On the 26th of June former General (AFRICOM) Carter Ham will appear before Congress to answer questions about the terrorist attack in Benghazi. Will he take the fall or will he tell us who ordered him to "stand down" rather than attempt rescue of the consolate? The case is made that according to the UCMJ Ham was required to attempt rescue with the resources he had which included naval, air, and special ops assets. Only a direct order would exonerate the General and there are very few people who could give that order.
The requirement, both morally, militarily, and legally, is precisely spelled out in a document called the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ. The UCMJ is not only the law-book for the U.S. Military, it also lists the duties incumbent on the officers and fighting men and women of all America’s uniformed services.
Article 99 is one of several parts of the UCMJ that spell out the duties of both commanders and troops while in combat. Part 9 of article 99 states that any service member, “Who does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle” to be guilty of an offense. The UCMJ stipulates that charges should be brought in cases where an individual fails “to afford all practicable relief and assistance” whether by neglect or willfully failing to “do the utmost to perform that duty”.
Is this merely a legal quibble? For the UCMJ, failure to provide support is listed in a section entitled “Misconduct before the enemy"; the penalty for such failure is to be “punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.” Along with cowardice, failure to provide all practicable relief to U.S. combatants is a capital offense.
But did Article 99 apply to General Ham? Was a terrorist attack on an embassy to be considered combat with enemy forces—or something else? Again, the UCMJ is unambiguous. Subpart b of Article 99 states that enemies include, “...any hostile body that our forces may be opposing, such as a rebellious mob or a band of renegades, and includes civilians as well as members of military organizations…”
Clearly, the UCMJ’s definition of enemy combatants covers the terrorists who assaulted the Consulate and CIA Annex. Was General Ham lawfully required to render support to Woods and Doherty? Where Doherty and Woods classified as members of the U.S. Armed Forces?
Again, the UCMJ is clear. Article 2 of the UCMJ states who is covered by the code; it includes: “Members of a regular component of the armed forces, Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.” Both Doherty and Woods were former SEAL Team members, both were retired, and Woods was being paid by the Department of Defense.
Benghazi was combat. Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were American combatants, and the commander of USAFRICOM had it in his power to support them.
On September 11th, 2012, Christopher J. Stevens became the first American Ambassador to die at his post since the hapless regime of Jimmy Carter. Whether or not General Ham did his duty as a subordinate commander, the responsibility for the Benghazi consulate attack, and the floundering response to it, ultimately rests with the Commander in Chief, Barack Obama.
Regardless of what orders did, or did not, come from Washington, the duty of a subordinate military commander in Benghazi was unambiguous. It was General Ham’s explicit duty to support Americans under fire in Benghazi. He did not, and now the General should answer for it, at his peril.
On June 26th, General Ham will face some tough questions from the House Armed Services Committee. America deserves some straight answers.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...d-Hard-Answers
Will General Ham take the fall or give up the game?
