The nature of military justice.

[ArtKramr]

Many experts in military law consider the term military justice a contradiction
in terms. For example, you are charged with a crime by the military. The judge
is military, The prosecuting attourney is military, your defense attourney is
military and the entire jury is military. There is no representation that is in
any way neutral or objective. And we know the the military follows the orders
of superior officers. Where is the justice? Now lets extend that to civilian
life. You have an
argument with a neighbor and he takes you to court. When you get to court you
find the judge is your neighbors cousin. The prosecuting attourney is one of
the neighbors sons and his other son is your defense attourney. The entire
jury consists of his family. Now you have an exmple of miliitary justice which
all too often is no justice at all.


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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> Many experts in military law consider the term military justice a
contradiction
> in terms. For example, you are charged with a crime by the military. The
judge
> is military, The prosecuting attourney is military, your defense attourney
is
> military and the entire jury is military. There is no representation that
is in
> any way neutral or objective. And we know the the military follows the
orders
> of superior officers. Where is the justice?

Huh? Military defendants can indeed secure civilian representation if they
so desire. And since the defendant is *also* military, the process is one
conducted by his peers in the truest sense of the word. Command influence in
the courts martial process, once it gets to that point, is not allowed (but
indeed may pop up, or that accusation may occur), but then again politics
has been known to influence the justice process in the civil world. There is
an appeals process that does indeed sometimes result in the reversal of
convictions (i.e., an airman had his conviction overturned because polygraph
information was improperly used in his trial). 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 conviction rate of about 92%--see
http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/annual/FY97/FY97ArmyStats.pdf ); civilian
courts at the state level had about an 88% conviction rate in 1996
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/psc96.pdf ), so your view that the
military process is somehow terribly "unjust" does not seem to stand up to
facts.

Brooks


Now lets extend that to civilian
> life. You have an
> argument with a neighbor and he takes you to court. When you get to court
you
> find the judge is your neighbors cousin. The prosecuting attourney is one
of
> the neighbors sons and his other son is your defense attourney. The
entire
> jury consists of his family. Now you have an exmple of miliitary justice
which
> all too often is no justice at all.
>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[ArtKramr]

>ubject: Re: 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.


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

[Charles Gray]

On 08 Jan 2004 18:30:42 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>ubject: Re: 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.
>
>
How difficult is it to get such a reccomendation from a Board of
inquiry? I know in some states the preliminary hearing is little more
than a formality, while in others some cases are tossed out. I'm
assuming that the board is much like a preliminary hearing in that
they decide whether the case needs to proceed to a full court.

[Krztalizer]

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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: The nature of military justice.
>From: Charles Gray
>Date: 1/8/04 10:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <je9rvvg923dtjv7c2jbgi3

>>>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.
>>
>>
> How difficult is it to get such a reccomendation from a Board of
>inquiry? I know in some states the preliminary hearing is little more
>than a formality, while in others some cases are tossed out. I'm
>assuming that the board is much like a preliminary hearing in that
>they decide whether the case needs to proceed to a full court.
>

States have nothing to do with it. We are talking about military boards of
Inquiries.



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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >ubject: Re: 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".

A military conviction rate of 92% versus a civil conviction rate of 88%
(felonies only, IIRC, and the misdemeanor rate was a bit higher) inidicates
your premise is faulty.

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.

FYI, courts martials are not the direct result of any "board of
inquiry"--they stem from an Article 32 investigation conducted by a single
qualified officer, appointed by the convening authority, who may or may not
recommend proceeding to courts martial; alternatively, of course, they can
also stem from the accused's refusal to accept an Article 15. Final decision
as to whether or not to conduct the CM resides with the convening authority.
A board of inquiry, in those isolated cases where one is formed, can
recommend that Artcile 32 proceedings be initiated, but they don't
"recommend a courts martial". Sounds like your "extensive service" (and
exactly how many years what that service?) left you a bit lacking in the
military justice knowledge area.

And
> once the military discovers you intend to get civilian council, you might
find
> youreself quietly threatened to just forget that idea.. Or else.

Bullcrap. The ads are full of civil attorneys willing to take on courts
martials--do a google and you have to wade through the attorneys pitches to
get to the hard data sites. This appears to be another typical Art Kramer,
"It is what I say it is regardless of the actual facts" diatribe. Of course
you can present some *facts* to support your baseless allegations...or can
you? And I'll wager I had more years in uniform than you did--wanna bet?

