US President Donald Trump’s administration has ordered the American Army to consider the possibility of establishing a criminal case against a senior general, who is accused by the Pentagon’s political leadership of conveying sensitive information to journalists.
According to a report The Washington PostGeneral Brett Sylvia now faces the possibility of prosecution in two ways, as charges against him were sent earlier to the Justice Department.
An American official who spoke on condition of anonymity confirmed that the case has been delegated to the acting Secretary of the Army, Adam Telle, for further treatment.
So far, neither the army nor federal law enforcement bodies have pressed criminal charges against Sylvia. He has not spoken publicly about claims, while the newspaper’s efforts to get a comment from him have been unsuccessful.
Sylvia, 54, until his dismissal last month, served as head of planning and policy at the American Army Joint Staff and reported to General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Staff of Staff.
Charges of conveying information about Iran’s war
The general’s possible criminal prosecution comes under the American Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth’s campaign to identify and punish those who pass information to the media, especially about how the Pentagon is being led during the war with Iran.
Hegseth’s top spokesman, Sean Parnell, had declared on October 29th, following reports of Sylvia’s dismissal, that the internal investigation into him had been widespread and that authorities would identify those responsible for the leak of information.
Our engagement was not an empty promise. We vowed to find you and we were serious, he wrote Parnell on social networks.
According to an American official quoted by The Washington PostSylvia allegedly admitted to military investigators that she had taken notes from classified government materials and that she had forwarded information to a journalist.
The same official claims the general had communicated with a journalist through the Signal text app, but then erased the conversation.
Meanwhile, several people familiar with the case have claimed that Sylvia had failed some polygraph tests during the Pentagon’s investigation into the identification of persons allegedly producing information. According to them, he had admitted having had contact with journalists, but he had denied giving them classified information.
Portal Axios, referring to an internal military report he had reviewed, reported on October 29th that the general had admitted to having forwarded information to reporters from the two media.
However, The Washington Post He stresses that he has not independently verified these claims, while the Pentagon has refused to publish the internal investigation report.
Legal barriers and the influence of Pentagon leadership
It is not clear whether the Department of Defence or the Department of Justice will manage to build an adequate opportunity to prosecute Sylvia.
Military justice experts have estimated that such a process would be faced with considerable legal and practical obstacles, especially because of the direct involvement of Hegseth’s team in promoting measures against the general.
Franklin Rosenblatt, former army officer and associate law professor at Mississippi Christian University, has said that in some recent cases related to national security during Trump’s second administration, the process itself can serve as punishment, even when the chances of a sentence are uncertain.
If the issue continues within the military justice system, a general is initially expected to be appointed to oversee it. If it is decided to proceed further, a session according to Article 32 would serve to determine whether there are grounds for a military trial.
In the event of a trial, Sylvia’s fate would put a jury of eight of his colleagues who, by the rules, should have higher military degrees than him.
In addition to accusations related to the alleged discovery of classified information, the military system envisions other possible accusations, including disobedience to legitimate orders or regulations and improper conduct for an officer.
Rosenblatt has warned that Silvia’s protection will almost certainly raise the issue of illegal command influence, meaning putting pressure on a superior to influence the outcome of a military process.
It has also questioned the use of polygraph results in Pentagon public statements, as these results are not accepted as evidence in court. According to him, publishing such claims may affect the potential jury.
The jury is charged with determining who is reliable and who is lying, not the cars, Rosenblatt said.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department has not confirmed whether you are conducting investigations on Sylvia. In a statement to the paper, he has only indicated that there are ongoing investigations concerning possible flow of classified information and that he co-operates with other government institutions, including the Department of Defence.
Source Layer: Dukeagini