The nature of military justice.

From: (ArtKramr)


It goes that way all too often. But only those of us in the military realise
it. The military will do damn well as they please any time they please.
Arthur Kramer

But......if you think it is that way soley in military courts you would be
mistaken. Civilian courts are much the same, with judges the sole determiners
or pretrial motions and such. Judges routinely rip valid legal claims to shreds
and dismiss the entire case, not based upon their oaths to "uphold the laws to
the best of their abilities" as they are enacted by any state or federal
legislature, but based on their own personal biases. It's called "judicial
activism".

Judges usurp the legislative mechanisms and promote their own "moral" codes in
an attempt to shape the society from the bench everyday. And they do nothing
but expand the concept of "judicial immunity" in every ruling they make on that
subject so that they can never be held accountable for the impediments to the
enforement of the legislature's enactments that they promulgate from the bench.

The judiciary of this country is the most dangerously out of control branch of
government that exits. And don't even get me going on those "agents of the
court" attorneys of the bar.

There is some political room for a reformation party to squeeze into the
election process now dominated by the Democrats and Republicans. And if it
doesn't arise rather quickly, the entire country will be suffocated by the
overhead costs imposed upon this country by the out of control legal system.
Dave

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/04 11:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
ubject: The nature of military justice.
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/04 10:00 AM Paci

Many courts martials result
in the defendant being exhonerated (in 1997, the US Army had 40
acquittals
out of 741 general courts martials, and 46 acquittals out of 315
special
courts martials, for a convi

40 equitals out of 741 is hardly "many".

A military conviction rate of 92% versus a civil conviction rate of 88%
(felonies only, IIRC, and the misdemeanor rate was a bit higher)
inidicates
your premise is faulty.

And as anyone with extensive
experience in military service knows, once a board of inquiry
recommends
a
court marshal, the chance of equital is very small as your figures
prove.

FYI, courts martials are not the direct result of any "board of
inquiry"--they stem from an Article 32 investigation conducted by a
single
qualified officer, appointed by the convening authority, who may or may
not
recommend proceeding to courts martial; alternatively, of course, they
can
also stem from the accused's refusal to accept an Article 15. Final
decision
as to whether or not to conduct the CM resides with the convening
authority.
A board of inquiry, in those isolated cases where one is formed, can
recommend that Artcile 32 proceedings be initiated, but they don't
"recommend a courts martial". Sounds like your "extensive service" (and
exactly how many years what that service?) left you a bit lacking in the
military justice knowledge area.

And
once the military discovers you intend to get civilian council, you
might
find
youreself quietly threatened to just forget that idea.. Or else.

Bullcrap. The ads are full of civil attorneys willing to take on courts
martials--do a google and you have to wade through the attorneys pitches
to
get to the hard data sites. This appears to be another typical Art
Kramer,
"It is what I say it is regardless of the actual facts" diatribe. Of
course
you can present some *facts* to support your baseless allegations...or
can
you? And I'll wager I had more years in uniform than you did--wanna bet?

Brooks



Arthur Kramer


Read Gordon's post and get in touch with military reality. There is a big
difference between what is written and what actually happens Bur i guess
you
don't know about that.

Gordon's post dealt with an admin board--that is not a CM? Get it? And next
time try responding to the points made--your habit of tossing out crap and
then not responding when called to task on it gets a bit tiresome.

Brooks


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: nt (Krztalizer)
Date: 1/8/04 11:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

I got an education in this myself. I ended up before an admin board
after I
served my punishment for a minor offense. A CDR came forward and
offered to
speak on my behalf, so my LTJG attorney, with six months Naval experience
(just
like on JAG, right?) agreed to only have him as my personal reference.
When
we
walked in the hearing, we found the command-selectee CDR's new squadron
legal
officer on the admin board. Not wanting to appear soft, the CDR changed
course
180 degrees and blew me out of the water. My caught-in-the-headlights
attorney
and I had our jaws wide open, listening to him re-write his testimony
into a
personal attack. His legal officer took seconds to consider my fate and
abruptly ended the hearing; they walked out together. There was a row of
four
MCPOs standing in the passageway waiting to stand up for me, but the
hearing
was over just that fast. I had seen officers lie before, but never like
that
-
I honestly never considered this man capable of such treachery, even if I
understood the motive behind it.

But, I put myself in that situation, so I try (on alternate days) not to
hate
him for it.

v/r
Gordon

It goes that way all too often. But only those of us in the military
realise
it. The military will do damn well as they please any time they please.