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: The nature of military justice.
> >From: Charles Gray
> >Date: 1/8/04 10:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <je9rvvg923dtjv7c2jbgi3
>
> >>>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.
> >>
> >>
> > How difficult is it to get such a reccomendation from a Board of
> >inquiry? I know in some states the preliminary hearing is little more
> >than a formality, while in others some cases are tossed out. I'm
> >assuming that the board is much like a preliminary hearing in that
> >they decide whether the case needs to proceed to a full court.
> >
>
> States have nothing to do with it. We are talking about military boards
of
> Inquiries.

No, you are not. Read the UCMJ before you make a further fool of yourself.
Article 32 to be specific.

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
>

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: The nature of military justice.
>From: (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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: The nature of military justice.
>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 1/8/04 11:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >ubject: Re: 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".
>
>A military conviction rate of 92% versus a civil conviction rate of 88%
>(felonies only, IIRC, and the misdemeanor rate was a bit higher) inidicates
>your premise is faulty.
>
>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.
>
>FYI, courts martials are not the direct result of any "board of
>inquiry"--they stem from an Article 32 investigation conducted by a single
>qualified officer, appointed by the convening authority, who may or may not
>recommend proceeding to courts martial; alternatively, of course, they can
>also stem from the accused's refusal to accept an Article 15. Final decision
>as to whether or not to conduct the CM resides with the convening authority.
>A board of inquiry, in those isolated cases where one is formed, can
>recommend that Artcile 32 proceedings be initiated, but they don't
>"recommend a courts martial". Sounds like your "extensive service" (and
>exactly how many years what that service?) left you a bit lacking in the
>military justice knowledge area.
>
>And
>> once the military discovers you intend to get civilian council, you might
>find
>> youreself quietly threatened to just forget that idea.. Or else.
>
>Bullcrap. The ads are full of civil attorneys willing to take on courts
>martials--do a google and you have to wade through the attorneys pitches to
>get to the hard data sites. This appears to be another typical Art Kramer,
>"It is what I say it is regardless of the actual facts" diatribe. Of course
>you can present some *facts* to support your baseless allegations...or can
>you? And I'll wager I had more years in uniform than you did--wanna bet?
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>
>
Read Gordon's post and get in touch with military reality. There is a big
difference between what is written and what actually happens Bur i guess you
don't know about that.


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

[Dav1936531]

>From: (ArtKramr)
>
>
>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

But......if you think it is that way soley in military courts you would be
mistaken. Civilian courts are much the same, with judges the sole determiners
or pretrial motions and such. Judges routinely rip valid legal claims to shreds
and dismiss the entire case, not based upon their oaths to "uphold the laws to
the best of their abilities" as they are enacted by any state or federal
legislature, but based on their own personal biases. It's called "judicial
activism".

Judges usurp the legislative mechanisms and promote their own "moral" codes in
an attempt to shape the society from the bench everyday. And they do nothing
but expand the concept of "judicial immunity" in every ruling they make on that
subject so that they can never be held accountable for the impediments to the
enforement of the legislature's enactments that they promulgate from the bench.

The judiciary of this country is the most dangerously out of control branch of
government that exits. And don't even get me going on those "agents of the
court" attorneys of the bar.

There is some political room for a reformation party to squeeze into the
election process now dominated by the Democrats and Republicans. And if it
doesn't arise rather quickly, the entire country will be suffocated by the
overhead costs imposed upon this country by the out of control legal system.
Dave

