniency if it was a male...

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by mark46th

Under the new guidlines, he will probably get leniency if it was a male...

Exactly.

Can't punish a 'mo.

Time was, that would have gotten him tossed out on his ass, so to speak.

TR

[AngelsSix]

http://www.stripes.com/mobile/news/a...odomy-1.192237

So who thinks they will let the General retire quietly? His life is over now, anyway.

[SF_BHT]

Looks like some miss steps that may taint the case...... Looks like this guy has had a pattern that has gone unchecked for a while.

Prosecutors allege 5 women in general's sex crimes

By MICHAEL BIESECKER | Associated Press – 18 hrs ago

FORT BRAGG, N.C. (AP) — U.S. Army prosecutors offered the first details of a rare criminal case against a general, alleging in a military hearing Monday that he committed sex-related crimes involving four female officers and a civilian.

A hearing on evidence in the case against Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair began Monday at Fort Bragg, home to the 82nd Airborne Division. Officials said the Article 32 hearing, similar to a grand jury proceeding in civilian court, was expected to last at least two days.

But before prosecutors could start presenting their case, defense lawyer Lt. Col. Jackie Thompson said military investigators had violated his client's rights by reading confidential emails he exchanged with his lawyers and wife discussing the accusations against him.

Under questioning from Thompson, the lead investigator for the case acknowledged she had read the confidential e-mails, violating the terms of the subpoena used to obtain them from Sinclair's service provider. Those e-mails were later turned over to prosecutors, who are barred from seeing Sinclair's communications with his counsel.

Thompson then asked Criminal Investigative Command Special Agent Leona Mansapit if she had the resources she needed to conduct a proper investigation in Sinclair's case.

"Probably not, sir," Mansapit replied. "I wish I had."

The defense is asking the officer conducting the hearing, Maj. Gen. Perry L. Wiggins, to either require all new prosecutors to be assigned or that the case be thrown out.

Sinclair faces possible courts martial on charges including forcible sodomy, wrongful sexual conduct, violating orders, engaging in inappropriate relationships, misusing a government travel charge card, and possessing pornography and alcohol while deployed.

He served as deputy commander in charge of logistics and support for the division's troops in Afghanistan from July 2010 until he was sent home in May because of the allegations.

The sex-related accusations against Sinclair range from forcing a female officer to perform oral sex to having an extramarital affair with a civilian woman. Sinclair is married and adultery is a crime under the military code of justice.

In one instance, prosecutors also said that Sinclair threatened one woman's military career if she refused his advances. Later, prosecutors alleged that he threatened her life and the lives of her relatives if she told anyone about his actions.

When other officers questioned how the general spoke to women under his command, Sinclair was reported by prosecutors to have replied, "I'm a general. I'll say whatever the (expletive) I want."

Prosecutors alleged the general's illegal acts took place between 2007 and 2012 in places including Iraq, Afghanistan and Germany, as well as Fort Bragg and Fort Hood in Texas.

The Army had kept details secret until now in the rare criminal case against a high-ranking officer. That is different from other high-profile case where Army prosecutors were quick to release charging documents.

In March, the Army quickly released charge sheets laying out evidence against Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, the soldier accused of gunning down 17 Afghan civilians during a massacre in southern Afghanistan.

The first Article 32 hearing in Bale's case also began Monday across the country in Washington at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, south of Seattle.

There have been only two other court-martial cases against Army generals in recent years.

Before prosecutors can present evidence to support the accusations against Sinclair, much less move to a courts martial, Wiggins must decide whether to move forward with the Article 32 hearing.

"The investigators were tainted, and they tainted the prosecutors," Thompson told Wiggins. "They bungled the investigation, and if you leave them in place, they will bungle the prosecution as well."

A visibly flustered Lt. Col. William Helixon, the lead prosecutor, was put in the uncomfortable position of calling two of his fellow prosecutors to the witness stand to deny they had read the privileged e-mails. The defense learned of the apparent violation by spotting the e-mails among 16,000 pages of evidence turned over by the prosecution earlier this month.

Wiggins called a recess until 4 p.m. to consider what happens next.

[MR2]

One of the things about military justice I learned early on was that the military was very effective in applying UCMJ against 'military type' violations and very ineffective against 'civilian-type' violations.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by SF_BHT

Looks like some miss steps that may taint the case...... Looks like this guy has had a pattern that has gone unchecked for a while.

It still amazes me that there are women out there that are willing to put up with this bullshit when someone threatens their careers.

I can guarantee if he tried to force me into oral sex he would no longer have that particular appendage attached to his body.

He also would have had his testiculars shoved so far up in his throat it would have taken a surgeon to remove them.

Once my husband got a hold of him, then things would get nasty

At that point it wouldn't have mattered to me if my career was in jeapordy. I wouldn't have been able to look my husband in the face, or myself in a mirror if allowed myself to be abused in that manner, without putting up one hell of a fight.

[SF_BHT]

I guess we had better not ever harass you except over the internet.......

You are so right it does amaze me that they get away with it.

[rsmith569]

He is kinda looking like the Tiger Woods of Generals, just Tiger didn't have to force them.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by rsmith569

He is kinda looking like the Tiger Woods of Generals, just Tiger didn't have to force them.

If you have seen pictures of the individual (I refuse to call him a man) in question you will understand why he felt he had to go down that particular path. He looks like he got knocked out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.

[JimP]

(note to self: NEVER even joke about this stuff around AFCHIC....I kind of like my 'testiculars" where they are).

But I agree. How can we extend to females the opportunity to be ninja's and close with and kill the enemy if they can't stand up to a superior officer in a clearly illegal act?

[Snaquebite]

Seems he hired a PR firm to go on the offense against the prosecution.

Some interesting stuff here:
http://www.sinclairinnocence.com/

[sharkmanII]

Man money and position can certainly buy you anything you want. Even though I think this is a feeble attempt to use a PR firm to cover up your wrong doings, they do make it sound like he was railroaded into these charge. The good General must have pi$$ed in someone's corn flakes to make them this mad and ruin such a "prestigious" career.... REALLY!! Imagine being this guys wife around the officer wives social circles. And man if oral sex is considered sodomy in the military... glad I got retired!!!

[Richard]

And the drama-rama goes on for "Mr Sexypants"...

Richard

Text messages between Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair and the woman who accuses him of forcible sodomy were sometimes playful, sometimes angry
FayObsvr, 26 Apr 2013

Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair and the woman who now accuses him of forcible sodomy traded hundreds of text messages in the months before their relationship fell apart.

The texts, which have been discussed in a Fort Bragg courtroom and partially released online, are at times sexually explicit and show a relationship that was sometimes playful and other times troubled.

Sinclair, a one-star general who was a deputy commanding general of the 82nd Airborne Division when the accusations were levied against him, used the pseudonym "Nathan Lancaster" to help keep secret his relationship with the woman, an Army captain who at one time served as his aide.

Seven months' worth of text messages, both to and from Sinclair, were provided to The Fayetteville Observer.

"You are my heart and world you beautiful magnificent man," reads one text sent to Sinclair in September 2011.

"K cant baby I loooooove you toooooooo much," Sinclair responded.

The texts are peppered with pet names such as "panda'' and "Mr. sexy pants" and include discussions of the two running away together. Sinclair sent some of the text messages from his family home.

Sinclair has admitted to the affair, and his accuser has said that she loved him.

During nearly 12 hours of testimony in a hearing at Fort Bragg last fall, the woman said she still had conflicted feelings about the general.

Sinclair's wife has since said the family was working to reconcile and that she was supporting her husband during his court-martial.

The tumultuous relationship between Sinclair and the captain continued until the night of March 19, 2012, when she entered the Afghanistan office of the 82nd Airborne Division commander, Maj. Gen. James L. Huggins, and admitted to the affair.

That was 10 days after the last text message, according to documents provided to the Observer.

Texts from the weeks before the accusations were made against Sinclair show the relationship was tenuous.

"Need to talk when you can," said Sinclair's accuser in an exchange that began March 5, 2012.

Sinclair said he would call, but when he didn't, his accuser said, "You are going to make me do something really stupid."

She later texts that she may need to call Huggins and "have him resolve this, Im sure he will take the time to keep me from being suicidal. I well not let you continue to screw me over."

During a hearing in November, the woman was visibly affected when two of Sinclair's military lawyers read the text messages out loud.

The woman testified that Sinclair made her feel like a "silly schoolgirl."

She testified that she repeatedly tried to end the relationship during its three-year course and said the two often argued about their future.

She alleges that, at one point, Sinclair threatened to harm her and her family if she called the affair off and told investigators that she was forced into sex acts twice in an office in Afghanistan.

She testified that she did not want sexual assault charges brought against Sinclair and did not want to ruin his career.

The text messages have been displayed on a website created to support Sinclair's defense, sinclairinnocence.com.

The website has been a contentious issue in court. The military judge, Col. James Pohl, warned Sinclair's lawyers during the most recent hearing that evidence provided to Sinclair's defense was not to be shared online.

Sinclair is facing 25 specifications of eight charges, including forcible sodomy, wrongful sexual conduct, indecent acts, attempting to violate a lawful order, maltreatment, conduct unbecoming an officer, adultery and communicating threats.

One charge, related to the possession of alcohol, could be dropped. A source close to the case said prosecutors informed Sinclair earlier this month that they would ask to have the charge removed.

Sinclair's court-martial is scheduled to start June 25. He is next due in court for a hearing on May 14.

http://fayobserver.com/articles/2013...3?sac=fo.local