The nature of military justice.

nt (Krztalizer) wrote:


Ed, the encounter with the CDR immediately prior to the board took place in the
passageway right outside the hearing - the only transcript was from the board
itself so there was no way to redress the incident. I put myself in front of
the cannon and lit the fuse - this guy just poured extra powder down my shorts.
Life lesson for sure and if nothing else, I learned a lot about human nature.

v/r
Gordon

I think that this is similar to the 'meat' of the saying "You
must not only be honourable but you must appear to be
honourable". You likely 'were honourable' but you allowed
yourself to 'appear dishonorable' in a position where it was
important to avoid that. So, yes, your council should have seen
this possibility and steered you clear of it.
--

-Gord.

You likely 'were honourable' but you allowed
yourself to 'appear dishonorable' in a position where it was
important to avoid that.

After the event, I heard some variation of that from everyone, but I made a
rotten choice and had to pay the piper. Was what I did honorable? No. Took
me a decade to accept that. I was the Wing Sailor of the Year at the time,
paraded around California as the new Navy poster child. There really wasn't any
room for a mistake on my part. Years after the admin board, officers that I
flew with came up to me at my new work and told me how screwed up the whole
thing was, or to ask who I had ****ed off so royally to earn what happened to
me. It all boiled down to bad timing and a bad decision years earlier. I lose
sleep over it occasionally, but now I think its just an old habit, wondering
what I could have done differently.

So, yes, your council should have seen
this possibility and steered you clear of it.

At the time of the event, my counsel was six months out of college and was
handed my case several hours before we met the board. Bad luck there, but
ancient history now. For all I know, in the 15 years that followed, she may
have learned her job quite well.

v/r
Gordon

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
ubject: The nature of military justice.
From: "Ragnar"
Date: 1/9/04 1:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"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

Quoting from a previous Art Kramer post:

"An example of one hardly proves a damn thing."

Terrible thing to be hoist on ones own petard, isn't it?



He asked for one example, He got one example. Terrible when you get just
what
you ask for isn't it?.

Nice try at deflection. But we read your own words that ONE example doesn't
prove anything. Thy name is Hypocrit.

nt (Krztalizer) wrote:


At the time of the event, my counsel was six months out of college and was
handed my case several hours before we met the board. Bad luck there, but
ancient history now. For all I know, in the 15 years that followed, she may
have learned her job quite well.

v/r
Gordon

Well, for whatever comfort it gives you can likely take credit
for teaching her something (they say that we learn from our
mistakes after all). Too bad that her error probably cost you the
case though.
--

-Gord.

Art, you're way off base. See if you can 'Google' the Doolittle Board,
which resulted in scrapping the Articles of War and replacing them
with the UCMJ. One of the reasons for the military justice system
being so erratic in WW2 was the uneven quality of the officer corps in
all services. They ran the gamut from super rigid Academy types all
the way out to 90 day wonders. In my own career I went from enlisted
to officer and along the way logged seven years in command, including
base commander (punishment for being a fighter pilot?). A GCM is a
very serious affair and most JAGs back in the 70's wouldn't even touch
one unless it was iron-clad. I suspect that's where the low acquittal
rate comes from. Even then there is a civilian review board that
examines each case and has the power to vacate the findings for fault.
Comparing the military justice system with the three judges Bush is
trying to get into Federal positions - I'll take the UCMJ. (Look up
that Texas woman's record!) There is an old GI saying - if you're
innocent, get tried by the military; guilty, by a civilian court with
a good lawyer at your side. One reason for that is the quality of the
jurors in each system.
Walt BJ

Subject: The nature of military justice.
From: (WaltBJ)
Date: 1/9/04 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Art, you're way off base. See if you can 'Google' the Doolittle Board,
which resulted in scrapping the Articles of War and replacing them
with the UCMJ. One of the reasons for the military justice system
being so erratic in WW2 was the uneven quality of the officer corps in
all services. They ran the gamut from super rigid Academy types all
the way out to 90 day wonders. In my own career I went from enlisted
to officer and along the way logged seven years in command, including
base commander (punishment for being a fighter pilot?). A GCM is a
very serious affair and most JAGs back in the 70's wouldn't even touch
one unless it was iron-clad. I suspect that's where the low acquittal
rate comes from. Even then there is a civilian review board that
examines each case and has the power to vacate the findings for fault.
Comparing the military justice system with the three judges Bush is
trying to get into Federal positions - I'll take the UCMJ. (Look up
that Texas woman's record!) There is an old GI saying - if you're
innocent, get tried by the military; guilty, by a civilian court with
a good lawyer at your side. One reason for that is the quality of the
jurors in each system.
Walt BJ

Yes I am well aware that the Articles of War were replaced by the UCMJ. But
sayings asde,RHIP.



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
...
ubject: The nature of military justice.
From: "Ragnar"
Date: 1/9/04 1:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"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

Quoting from a previous Art Kramer post:

"An example of one hardly proves a damn thing."

Terrible thing to be hoist on ones own petard, isn't it?



He asked for one example, He got one example. Terrible when you get just
what
you ask for isn't it?.

No, I did not get an example. You instead gave me a case that predates the
UCMJ you are attacking. Try again.

Brooks




Arthur Kramer

(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". 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. And
once the military discovers you intend to get civilian council, you might find
youreself quietly threatened to just forget that idea.. Or else.
I would imagine that boards of inquiry would not recommend a court
martial unless conviction is almost certain.


Michael

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..


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

"Michael Ejercito" wrote in message
om...
(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". 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. And
once the military discovers you intend to get civilian council, you
might find
youreself quietly threatened to just forget that idea.. Or else.
I would imagine that boards of inquiry would not recommend a court
martial unless conviction is almost certain.

For the last time--boards of inquiry do NOT recommend courts martials! The
most they can do is recommend a subsequent Article 32 investigation, which
would determine whether or not to recommend a courts martial. Don't get hung
up in Art's fabrications related to his flawed understanding of military
justice.

Brooks



Michael