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: The nature of military justice.
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >Date: 1/8/04 11:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >ubject: Re: 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".
> >
> >A military conviction rate of 92% versus a civil conviction rate of 88%
> >(felonies only, IIRC, and the misdemeanor rate was a bit higher)
inidicates
> >your premise is faulty.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >FYI, courts martials are not the direct result of any "board of
> >inquiry"--they stem from an Article 32 investigation conducted by a
single
> >qualified officer, appointed by the convening authority, who may or may
not
> >recommend proceeding to courts martial; alternatively, of course, they
can
> >also stem from the accused's refusal to accept an Article 15. Final
decision
> >as to whether or not to conduct the CM resides with the convening
authority.
> >A board of inquiry, in those isolated cases where one is formed, can
> >recommend that Artcile 32 proceedings be initiated, but they don't
> >"recommend a courts martial". Sounds like your "extensive service" (and
> >exactly how many years what that service?) left you a bit lacking in the
> >military justice knowledge area.
> >
> >And
> >> once the military discovers you intend to get civilian council, you
might
> >find
> >> youreself quietly threatened to just forget that idea.. Or else.
> >
> >Bullcrap. The ads are full of civil attorneys willing to take on courts
> >martials--do a google and you have to wade through the attorneys pitches
to
> >get to the hard data sites. This appears to be another typical Art
Kramer,
> >"It is what I say it is regardless of the actual facts" diatribe. Of
course
> >you can present some *facts* to support your baseless allegations...or
can
> >you? And I'll wager I had more years in uniform than you did--wanna bet?
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Arthur Kramer
> >
> >
> Read Gordon's post and get in touch with military reality. There is a big
> difference between what is written and what actually happens Bur i guess
you
> don't know about that.

Gordon's post dealt with an admin board--that is not a CM? Get it? And next
time try responding to the points made--your habit of tossing out crap and
then not responding when called to task on it gets a bit tiresome.

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
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: The nature of military justice.
> >From: (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.

Since you have managed to get virtually all of your "facts" wrong about the
subject of military justice thus far, we'll take this as just further BS.
Note that Gordon is refering to an admin board--not a CM. One would assume
that *even* you would recognize the difference between the two? Then again,
maybe not...

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
>

[ArtKramr]

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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: The nature of military justice.
>From: (Dav1936531)
>Date: 1/8/04 1:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>From: (ArtKramr)
>
>>
>>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
>
>But......if you think it is that way soley in military courts you would be
>mistaken. Civilian courts are much the same, with judges the sole determiners
>or pretrial motions and such. Judges routinely rip valid legal claims to
>shreds
>and dismiss the entire case, not based upon their oaths to "uphold the laws
>to
>the best of their abilities" as they are enacted by any state or federal
>legislature, but based on their own personal biases. It's called "judicial
>activism".
>
>Judges usurp the legislative mechanisms and promote their own "moral" codes
>in
>an attempt to shape the society from the bench everyday. And they do nothing
>but expand the concept of "judicial immunity" in every ruling they make on
>that
>subject so that they can never be held accountable for the impediments to the
>enforement of the legislature's enactments that they promulgate from the
>bench.
>
>The judiciary of this country is the most dangerously out of control branch
>of
>government that exits. And don't even get me going on those "agents of the
>court" attorneys of the bar.
>
>There is some political room for a reformation party to squeeze into the
>election process now dominated by the Democrats and Republicans. And if it
>doesn't arise rather quickly, the entire country will be suffocated by the
>overhead costs imposed upon this country by the out of control legal system.
>Dave

To try to deal with the law "by the book" is a losing game. What the laws
says and what it does are often unrelated.



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

[Ed Rasimus]

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

[Ed Rasimus]

On 08 Jan 2004 20:08:49 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: The nature of military justice.
>>From: (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

There was a transcript of the proceedings. There was arguably a
statement by the witness provided in disclosure that should have
indicated the expected testimony. Your attorney did not serve you
well, you have grounds for appeal, and you should (if you ever want to
readdress this) consult a civilian counsel.

>
>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.

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!
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[B2431]

>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 1/8/2004 4:40 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>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
>

Art's experiences with the Articles of War may be one of the many reasons the
UCMJ was adopted.

Just for giggles I read parts of the Articles of War about 20 years ago. They
were exceptionally harsh towards enlisteds.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Krztalizer]

>
>Just for giggles I read parts of the Articles of War about 20 years ago. They
>were exceptionally harsh towards enlisteds.
>

UCMJ was pretty even handed to enlisteds - we all got smacked with the same
stick, but officers definitely got preferential treatment. Even when folks got
hurt due to blatant stupidity (USS Kirk, entire deck party injured when the new
skipper decided to leave port at the insane speed of 22 knots, into towering
waves that resulted in 8 critical injuries and two medical retirements),
officers don't seem to rate brig time. What about the loon JO in Oki that
kidnapped another officers wife? Still no jail time. But, that's one of the
perks that go with the job and extra responsibility - I can accept that.

v/r
Gordon

[Kevin Brooks]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Just for giggles I read parts of the Articles of War about 20 years ago.
They
> >were exceptionally harsh towards enlisteds.
> >
>
> UCMJ was pretty even handed to enlisteds - we all got smacked with the
same
> stick, but officers definitely got preferential treatment. Even when
folks got
> hurt due to blatant stupidity (USS Kirk, entire deck party injured when
the new
> skipper decided to leave port at the insane speed of 22 knots, into
towering
> waves that resulted in 8 critical injuries and two medical retirements),
> officers don't seem to rate brig time. What about the loon JO in Oki that
> kidnapped another officers wife? Still no jail time. But, that's one of
the
> perks that go with the job and extra responsibility - I can accept that.

Nor is it always necessarily true. At FT Knox in the late eighties there was
a separation between officers and enlisteds in terms of UCMJ action related
to DUI charges. An enlisted troop getting a DUI would likely get a field
grade Article 15 from his battalion CO. An officer, any officer, got an
immediate trip to the post CG's office for his Art 15--he could expect a
fine, possible restriction, and, unlike his enlisted counterpart (unles he
was a senior NCO, and even then he might have survived the event), an
effective end to his career, in order. Personally, it made sense to
me--officers were supposed to exhibit a bit more responsibility for their
own actions (and it worked--many a time we LT's would get together Saturday
morning to carpool back to the O-Club so the miscreants who having reached
the correct conclusion about their level of impairment from the previous
evening's festivities could retrieve their cars). In fact the only CM I
recall being conducted (I am sure their were others) was for a couple of
LT's who were recalled to the post after having already departed to their
next duty assignment--they had engaged in some dubious financial schemes
involving renting off-post quarters and collection of BAQ. The only CM I
knew of in the Guard (where they are pretty rare--we used the state's
military laws related to AWOL more often than resorting ot the strict UCMJ
side) was also of an officer.

Brooks

>
> v/r
> Gordon

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >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.

I recommend you listen to Ed's advice before you dig your hole any deeper.

Brooks
>
> .
> Arthur Kramer

[B2431]

>From: (Krztalizer)
>Date: 1/8/2004 5:31 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>
>>Just for giggles I read parts of the Articles of War about 20 years ago.
>They
>>were exceptionally harsh towards enlisteds.
>>
>
>UCMJ was pretty even handed to enlisteds - we all got smacked with the same
>stick, but officers definitely got preferential treatment. Even when folks
>got
>hurt due to blatant stupidity (USS Kirk, entire deck party injured when the
>new
>skipper decided to leave port at the insane speed of 22 knots, into towering
>waves that resulted in 8 critical injuries and two medical retirements),
>officers don't seem to rate brig time. What about the loon JO in Oki that
>kidnapped another officers wife? Still no jail time. But, that's one of the
>perks that go with the job and extra responsibility - I can accept that.
>
>v/r
>Gordon
>

In most cases that's just a matter of predjudice on the part of the convening
authority and the courtsmartial. In some cases the punishments ARE different
under the UCMJ. Example an officer can get up to 3 days confinement to
quarters, an enlisted can't. We all know examples where an enlisted will lose
two stripes for DUI where and officer will get a relatively low fine and be on
his way.

Under the Articles of War, however, enlisteds could be branded or flogged. I
don't know if either punishment was still in effect in WW2.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: 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?

..
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]

>Subject: Re: The nature of military justice.
>From: (B2431)
>Date: 1/8/04 3:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

>Just for giggles I read parts of the Articles of War about 20 years ago. They
>were exceptionally harsh towards enlisteds.
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>

Correct. Although it tough to giggle while reading the articles of war. They
were cruel and unfair. One man could get 10 days restriction to quarters while
for the same offense another man could get 20 years at hard labor in Alcatraz.
But under either system, the military will have its way. As I told Ed, if a
General wants a court marshal to come out a certain way, that is the way it
will damn well come out. Articles of war or UCMJ.

..

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]

>Under the Articles of War, however, enlisteds could be branded or flogged. I
>don't know if either punishment was still in effect in WW2.
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>

Nope. No flogging.The service had gone soft by then. (sigh)


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

[RJJJ]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >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.


The equital rate of courts martial compared to civillian felony equital
rates is
extremely unrealistic. The closest civillian equivalent to the Article 15
process
is plea bargaining. So you could almost view an Article 15, signed by the
accused as either a) a 'guilty as charged' plea, or b) a plea bargain in an
effort to avoid courts martial. In this light, one could make an argument
that
the courts martial conviction rate is actually pretty low.

I've known several people that have used civilian council. The only 'ill'
effect any one of them reported was the general idea that he had hired the
wrong civilian lawyer. The one he got wasn't very well versed in courts
martial procedures.

Finally, regarding the command influence factor; the inspector general
system was specifically designed to defeat 'direct' command influence on
actual judicial proceedings. Yep, there are always flaws (as in any system,
military or civilian) but in general, attorneys trained as officers do their
level best in defense of their 'clients.' Further down this thread is first
hand
proof; the poster, while being blindsided by a witness that was either
purjuring
himself, or had lied in pre-trial questioning, still had an attorney that
was as
flabergasted by the act as he was.

I feel safe within the UCMJ and how it's handled. Art, I honor your prior
service and the sacrifices you have made for our country, but you may just
be a little out of touch with the current military situation in this topic.

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: 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
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"RJJJ" > wrote in message
...
> "ArtKramr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> > >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.
>
>
> The equital rate of courts martial compared to civillian felony equital
> rates is
> extremely unrealistic. The closest civillian equivalent to the Article 15
> process
> is plea bargaining. So you could almost view an Article 15, signed by the
> accused as either a) a 'guilty as charged' plea, or b) a plea bargain in
an
> effort to avoid courts martial. In this light, one could make an argument
> that
> the courts martial conviction rate is actually pretty low.

Those conviction rates I quoted did not include Art 15 results.

>
> I've known several people that have used civilian council. The only 'ill'
> effect any one of them reported was the general idea that he had hired the
> wrong civilian lawyer. The one he got wasn't very well versed in courts
> martial procedures.

That is the double-edged sword part of the equation. Though the defendant
can retain his military counsel as well to assist, IIRC.

>
> Finally, regarding the command influence factor; the inspector general
> system was specifically designed to defeat 'direct' command influence on
> actual judicial proceedings. Yep, there are always flaws (as in any
system,
> military or civilian) but in general, attorneys trained as officers do
their
> level best in defense of their 'clients.' Further down this thread is
first
> hand
> proof; the poster, while being blindsided by a witness that was either
> purjuring
> himself, or had lied in pre-trial questioning, still had an attorney that
> was as
> flabergasted by the act as he was.

One of the most famous cases I can recall reading about was the old "Green
Beret Case" in Vietnam, where the 5th SFG commander and a couple of other SF
personnel were accused of crimes related to the disappearance (execution) of
a double agent (the gent weas reportedly working for COSVN while also
reporting to the US folks). They ended up bringing in civilian council, and
despite the rather obvious wishes of 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).

Brooks

>
> I feel safe within the UCMJ and how it's handled. Art, I honor your prior
> service and the sacrifices you have made for our country, but you may just
> be a little out of touch with the current military situation in this
topic.
>
>

[B2431]

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

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

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.

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.

Just my observations.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: 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.



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

[Pete]

"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

[Kevin Brooks]

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: 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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: 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

[John R Weiss]

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.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: 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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: 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: Re: 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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: 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: Re: 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

[B2431]

>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: Re: 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

[B2431]

>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

[B2431]

>From: "John R Weiss"
>Date: 1/8/2004 9:58 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <GFpLb.2928$5V2.7078@attbi_s53>
>
>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.
>
>

I yield to your experience.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[George Z. Bush]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 08 Jan 2004 20:08:49 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: The nature of military justice.
> >>From: (Krztalizer)
> >>Date: 1/8/04 11:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >>Message-id: >
>
> 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!

Ed, it may or may not be a comfort to you, but I for one feel that you have a
far closer and realistic assessment of the military justice system and how it
works these days than does Art. Art is a man of endless and unforgettable
anecdotal experiences regarding WWII. He writes well and if you want to learn
about how things were in his outfit at the time, you could profit from investing
time in reading his stuff.

Unfortunately, he is also a man whose biases and prejudices are set in stone and
not amenable to alteration by logic or anything else. I came to that conclusion
after numerous fruitless exchanges with him on an assortment of subjects. I
came to realize that, if I wished to retain what little sanity I had left, I
needed to discontinue communicating with him. I did so some time ago, and
haven't noticed any appreciable diminution of my quality of life as a result.

Since he is constitutionally unable to admit any wrongdoing, failing or error on
his part, your efforts to enlighten him are pretty much doomed to failure. If
you can achieve success where I only tasted failure, I would happily concede
that you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din (with due apologies to Kipling).
Unfortunately, I think you're wasting your time, but good luck, anyway.

George Z.

[Ragnar]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> As I told Ed, if a
> General wants a court marshal to come out a certain way, that is the way
it
> will damn well come out. Articles of war or UCMJ.

And I suppose you've got some modern direct experience or evidence to prove
this contention? Pony it up.

[Pete]

"B2431" > wrote
> >
> LOCs and LORs are corrective tools, not nonjudicial punishment.

Correct, but still steps along the way.

Pete

[Krztalizer]

>There was a transcript of the proceedings. There was arguably a
>statement by the witness provided in disclosure that should have
>indicated the expected testimony. Your attorney did not serve you
>well, you have grounds for appeal, and you should (if you ever want to
>readdress this) consult a civilian counsel.

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

[John R Weiss]

"ArtKramr" > wrote...

>>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.

Again, in this case, I doubt it could have happened. The judge was from another
base, another air wing, another chain of command (didn't converge until
COMNAVAIRPAC, and I doubt he was worried about influencing a judge about an E5's
Court Martial). Most of what he read in his instructions was directly from the
Manual for Courts Martial and another manual.

[Ragnar]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: 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: Re: 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?

[ArtKramr]

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



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]

>Subject: Re: The nature of military justice.
>From: "John R Weiss"
>Date: 1/9/04 11:43 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <pvDLb.8707$xy6.20464@attbi_s02>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote...
>
>>>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.
>
>Again, in this case, I doubt it could have happened. The judge was from
>another
>base, another air wing, another chain of command (didn't converge until
>COMNAVAIRPAC, and I doubt he was worried about influencing a judge about an
>E5's
>Court Martial). Most of what he read in his instructions was directly from
>the
>Manual for Courts Martial and another manual.
>
>

Yes. We should always doubt.



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]

>ubject: Re: The nature of military justice.
>From: (Krztalizer)
>Date: 1/9/04 10:54 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>There was a transcript of the proceedings. There was arguably a
>>statement by the witness provided in disclosure that should have
>>indicated the expected testimony. Your attorney did not serve you
>>well, you have grounds for appeal, and you should (if you ever want to
>>readdress this) consult a civilian counsel.
>
>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

And military justice.


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

[[email protected]]

(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.

[Krztalizer]

>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

[Ragnar]

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

[[email protected]]

(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.

[WaltBJ]

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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: 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

[Kevin Brooks]

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

[Michael Ejercito]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >ubject: Re: 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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: 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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Michael Ejercito" > wrote in message
om...
> (ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
> > >ubject: Re: 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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: 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

[Peter Stickney]

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

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) writes:
>>Subject: Re: 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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: 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

[M. J. Powell]

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

[Andrew Chaplin]

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.)

[Ragnar]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: 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?"

[B2431]

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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: 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: Re: 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

[Alan Minyard]

On 08 Jan 2004 20:08:49 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: The nature of military justice.
>>From: (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

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) writes:
>>Subject: Re: 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?

A good question, and one which deserves a lot of thought.
I can't say for certain, since I don't have the experience in the
1940s Army, exactly what I'd be thinking and feeling at that time.

That being said, If I were on the Court Martial, it's very likely that
I'd vote to convict, giving the evidence that was presented.
FRom all appearences, it appears that Slovik was not well represented,
well advised, or thought through the possible consequences himself.
As you, and other, have noted the Article of War gave great latitude
to individual Courts wrt verdicts and sentencing.

