The nature of military justice.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote


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!

Plus, in the military, there are many lavels of non-judicial punishment.
Stuff that doesn't appear as a 'conviction. Consider many minor offenses. A
speeding ticket.

1, and you get talked to by the 1st Sgt
Second, and you may get a (for enlisted) Letter of Counseling
Third one...and you get a 'stern' talking to, and a Letter of Reprimand
The fourth one may lead to an Article 15 (loss of pay, etc)

In the civilian world, that would have been 4 individual convictions.

Pete

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/2004 7:47 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: Ed Rasimus

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?????


I think we both know that if a general wants a court marshall to come
out
a
certain way, that is the way it will come out. Any doubt about that?

Yeah, lots of doubt. The GO who is the convening authority does not
involve
himself directly in the trial proceedings, and if you are claiming the
board
of officers (and an enlisted man if the defendant is enlisted, at the
defendant's discretion--though most enlisteds are smart enough to realize
that having a junior O-4 sitting in the jury is often better for him than
having a grizzled CSM or MSG there in his stead) who serve as the jury
lack
the integrity to find according to their conscince, then you are WAY off
base. Just a few short years back there was a case at FT Lewis where the
CG
was accused of having illegally influenced, or trying to influence, a CM
procedure. He quickly had more senior folks and reporters poking around
than
you could shake a stick at. This is serious stuff, and you don't have the
facts to back up your increasingly whacky assertions.

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



I think it would depend on the charges and the rank of the accused. Over
the
years I have become quite aware of the self serving nature of most people.

A hypothetical based on things I have seen over the years. An E-4 charged
with
theft faces a board of company grade officers. The officers are aware who
write
and endorse (USAF spelling "indorse") the OERs. They are under the
impression,
correctly or incorrectly, they may get a less than perfect OER and the
accused
is "only an enlistee" so why not go ahead and convict? Given this scenario
it
would be very easy for the convening authority to make known his wishes.

A bit illogical, IMO. The officers do not have to deliver a unanimous
verdict--how does the senior officer know how who voted?


Do I think this has happened? Yes. Can I prove it? No.

Some folks apparently think this is common--but I have yet to see any
evidence that is the case. Any at all. Fact is that the senior leadership in
Vietnam at the time of the Green Beret Case did indeed make it plainly known
they wanted blood--yet the defendants were acquitted. So that would be one
confirmed case of the court not meeting the wishes of the senior authorities
to zero confirmed cases of the opposite happening.


I will say this; there is deception in the judicial system. In the early
80s
someone wrote the Eglin AFB commander via the base paper asking why they
never
posted officer's Article 15s. His printed response was that in the past
quarter
there were 18(?) enlisted Article 15s and no officer Article 15s. It was
an
out and out lie. The base published a quarterly list of such actions. This
list
has a limited circulation. The list for that quarter showed 2 officers who
recieved Article 15s.

And just how does that indict the judicial system? Sounds to me more like an
integrity problem on the part of that officer; the fact that officers were
indeed receiving Art 15's seems to point towards the fairness of the system,
not vice versa.


Have you ever noticed most base/post newspapers that have a police blotter
equivelent will give an enlisted's rank (a SSgt did this) but not an
officer's
( a military member did this)? this also applies to dependants (an Air
Force
member's wife was aprehended shoplifting). The only exception to this I
ever
saw was at Eglin AFB when SrA Wade Flood used actual ranks in the late
1980s.

I never noticed that. Of course, I don't recall the blotter report being a
feature in the post paper in the first place--from what I have seen on the
web, that is a peculiarity of the USAF bases.

Brooks


Just my observations.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/04 5:59 PM Pa

f the then MACV CG to hang these guys,
they were subsequently acquitted (another nail in Art's, "If the General
wants them convicted, they will be convicted" crap).


An example of one hardly proves a damn thing.

Then offer up the opposing examples--got any? Any at all?

Brooks



Arthur Kramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/04 5:59 PM Pa

f the then MACV CG to hang these guys,
they were subsequently acquitted (another nail in Art's, "If the General
wants them convicted, they will be convicted" crap).


An example of one hardly proves a damn thing.

Then offer up the opposing examples--got any? Any at all?

Brooks



Arthur Kramer

From one who has had a bit of experience (Senior Member of a General Court
Martial in a rape case; and having had a "joint" tour in an AF [ATC] command
where an E-4 who was an RCH from an Article 15 for repeated UAs got an
end-of-tour AFCM just a few months later)...

When I was assigned to the GCM, I had NO contact with the convening authority
from beginning to end, other than the letter telling me I was "it." I had NO
IDEA whether he "wanted" the accused found innocent or guilty; nor did I care.
The person with the MOST influence over the GCM Board is the Military Judge who
presides over the proceedings. His official instructions are VERY influential,
and his handling of and answers to inquiries and questions from the Board can
make a significant difference.

The accused was an E-4. IIRC, there were an E-5 and E-7 on the Board, as well
as 3 officers. none of us had any ulterior motives.


"B2431" wrote...

I think we both know that if a general wants a court marshall to come out
a certain way, that is the way it will come out. Any doubt about that?

Yeah, lots of doubt. The GO who is the convening authority does not involve
himself directly in the trial proceedings, and if you are claiming the board
of officers (and an enlisted man if the defendant is enlisted, at the
defendant's discretion--though most enlisteds are smart enough to realize
that having a junior O-4 sitting in the jury is often better for him than
having a grizzled CSM or MSG there in his stead) who serve as the jury lack
the integrity to find according to their conscince, then you are WAY off
base.