Since you have managed to get virtually all of your "facts" wrong about the
subject of military justice thus far, we'll take this as just further BS.
Note that Gordon is refering to an admin board--not a CM. One would assume
that *even* you would recognize the difference between the two? Then again,
maybe not...

Brooks





Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Sounds like your "extensive service" (and
exactly how many years what that service?) left you a bit lacking in the
military justice knowledge area.

I was never a stateside soldier. My military law experience was in combat
areas; England France, Belgium and Germany where there were wars going in.
other words I am not a stateside barracks room lawyer like you.And what you
don't realise is that is what is written and what actually happens is often
totally unrelated.

..
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: (Dav1936531)
Date: 1/8/04 1:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

From: (ArtKramr)


It goes that way all too often. But only those of us in the military realise
it. The military will do damn well as they please any time they please.
Arthur Kramer

But......if you think it is that way soley in military courts you would be
mistaken. Civilian courts are much the same, with judges the sole determiners
or pretrial motions and such. Judges routinely rip valid legal claims to
shreds
and dismiss the entire case, not based upon their oaths to "uphold the laws
to
the best of their abilities" as they are enacted by any state or federal
legislature, but based on their own personal biases. It's called "judicial
activism".

Judges usurp the legislative mechanisms and promote their own "moral" codes
in
an attempt to shape the society from the bench everyday. And they do nothing
but expand the concept of "judicial immunity" in every ruling they make on
that
subject so that they can never be held accountable for the impediments to the
enforement of the legislature's enactments that they promulgate from the
bench.

The judiciary of this country is the most dangerously out of control branch
of
government that exits. And don't even get me going on those "agents of the
court" attorneys of the bar.

There is some political room for a reformation party to squeeze into the
election process now dominated by the Democrats and Republicans. And if it
doesn't arise rather quickly, the entire country will be suffocated by the
overhead costs imposed upon this country by the out of control legal system.
Dave

To try to deal with the law "by the book" is a losing game. What the laws
says and what it does are often unrelated.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 08 Jan 2004 22:08:30 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Sounds like your "extensive service" (and
exactly how many years what that service?) left you a bit lacking in the
military justice knowledge area.

I was never a stateside soldier. My military law experience was in combat
areas; England France, Belgium and Germany where there were wars going in.
other words I am not a stateside barracks room lawyer like you.And what you
don't realise is that is what is written and what actually happens is often
totally unrelated.

.
Arthur Kramer

With all due respect, Art, your military service was fifty years ago
under a period of extreme national distress. To try to draw parallels
between WW II combat military justice and today is difficult (to say
the least.)

First, an accused individual in the military gets an Article 32
hearing in which an impartial officer (outside of the accused chain of
command) evaluates. The individual is advised of rights, including the
right to an attorney--civilian, if desired. If charges are to be
brought, the individual can "cop a plea", or see "non-judicial
punishment" under Article 15, i.e. administrative discipline. Finally,
if a court martial is convened, the military judge is a bureaucrat,
simply advising on the law as described in the UCMJ. The court martial
is a board of military individuals, equal to or senior in rank, but
outside the chain of command of the accused.

The prosecutor certainly is military but the defense can be anyone,
usually in serious charges, a civilian attorney.

I would argue strenuously that the current military justice system is
more just and balanced than anything that happens in civil courtrooms.
What were you trying to say in your initial post?????


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On 08 Jan 2004 20:08:49 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: nt (Krztalizer)
Date: 1/8/04 11:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

I got an education in this myself. I ended up before an admin board after I
served my punishment for a minor offense. A CDR came forward and offered to
speak on my behalf, so my LTJG attorney, with six months Naval experience
(just
like on JAG, right?) agreed to only have him as my personal reference. When
we
walked in the hearing, we found the command-selectee CDR's new squadron legal
officer on the admin board. Not wanting to appear soft, the CDR changed
course
180 degrees and blew me out of the water. My caught-in-the-headlights
attorney
and I had our jaws wide open, listening to him re-write his testimony into a
personal attack. His legal officer took seconds to consider my fate and
abruptly ended the hearing; they walked out together. There was a row of four
MCPOs standing in the passageway waiting to stand up for me, but the hearing
was over just that fast. I had seen officers lie before, but never like that
-
I honestly never considered this man capable of such treachery, even if I
understood the motive behind it.

But, I put myself in that situation, so I try (on alternate days) not to hate
him for it.

v/r
Gordon

There was a transcript of the proceedings. There was arguably a
statement by the witness provided in disclosure that should have
indicated the expected testimony. Your attorney did not serve you
well, you have grounds for appeal, and you should (if you ever want to
readdress this) consult a civilian counsel.