I don't agree with the idea of shooting somebody to encourage others -
it's a poor policy, not just for the poor schmuck that gets shot, but
it leads to an organization that, since it viewed as arbitrary and
difficult to trust, and willing to off you for no good reason, that
surpresses our strengths, individualism, initialtive, and a
willingness to take what may be a bad decision now, than fail due to
trying to walk through the channels of beareaucracy and tradition.
The inevitable end result of such a policy are people who won't do
anything without a recorded direct order, who are constantly covering
their asses, and who will be reporting to their superiors what they
believe the superiors want to hear. That's how the Soviets, and the
Japanese ended up it didn't work for them, either.

Back in 1944, were you aware of teh SLovik case? Did the case itself
make any difference to you, or the people around you? I've no idea
about that, and I'm curious. If you're going to make an example of
somebody, it doesn't do any good if nobody knows about it.

As I understand it, the Slovik case, along with others, was a reason
for the drafting of the UCMJ, and dropping the Articles of War, in an
attempt to rein in the extreme verdicts adn snetences, and the uneven
Justice that occurred under the Articles of War.

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

[Michael Ejercito]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: 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..
>
Slovik DID desrt his unit, you know.


Michael

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: The nature of military justice.
>From: (Michael Ejercito)
>Date: 1/11/04 9:42 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>> >Subject: Re: 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..
>>
> Slovik DID desrt his unit, you know.
>
>
> Michael


He and 10,000 other guys. But only he was executed.





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]

>Subject: Re: The nature of military justice.
>From: (Peter Stickney)
>Date: 1/11/04 8:34 AM Pacific Standard Time

>Back in 1944, were you aware of teh SLovik case? Did the case itself
>make any difference to you, or the people around you? I've no idea
>about that, and I'm curious. If you're going to make an exa

Not all the details but that they were going to execute a guy because Ike had
had enough of desertions and wanted to set an example. That's all we knew. But
that alone triggered fairness questions and issues of justice.


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

[Kevin Brooks]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: The nature of military justice.
> >From: (Peter Stickney)
> >Date: 1/11/04 8:34 AM Pacific Standard Time
>
> >Back in 1944, were you aware of teh SLovik case? Did the case itself
> >make any difference to you, or the people around you? I've no idea
> >about that, and I'm curious. If you're going to make an exa
>
> Not all the details but that they were going to execute a guy because Ike
had
> had enough of desertions and wanted to set an example. That's all we knew.
But
> that alone triggered fairness questions and issues of justice.

Please point out examples of these "fairness questions and issues of
justice". I have yet to see any evidence that US military personnel raised
any such issues; nor have I seen any reminisces of such issues on the part
of the servicemen who were in theater at the time. I know you are not big on
providing evidence supporting your claims, but do you have anything on this?

Brooks


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
>

[Andrew Chaplin]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not all the details but that they were going to execute a guy because
Ike had
> had enough of desertions and wanted to set an example. That's all we
knew. But
> that alone triggered fairness questions and issues of justice.

It's unfortunate that U.S. authorities did not look to what happened in
the Commonwealth forces in the previous Big Mistake. Canada executed
something like 24 men over four years, and in retrospect it looks to have
been a travesty of justice. Australia refused to adopt the executions
policy that the B.E.F. had convinced Canada to apply, and they had no
more problem with desertion than anyone else, likely less.

Anyone recall the details involved in the black marketeers in Italy who
murdered a sergeant (a Provost, I think)? The U.S. members of the
conspiracy got life, and a Canadian was executed, IIRC.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: The nature of military justice.
>From: "Andrew Chaplin"
>Date: 1/12/04 11:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Not all the details but that they were going to execute a guy because
>Ike had
>> had enough of desertions and wanted to set an example. That's all we
>knew. But
>> that alone triggered fairness questions and issues of justice.
>
>It's unfortunate that U.S. authorities did not look to what happened in
>the Commonwealth forces in the previous Big Mistake. Canada executed
>something like 24 men over four years, and in retrospect it looks to have
>been a travesty of justice. Australia refused to adopt the executions
>policy that the B.E.F. had convinced Canada to apply, and they had no
>more problem with desertion than anyone else, likely less.
>
>Anyone recall the details involved in the black marketeers in Italy who
>murdered a sergeant (a Provost, I think)? The U.S. members of the
>conspiracy got life, and a Canadian was executed, IIRC.
>--
>Andrew Chaplin
>SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
>(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
>
>
>
>

We have equal justice under the law. But some are more equal than others.


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