The nature of military justice.

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: (Michael Ejercito)
Date: 1/10/04 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time

would imagine that boards of inquiry would not recommend a court
martial unless conviction is almost certain.



Exactly right.

Exactly wrong, as numerous other posters have already pointed out.

But in some cases the recommendation becomes the verdict no
matter what and regardless of whether it was UCMJ or Articles of War.

That is an unsupportable statement.

See
Private Slovik for example which would have turned out the same no matter
what..

Horsecrap. Pure and utter horsecrap. Which is about par for the course when
it comes to Art's rants about anything outside the extremely narrow scope of
the operations of hisown particular B-26 unit during WWII.

Brooks



Arthur Kramer

In article ,
(Michael Ejercito) writes:

I would imagine that boards of inquiry would not recommend a court
martial unless conviction is almost certain.

The same is also true of civilian prosecutions. Before a case is
brought to trial, it goes through a number of layers (Grand Jury, in
some cases, Preliminary Hearing, and, for that matter, the
Prosecuter's Office's evaluation of the case) to determine whether
there's a good case or not.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
(ArtKramr) writes:
Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: (Michael Ejercito)
Date: 1/10/04 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time

would imagine that boards of inquiry would not recommend a court
martial unless conviction is almost certain.



Exactly right. But in some cases the recommendation becomes the verdict no
matter what and regardless of whether it was UCMJ or Articles of War. See
Private Slovik for example which would have turned out the same no matter
what..

Art, if I may...
It seems that when you're brining up Pvt. Slovik as an example,
you're, perhaps, looking at it from the wrong side. The controversy
in Slovik's case wasn't the verdict - He did what he did - but the
sentence. That's really a whole 'nother can of worms, just as it is
today in civilian courts.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: (Peter Stickney)
Date: 1/10/04 11:56 AM Pacific Standard Time

seems that when you're brining up Pvt. Slovik as an example,
you're, perhaps, looking at it from the wrong side. The controversy
in Slovik's case wasn't the verdict - He did what he did - but the
sentence. That's really a whole 'nother can of worms, just as it is
today in civilian courts.

What are your thoughts on the verdict?


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

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
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?????

Here in the UK that system is being changed because of successful
appeals to the EU Court of Human Rights. For all three services IIRC.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

Michael Ejercito wrote:

I would imagine that boards of inquiry would not recommend a court
martial unless conviction is almost certain.

They are not usually equipped with the expertise to determine that.
They recommend disciplinary action where they find evidence of
wrongdoing.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: (Michael Ejercito)
Date: 1/10/04 9:46 AM Pacific Standard Time

would imagine that boards of inquiry would not recommend a court
martial unless conviction is almost certain.



Exactly right. But in some cases the recommendation becomes the verdict
no
matter what and regardless of whether it was UCMJ or Articles of War. See
Private Slovik for example which would have turned out the same no matter
what..

Would that be one of those single examples that you think doesn't "prove a
damn thing?"

From: (ArtKramr)
Date: 1/10/2004 2:19 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: (Peter Stickney)
Date: 1/10/04 11:56 AM Pacific Standard Time

seems that when you're brining up Pvt. Slovik as an example,
you're, perhaps, looking at it from the wrong side. The controversy
in Slovik's case wasn't the verdict - He did what he did - but the
sentence. That's really a whole 'nother can of worms, just as it is
today in civilian courts.

What are your thoughts on the verdict?


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


If memory serves the death penalty for Slovik was supposed to be used as an
example. Too many men were going over the hill after Paris was liberated. I
don't believe the execution was ever publicised so it had no effect. His wife
was not officially told how he actually died until 10 years later.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: (B2431)
Date: 1/10/04 5:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

From: (ArtKramr)
Date: 1/10/2004 2:19 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: (Peter Stickney)
Date: 1/10/04 11:56 AM Pacific Standard Time

seems that when you're brining up Pvt. Slovik as an example,
you're, perhaps, looking at it from the wrong side. The controversy
in Slovik's case wasn't the verdict - He did what he did - but the
sentence. That's really a whole 'nother can of worms, just as it is
today in civilian courts.

What are your thoughts on the verdict?


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


If memory serves the death penalty for Slovik was supposed to be used as an
example. Too many men were going over the hill after Paris was liberated. I
don't believe the execution was ever publicised so it had no effect. His wife
was not officially told how he actually died until 10 years later.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired



I think that most of us in the ETO knew.I sure did.


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 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

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

Art, you are not "in the military", and much has changed
since you were. There is a saying that goes "if you are
guilty, you want a civilian trial, but if you are innocent
you want a court martial". That is because your rights
(to a speedy trial, etc) are protected better in the military
justice system. By the way, I am no longer in the military,
but I did serve 23 years.

Al Minyard