It goes that way all too often. But only those of us in the military realise
it. The military will do damn well as they please any time they please.

GMAFB!!! Art, when did you get out of the military? Would you admit
that things change in fifty years? Hell, the UCMJ was written long
after the Articles of War!



Arthur Kramer


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 1/8/2004 4:40 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On 08 Jan 2004 22:08:30 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Sounds like your "extensive service" (and
exactly how many years what that service?) left you a bit lacking in the
military justice knowledge area.

I was never a stateside soldier. My military law experience was in combat
areas; England France, Belgium and Germany where there were wars going in.
other words I am not a stateside barracks room lawyer like you.And what you
don't realise is that is what is written and what actually happens is often
totally unrelated.

.
Arthur Kramer

With all due respect, Art, your military service was fifty years ago
under a period of extreme national distress. To try to draw parallels
between WW II combat military justice and today is difficult (to say
the least.)

First, an accused individual in the military gets an Article 32
hearing in which an impartial officer (outside of the accused chain of
command) evaluates. The individual is advised of rights, including the
right to an attorney--civilian, if desired. If charges are to be
brought, the individual can "cop a plea", or see "non-judicial
punishment" under Article 15, i.e. administrative discipline. Finally,
if a court martial is convened, the military judge is a bureaucrat,
simply advising on the law as described in the UCMJ. The court martial
is a board of military individuals, equal to or senior in rank, but
outside the chain of command of the accused.

The prosecutor certainly is military but the defense can be anyone,
usually in serious charges, a civilian attorney.

I would argue strenuously that the current military justice system is
more just and balanced than anything that happens in civil courtrooms.
What were you trying to say in your initial post?????


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8


Art's experiences with the Articles of War may be one of the many reasons the
UCMJ was adopted.

Just for giggles I read parts of the Articles of War about 20 years ago. They
were exceptionally harsh towards enlisteds.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Just for giggles I read parts of the Articles of War about 20 years ago. They
were exceptionally harsh towards enlisteds.


UCMJ was pretty even handed to enlisteds - we all got smacked with the same
stick, but officers definitely got preferential treatment. Even when folks got
hurt due to blatant stupidity (USS Kirk, entire deck party injured when the new
skipper decided to leave port at the insane speed of 22 knots, into towering
waves that resulted in 8 critical injuries and two medical retirements),
officers don't seem to rate brig time. What about the loon JO in Oki that
kidnapped another officers wife? Still no jail time. But, that's one of the
perks that go with the job and extra responsibility - I can accept that.

v/r
Gordon

"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...

Just for giggles I read parts of the Articles of War about 20 years ago.
They
were exceptionally harsh towards enlisteds.


UCMJ was pretty even handed to enlisteds - we all got smacked with the
same
stick, but officers definitely got preferential treatment. Even when
folks got
hurt due to blatant stupidity (USS Kirk, entire deck party injured when
the new
skipper decided to leave port at the insane speed of 22 knots, into
towering
waves that resulted in 8 critical injuries and two medical retirements),
officers don't seem to rate brig time. What about the loon JO in Oki that
kidnapped another officers wife? Still no jail time. But, that's one of
the
perks that go with the job and extra responsibility - I can accept that.

Nor is it always necessarily true. At FT Knox in the late eighties there was
a separation between officers and enlisteds in terms of UCMJ action related
to DUI charges. An enlisted troop getting a DUI would likely get a field
grade Article 15 from his battalion CO. An officer, any officer, got an
immediate trip to the post CG's office for his Art 15--he could expect a
fine, possible restriction, and, unlike his enlisted counterpart (unles he
was a senior NCO, and even then he might have survived the event), an
effective end to his career, in order. Personally, it made sense to
me--officers were supposed to exhibit a bit more responsibility for their
own actions (and it worked--many a time we LT's would get together Saturday
morning to carpool back to the O-Club so the miscreants who having reached
the correct conclusion about their level of impairment from the previous
evening's festivities could retrieve their cars). In fact the only CM I
recall being conducted (I am sure their were others) was for a couple of
LT's who were recalled to the post after having already departed to their
next duty assignment--they had engaged in some dubious financial schemes
involving renting off-post quarters and collection of BAQ. The only CM I
knew of in the Guard (where they are pretty rare--we used the state's
military laws related to AWOL more often than resorting ot the strict UCMJ
side) was also of an officer.

Brooks


v/r
Gordon