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