It always amazes me how a simple act such as a video that went viral morphed into 6 charges
It also amazes me that the military is do this in a military court martial
Where is the civilian over sight
Would this not be best in a civilian court room
The military told the civilians to go pound salt
The military has taken over even though we were told this would never happen again
The fact this video went viral speaks to civilian interest
But civilians are not allowed to speak in defense of the LT Col
Now tell me ???? Is the military in control when they decide they want to be in control
Tell me the military can and will make decisions for civilians who may want a civilian court
If military is not in control then why are civilians not allowed to speak in defense of the Lt Col??
In fact why are civilians not allowed to say the Lt Col should not be in any court
As of now your military can do any thing they want
Tell me I am wrong
https://www.calcagnilaw.com/military/military-court-vs-civilian/
Military court is a unique legal specialization. The practice of military law date back to the Continental Congress of 1775. The genesis of this system came from the British Articles and adopted to become the first American Articles of War. Also, referred to as military code, this justice system maintains certain procedures that are different from civilian law. Most notably, the absence of the court martial system is a primary difference between the two court systems. Edward Sherman explained in The Civilization of Military Law that the military cautiously protects its justice system.
https://mvets.law.gmu.edu/2019/01/15/criminal-justice-vs-military-justice/
The civilian criminal justice system exists to serve several purposes including obtaining justice for victims, punishing wrongdoers, and deterring future wrongs, but also providing due process of law to those accused of wrongdoing, thus ensuring fairness in the process. In this system, there are many players who all play different roles in the process and are all intended to be impartial (save for the attorney advocates working on behalf of the accused). For example, a prosecutor is intended to be impartial and only bring cases where there is evidence to convict the accused or a jury of the accused’s peers who are supposed to hear evidence and then vote whether or not to convict the accused. The investigating officers who collect evidence of crimes are also intended to be impartial. For criminal matters, the accused is also guaranteed counsel, per the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In theory, these aspects of the criminal justice system exist to serve the goals of the criminal justice system, including justice and fairness. In practice, issues arise at all levels of the criminal justice system that prevent the system from meeting its goals, and many articles have been written on that topic and will not be discussed here. But the system’s structure is such that when everything works as it is supposed to, victims and accused are protected. This blog post will address the similarities and differences between aspects of the civilian criminal justice system and the military justice system.
The justice system that governs the military is separate and distinct from the civilian criminal justice system. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is codified at Title 10 Sections 801 to 940 and Title 14 Sections 508 and 509 of the United States Code and governs all aspects of criminal behavior by service members along with other kinds of misconduct by service members that does not have a civilian analog such as dereliction of duty, failure to follow a lawful order, or disrespect.[1] In the civilian world, when a crime is committed, a prosecutor will review the evidence and decide if charges should be brought against that individual. In the military context, the commander of the accused is the person with prosecutorial discretion.[2] This means that the commander decides whether to resolve charges against a service member administratively by informal counseling or limitations of privileges, for example, or to refer the charges to trial by court martial.[3] The power to convene a court martial given to a commander, makes the commander the “convening authority,” but the President, the Secretary of Defense, or the Secretaries of the various branches of the military also may also convene a general court martial under the statute.[4] A general court martial is for the most serious offenses.[5] Summary court martial and special court martial are for more minor offenses.[6]
The convening authority has additional powers as well. Before the trial, the convening authority can gather facts for the trial using either a commander’s inquiry, law enforcement agencies, or an Article 32 investigation.[7] Also similar to a prosecutor, during a trial, the convening authority can grant immunity to witnesses.[8] This is an expansive power because by declining to offer immunity to some witnesses, a court martial might not be able to proceed without their testimony.[9]
The convening authority is also the one responsible for selecting the people who will serve on a court martial.[10] While prosecutors in the civilian legal system play an important role in selecting jurors for a trial, they do not have total control of who serves on a jury. While juries are never perfect, they are intended to be composed of peers of the accused. In a court martial, enlisted members of the military may only serve on the court martial when an accused requests that they are, otherwise, the members of the court marital are officers.[11] Even when an enlisted service member requests that enlisted members are on his or her court martial, the convening authority can deny the request assuming they explain the reasoning in writing.[12] This is an incredible power given to commanders in the military that has no comparable analog in the civilian criminal justice system.
My uncle told me about two brothers called up to serve in WW 11
One brother was above average intelligence, the other average
The intelligent brother decided no way was he going to go to war.
So: In boot camp he was always out of step, carried his rifle on the wrong shoulder, had his buttons mis-matched and often turned left when right and right when left. He did not care if he went to jail, for insubordination as jail was safer than war.
SO: In your system the commander had two choices
Insubordination or fail boot camp as the officers might think he was too low intelligence to avoid being killed the 1st time bullets flew and a danger to his company. So to err on the safe side jail was just an expense to the army and if sent over seas a danger to the company
For what ever reason he failed boot camp and sent home. He stayed on the farm until the war was over.
After the war he went on to become a very wealthy individual, but by then the war department obviously did not care about who did what
Now if some body knew him and knew this was all just an act, things would have been different, but nobody knew him and he came back home
If the Lt Col had resigned or not posted until his time served was up, and then did not re-enlist what then??
Would the Lt Col be considered a civilian and untouchable by the military???
It seems the military does not like to look foolish as the pull out looked foolish and full of errors to many people
It seems the military has exceptional powers and enlisted personal dare not speak truth to power. Is this the way your country wants enlisted personal to be afraid to speak truth to power. Sexual abuse was a long time before the public knew how bad it was.
Truth to power was very dangerous for those sexually abused. It was often a she said he said situation, thus the abused had no recourse to justice. Don't ask, don't tell is another example. Would you approve of your daughter serving on a submarine??
I have no idea what our laws are in a similar situation
So what happened to the average intelligence brother that stayed in the army?
He did not come home
The story as told by a buddy some time later [maybe true, maybe not]
Survived the war but a couple days later was driving his superior officer back to the barracks
The brother [driver] smashed the jeep and both died of injuries
Family thought maybe celebration alcohol was involved but as with all things, with the military
Was listed as died of injuries. No further explanation. Lots of people died of injuries so who could know??? Most families lost at least one son, died of injuries.
No further explanation but he wasn't coming home so the family forgot about it
Nobody knows what really happened but that is the story one buddy told the family
Just one more that did not come home
It is a shame how the military can cover up so much, but lots of people are listed as died of injuries. Some have more to the story as Paul Harvey used to say
How ever this Lt Col has a lot of living to do
Will the military ruin his life???
6 charges-- you can bet he will be guilty of some thing
Could the Lt Cal have acted differently???
Is he really guilty of some thing??
Will the public forget this Lt Col ???
the military has been caught with their pants down several times lately and the public certainly is not forgetting this brave man. There has now been over 2 million dollars donated by the public for his defense. And when you fighting the entire US gov they will need every penny.