Congressman Try Gowdy from South Caroline puts it right out there; right on the line for anyone to dispute and the room stood absolutely silent.

If everything plays out the way it appears it will; there are many people in high places that deserve going to the chopping block, that are beating the system and protected for shirking their responsibilities of the positions they represented at the time of the Benghazi slaughter.  Acts such as this in the military are labeled as dereliction of duty.

White & Meeks LLP

Military Orders Violation

The Government typically prosecutes orders violations under UCMJ Article 92.  There are two categories of orders violations:  (1) general orders; and (2) other lawful orders.    

For general orders violations, the Government must prove:

a.  That a lawful general order was in effect;   

b.  That the accused had a duty to obey it; and

c.  That the accused violated or failed to obey the order.

As the title implies, these orders must be issued by general/flag rank officers or superior commanders such as service secretaries.  General orders violations are the most serious orders violations.  The maximum punishment for the violation of a general order can be a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years. 

For other lawful orders violations, the Government must prove:

a.  That the accused was issued a certain lawful order;

b.  That the accused has knowledge of the order;

c.  That the accused had a duty to obey the order; and

d.  That the accused failed to obey the order.

The key difference between a general order and other lawful order violation is the “knowledge” requirement.  If an order is not a general order, the government must prove the service member actually knew of the order.  The potential punishment is also less for the failure to obey other lawful orders.  The maximum punishment is a bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.  For these reasons, the Government usually prefers to prosecute situations as general orders violations.  

 A closely related legal theory of prosecution is “dereliction of duty.”  The Government can prosecute a service member for dereliction of duty when the Government can prove:

a.  That the accused had certain duties;

b.  That the accused knew of or reasonably should have known of the duties; and

c.  That the accused either willfully or negligently failed to perform the duties.

 The Government will typically use dereliction of duty when no order existed related to the alleged conduct.  The punishment for willful dereliction can be a bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.  For negligent dereliction, the maximum punishment is forfeiture of 2/3 pay for 3 months, and confinement for 3 months.

This is how the military deals with people that do not follow orders or that know of a impending dangerous situations and ignore them resulting in an unfavorable outcome.

Should the aftermath of Benghazi be classified as unfavorable outcome???  I guess, if you ask  Bill’s wife and some of her cronies, that answer is debatable. With the protection that goes all the way to the top of the ladder, the derelicts in this case that shirked their responsibility have gotten away with dereliction of duty. 

I hope the doors are not closed on the case yet. Hopefully there are more guys like Trey Gowdy that will see this to fruition, get some justice and closure for the families of the causalities and bring the derelicts who deliberately shirked their responsibilities to justice.

Scoop by BF roving reporter