I think it would depend on the charges and the rank of the accused. Over the
years I have become quite aware of the self serving nature of most people.

A hypothetical based on things I have seen over the years. An E-4 charged with
theft faces a board of company grade officers. The officers are aware who
write
and endorse (USAF spelling "indorse") the OERs.

Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: "John R Weiss"
Date: 1/8/04 7:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

rom beginning to end, other than the letter telling me I was "it." I had NO
IDEA whether he "wanted" the accused found innocent or guilty; nor did I
care.
The person with the MOST influence over the GCM Board is the Military Judge
who
presides over the proceedings

His official instructions are VERY influential,

And no one knows what instructions he was given before the trail began and by
whom They donlt have to influence you. They only have to influence him and you
would never know the difference.


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: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/04 7:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/04 5:59 PM Pa

f the then MACV CG to hang these guys,
they were subsequently acquitted (another nail in Art's, "If the General
wants them convicted, they will be convicted" crap).


An example of one hardly proves a damn thing.

Then offer up the opposing examples--got any? Any at all?

Brooks


Yeah. Private Slovak


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: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/04 7:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/04 5:59 PM Pa

f the then MACV CG to hang these guys,
they were subsequently acquitted (another nail in Art's, "If the
General
wants them convicted, they will be convicted" crap).


An example of one hardly proves a damn thing.

Then offer up the opposing examples--got any? Any at all?

Brooks


Yeah. Private Slovak

Nope. PVT Slovak was not tried under UCMJ--it did not exist then. Want to
try again?

Brooks



Arthur Kramer

From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/2004 9:30 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/8/2004 7:47 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: Ed Rasimus

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?????


I think we both know that if a general wants a court marshall to come
out
a
certain way, that is the way it will come out. Any doubt about that?

Yeah, lots of doubt. The GO who is the convening authority does not
involve
himself directly in the trial proceedings, and if you are claiming the
board
of officers (and an enlisted man if the defendant is enlisted, at the
defendant's discretion--though most enlisteds are smart enough to realize
that having a junior O-4 sitting in the jury is often better for him than
having a grizzled CSM or MSG there in his stead) who serve as the jury
lack
the integrity to find according to their conscince, then you are WAY off
base. Just a few short years back there was a case at FT Lewis where the
CG
was accused of having illegally influenced, or trying to influence, a CM
procedure. He quickly had more senior folks and reporters poking around
than
you could shake a stick at. This is serious stuff, and you don't have the
facts to back up your increasingly whacky assertions.

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



I think it would depend on the charges and the rank of the accused. Over
the
years I have become quite aware of the self serving nature of most people.

A hypothetical based on things I have seen over the years. An E-4 charged
with
theft faces a board of company grade officers. The officers are aware who
write
and endorse (USAF spelling "indorse") the OERs. They are under the
impression,
correctly or incorrectly, they may get a less than perfect OER and the
accused
is "only an enlistee" so why not go ahead and convict? Given this scenario
it
would be very easy for the convening authority to make known his wishes.

A bit illogical, IMO. The officers do not have to deliver a unanimous
verdict--how does the senior officer know how who voted?

As I said it was a hypothetical as to how it could happen. The OER chain is
just long enough in the scenario I gave.


Do I think this has happened? Yes. Can I prove it? No.

Some folks apparently think this is common--but I have yet to see any
evidence that is the case.

I don't think it's common and I didn't intend to imply I did. But one case, if
it happened, would be one case too many.

I will say this; there is deception in the judicial system. In the early
80s
someone wrote the Eglin AFB commander via the base paper asking why they
never
posted officer's Article 15s. His printed response was that in the past
quarter
there were 18(?) enlisted Article 15s and no officer Article 15s. It was
an
out and out lie. The base published a quarterly list of such actions. This
list
has a limited circulation. The list for that quarter showed 2 officers who
recieved Article 15s.

And just how does that indict the judicial system? Sounds to me more like an
integrity problem on the part of that officer; the fact that officers were
indeed receiving Art 15's seems to point towards the fairness of the system,
not vice versa.

True as far as that goes, my point was the base commander lied, the base paper
never listed officer Article 15s and the general base population were never
told of them.

Have you ever noticed most base/post newspapers that have a police blotter
equivelent will give an enlisted's rank (a SSgt did this) but not an
officer's
( a military member did this)? this also applies to dependants (an Air
Force
member's wife was aprehended shoplifting). The only exception to this I
ever
saw was at Eglin AFB when SrA Wade Flood used actual ranks in the late
1980s.

I never noticed that. Of course, I don't recall the blotter report being a
feature in the post paper in the first place--from what I have seen on the
web, that is a peculiarity of the USAF bases.

I have seen them on Navy bases and at Ft. Devens.

Brooks


Just my observations.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


I am not trying to indict the entire Military Justice system, but I have seen
abuses based on rank.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: "Pete"
Date: 1/8/2004 9:11 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote


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!

Plus, in the military, there are many lavels of non-judicial punishment.
Stuff that doesn't appear as a 'conviction. Consider many minor offenses. A
speeding ticket.

1, and you get talked to by the 1st Sgt
Second, and you may get a (for enlisted) Letter of Counseling
Third one...and you get a 'stern' talking to, and a Letter of Reprimand
The fourth one may lead to an Article 15 (loss of pay, etc)

In the civilian world, that would have been 4 individual convictions.

Pete

LOCs and LORs are corrective tools, not nonjudicial punishment.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired