Note: This post is now closed to new comments. The Metzger discussion will continue in our new Wizbang Forum, where there is a thread devoted to Metzger. Registration is required to post on our new vBulliten powered forums. We’re fairly certain that the new forum system will be more practical for this type of extended discussion…
In the coming weeks we’ll updated to look of the forums to more closely match the new Wizbang design.
Johca — although what I stated was mostly in jest, …
Author: ijosha
I understood the jest context. There is much bringing in of others as being part of the cause-result or cover-up when there is no direct connection to the event or incident rather than family relationship. Even if all family members have complete knowledge and understanding of what happened, the only relevant and pertinent statement is the confirming or denying of the completeness and accuracy of any official statement.
At this time waging an effective public relations campaign requires either confirm, deny, or dispute accuracy of officially released information. The only way they can do this is from use of testimonial evidence provided by Major Jill Metzger. The problem is accuracy and completeness of the testimony is in question and what is said to wage a public relations campaign becomes you told your family this, you told investigators this, which version is more truthful.
There is not going to be any public relations campaigned waged by family members until criminal offenses are charged or not charged and this happening becomes public knowledge from official sources. Even then I doubt a public relations campaign will happen until an actual court proceeding is in process that becomes a monitored event of news worthy interest.
Although gender has some influence in causing the incident, the actual matter of concern is while rank has its privileges; rank and grade is given because of the responsibilities that come with it. The person having appointment of military commission causes a differing in seriousness from if the event involved an enlisted member. Even in the enlisted ranks there is difference of holding rank and grade of Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) and being enlisted and not holding rank and grade of NCO.
The prevalent concept of integrity is loss of integrity is caused by inadequate or incorrect, or improper policy rather than a failure of personal responsibility and accountability to sustain good conduct and behavior. This concept in this instance is in direct conflict with what military law (UCMJ) clearly and distinctly identifies as what military members shalt not to do and the consequences if such deeds are accomplished.
Much about this disappearance and reappearance event that has me fascinated and waiting anxiously for official news release.
Jody: Are you hiding a lot of “former and active-duty types” in your pants? No one here gives a shiite about how you define fraud waste and abuse and no one is asking for an apology. As for Deb being the “worst excuse you’ve ever known….”; doesn’t appear that you do know her. Unless you have anything else to add to this discussion, just walk away.
I’m sure they’re dedicating a multi-billion dollar weapon system somewhere that will never be used against an enemy. Put those integrity skills of yours to work and see if you could dig up some fraud…
Jody/Jill: Your theories of me are way off. How you are able to spend so much time in here bashing me is abuse and fraud of cyberspace rules. Are there cyberspace rules? Must be – Jody made them or THINKS she makes them. Owe an apology? LOL – you are the craziest one on here yet. For blogging? You owe everyone an apology for even being here – as sorry as you are. I keep laughing at your comments – they make no sense. I know I don’t care what you think of me and I am certain about 99% of the others in here don’t care what you think of me either……who cares Jody – it’s a blog – only problem in here is YOU…….I am sincerely starting to think YOU are Jill Metzger. You would obviously have access to a computer, have PLENTY of time to read comments here and you hold an aweful lot of hate and anger. I and the rest of the military (strange statement, rest of military, like they are sitting in the room with you) demand an apology for your slander, outrageous behavior, libel, false accusations, criminal assumptions, and so on speculations……now, sit down and apologize – that’s an order (cough)
Buster: How dare they spend that much money and “waste” it. I’m calling the President…..wait, perhaps JM knows about this multi-billion dollar weapon system, hired PERSONNEL to build and man it and they tried to get rid of her because she knew too much about it, but she “escaped”…thus, calling the Embassy instead of the AF – by golly, that’s it, that’s it!
Jody: You want to complain about fraud and abuse – go call Exxon.
Here is some info. for you to get your engines burning:
http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/exxon-profit-rises-to-1049-billion/20061026090709990002?ncid=NWS00010000000001
P.S. Please tell them I have not been buying gas from them for a while – I know they will care, I just know they will. Thank You.
Being ordered to testify before a grand jury doesn’t necessarily mean the person getting the subpoena is the target of the inquiry.
In this case – JM could very well be covering for someone else who did something wrong and she was involved. A rape leading to pregnancy? Being kidnapped because she knew too much?
grand fury indictment
The Fifth Amendment right to indictment by grand jury is the only right expressly inapplicable to the military accused.32 Again, however, the military has a substitute procedure for the grand jury indictment. Article 32 of the code requires that prior to referring charges to a general court-martial, a commander must appoint a commissioned officer to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation of the facts. Although the two procedures are analogous, their differences are rather distinct.
Grand jury proceedings are conducted in secret. The defendant is barred from all proceedings, and, consequently, he does not have counsel and cannot confront the witnesses against him. The defendant is not permitted to introduce evidence or witnesses in his own behalf. Further, the grand jury indictment has not been considered an essential element of Fourteenth Amendment due process so long as the state provides a suitable substitute.33
On the other hand, Article 32 investigations are open proceedings. The accused is always present and represented by counsel and can confront and cross-examine the witnesses for the government. The accused can call witnesses and introduce evidence in his own behalf.34 Further, at an Article 32 investigation, the government makes almost its entire case available to the defense.35
Because of these differences, even the harshest critics of military justice have acknowledged the superiority of Article 32 investigations. By contrast, substantial criticism has been leveled at the civilian grand jury. Consequently, little support can be given to the notion that the military accused would benefit procedurally if they were under a grand jury system.36
right to counsel
At present, as provided by the code, a military attorney must be appointed for a defendant in all general and special courts-martial,37 except on the rare occasion when counsel is not available for a special court-martial because of “physical conditions and military exigencies.”38 The Manual, in defining physical and military exigencies, has virtually eliminated special courts-martial without benefit of counsel.39 Thus, the only trial situation where counsel is not required by the code is the summary courtmartial.40 Recent court decisions and department regulations, however, have negated this practice. The Supreme Court, in a civilian case, Argersinger v. Hamlin,41 held that counsel must be provided whenever criminal proceedings may result in a sentence of imprisonment. The decision extends the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to misdemeanor trials. Since a summary court-martial can adjudge a maximum sentence of one month’s confinement,42 it was foreseeable that the decision could have an implication within the military system. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the Army and the Air Force promptly announced that counsel would be provided in a summary court-martial as a condition of adjudging a sentence of confinement. The Navy and Marine Corps chose not to extend this protection to their members.43
Well debutant a.k.a Deb-g
I see you still cannot find your integrity.
You have dodged apologizing for your FWA better than any politician in history.
I guess in you mind you deserve a pass for your consistent FWA of the taxpayers dollars
In your book of regulations professional standards only apply to JM.
So sad girl (Yawn)
jody (and the rest) —
What purpose does your constant baiting serve? You have more than made your point and you already know that it will not make one bit of difference, and always just results in the same predictable responses from DebG… or is that what gets you off?