This must stay with the commanders. Remember, in the military, the lawyers work for the commanders. The problem is at the senior officer level, who use undue command influence upon commanders at the O-4 and O-5 level. Those Majors and Lt Colonels, and sometimes the Colonel Commanders, will cave into solutions amenable to their seniors in order to get a performance report that allows them to advance, rather than exercising their prerogative to judge each instance of sexual assault, understand their responsibilities under the UCMJ, and proceed with appropriate action and a decision. If the senior commander does not like what you are doing, they always have the option to take UCMJ disciplinary actions upon themselves...which they invariably do not do because they make themselves accountable for the outcome. They would rather pressure the Majors and Lt Colonels, and this happens with alarming frequency. Lawyers are invariably political and a bad way to instill discipline because everything will become a matter of law and policy, guided by political correctness from civilian leadership, and capricious based on all the wrong reasons: race, gender, religion and homosexuality.

Why is it that the fence in Israel is working so well? What do they know that we do not? They use a triple layer wall with vehicle entrapment ditches, as well as a patrol road and security personnel mounted on the walls, in addition to electronic sensing devices. Is this too high a price to pay for us to secure the border? If so, maybe we can send the LA senator to South Dakota and keep out Canadian illegals.

The General Article 134, when a soldier's conduct is deemed prejudicial to good order and discipline of the unit, the Commander can take action...counseling, non-judicial punishment (NJP) all the way to a Court Martial depending on the nature of the offense. If the Commander serves NJP, a soldier has the right to refuse and request a Court Martial. What is unfortunate is the military's backlash against any troop that does not agree with the new morality of open homosexuality in the ranks. With the new morality, comes new standards and discrimination by the command to eliminate the old morality and standard. This is effected with policy and disciplinary action to assure the new standard is followed. Since the reading of books by conservative authors which hold fast to the old morality and make cogent arguments for their continuance, not only in society, but in the military, this Master Sergeant's actions are being found in opposition to the new morality, and hence, open to disciplinary action. This is not tolerance, or an apolitical stance by the military, but one in consonance with PC speak and think--one that caves in to the unproven notion that the practice of homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality. This action, taken by a homosexual commander, sanctioned by the soldier's command, is the not tolerant of a soldier's conscience or willful believe in God. One might ask if he was just reading the Bible, Koran or a worship book for Wiccans, would this action also be offensive to the homosexual commander? What if his political beliefs ran to the left, and he was reading Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, or Hillary Clinton, and those conservative soldiers complained? Would the homosexual commander tell them to suck it up, or would he/she take action just as was done to the Master Sergeant? What has suffered here is equity...equal application of orders, policy, regulations and law, by the Army.

Of course...it is not part of his cultural upbringing. And neither is it for his staff, otherwise they would have reminded their lackluster boss to make note of it during his weekly radio address.

Yes...seems as if Obama gets credit for turning Chinese straw into gold back in the US. Maybe if we are able to guess his real name in three days, he will go away. We know its not Rumpelstiltskin...that's already been used. Harrison J. Bounel is just the first of many known aliases. Apparently the President has used 27 different social security numbers and over 80 aliases. We still do not know who this man is, and he is trying to reshape America away from its roots via cultural and fiscal evisceration. He is aided by some of the most communist leaning radicals our universities have ever produced, placed in jobs as "czars" to prevent congressional oversight. As proven in the current scandals: Americans and their livelihoods/lives are expendable; toe the line or get marginalized like those at the State Department; hire lackeys to do your dirty work, then plead incompetence; keep your friends close, but your enemies closer by targeted spying; keep the threat of force in the room in all negotiations.

As it is with most things, women did this to themselves. You got what you wanted and now we have generations of irresponsible men all too ready for you to take advantage of this new morality your created for yourselves. The only problem with this morality is that the standard of success is measured in death. A death whereby the "right" you exercise as women, you deny to those unborn females torn asunder during the abortion procedure, as well as the right to life to all the males left in the trash bin outside of the abortion clinic. No matter how you try to abstract a winning rationale for abortion, the argument comes right back to the unwarranted death sentence levied on unwanted life because it is both convenient to the callously indifferent parents, the government and those politicians seeking the female vote. "Women deserve better." OK. My thoughts: Humanity deserves better, and none so much as those we have killed. it is a sin we cannot erase.

Mona...I love you, but think you have missed the boat with your commentary today. You wrote: "The lesson would be this: If you can muster public pressure through social media, the press, and politicians, your loved one can gain an advantage over others waiting for a lung or kidney or liver." This can only happen when healthcare becomes politicized. With the AFA, it has already become a political football because politicians and elected officials...not doctors, are now setting the rules. It seems to me that you are criticizing those that have determined that this is a political process, and engage with knowledge that a political approach is needed to succeed. I can not fault the family for playing the game under the new rules, as dangerous a precedent as it must set. I can only think of Governor Christie, in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, getting first in line for federal aid under the Stafford Act over his Democrat neighbors in New York, by inviting and spending time with President Obama. If it is your family, you find a way. It is not so much a fault of the family and its supporters, but a crying shame that it has come to this type of action in the New World Bureaucracy.

Do Muslims not pray to the same God as Christians and Jews? Where's the offense? As for atheists and agnostics, a review may be required. I assume that these groups have filed a protest, no? Has anybody asked if the Wiccans or Native American Airmen object to the video, or is the horror limited only to newly protected minority groups? Cultural sharia with a liberal slant...that's what we have here. Of course, when the reckoning arrives, the libs will surrender the playing field to their "offended" partners to finish the game, having eshewed the means and moral authority for violence.

I hear you , Sir, but we cannot cede the military to forces that will ultimately destroy it and fail, when needed, to protect American citizens. Too much has been given away without a fight.

The enemy reads these websites...and now we have alerted them to a poor security situation at our Beirut Embassy. Do we want to put our folks in danger? Reference Mr. O'Donnell...there is no moral equivalence, or any other, in his comparison of Benghazi to the NYC terror attacks. It just points to Mr. O'Donnell's intellectual paucity with regard to the events in Benghazi, and his steadfast refusal to ask this administration to account for its decisions.