Military Justice System

assistance” can all be expected as a result of the veterans treatment courts and they “will surely have long-term benefits for local communities and the country overall” (Totman, 2013, p. 452).

Military discipline is a special form of military relations. Its specifics lie in coordinating the conduct and actions of military personnel and in serving to establish such relations as are required for successful joint activity. The conduct of servicemen is regulated by special rules and standards of behavior set forth in laws, military regulations and orders of commanders (superiors) and reflecting the specific features of the military

Article 92 of the uniform code of military justice is when a solider fails to obey an order or regulation given to them by an NCO, officer, or someone pointed above them in section or squad. Article 92 is perhaps the most important article in the entirety of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Any military member, whether in the Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy, or Coast Guard who fail to obey a lawful order of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order. It lays down the ground law, the absolute line which may not be crossed. Everything else in the uniform code of military justice is explanation of the various forms that disobeying an order can

Military people can go to trial without the grand jury decision, it is a case when military person commits a crime during a war or a national emergency.

In 1917 during WW1, the Canadian government justified in enacting the Military Services Act to register and conscript men for war. Almost all French Canadians opposed conscription because they felt they had no loyalty to France and Britain. Other Canadians were at ease with the conscription as they supported the British Empire. The farmers, union heads, and pacifists were all opposed of the conscription like the French Canadians. I believe the Military Services Act was not the best choice because it ripped up the relations between the English and the French Canadians, it eliminated the freedom of the people by forcing them to go to war, and caused a riot in Quebec City leading to a few deaths. The

or public danger. No one can be put on trial again for the same crime.

Hamdi et al. v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al. could prove the undoing of the Bush administration’s legal defense of the abuses at Guantanamo Bay. In this case, four British citizens are suing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as well as a host of Army and Air Force Generals and policy apparatchiks for allegedly authorizing the use of torture in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. The four were captured in Afghanistan, either by Americans or America’s ally, the Northern Alliance, and transported to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba where they were held for over two years. Their status there was not as enemy combatant, which guaranteed them certain protections under the Geneva Convention, but rather as

No one can be put on trial for a serious crime, unless a grand jury has decided that there is enough evidence or proof to which a trial would be needed. If there is enough evidence for a trial, an indictment is then issued so that the person accused can legally put to trial for their crime. The only time that there is an exception to this is in a time of national emergency or war. In this case people in the military can go to trial without a grand jury deciding if there is enough evidence.

Uniform Code of Military Justice (USMJ) is what the military uses to prosecute and court-martial its members. Yet in the UCMJ, Commanders have the authority to overturn a guilty verdict in the case

A general court-martial consists of no less than five members and a military judge, or the soldier can be tried by military judge alone upon the request of the solder being tried. A general court-martial is often classified as a felony court. The general court-martial can try all persons subject to the UCMJ including officers. A general court-martial may consider any sentence allowed by the UCMJ. This could include lengthy incarceration, hard labor, life in prison and the death penalty. (Manual for Courts Martial, 2002, pg A2-6)

I was fortunate to be appointed as the Quality Assurance Representative (QAR). My primary duty was to ensure that the various work centers carried out the maintenance policies as set forth by the Officer In Charge (OIC). The Navy is somewhat like a business, there is a Production Control Work center that is responsible for the production and repair of aircraft modules that is needed by the fleet. Most of the laws that are put into place are enacted to ensure that production is obtained efficiently and safely. As a member of the United States Navy, I was subject not only to the civilian laws but also to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The role and functions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is to regulate the behavior of military members on and off duty. It is the primary law in the military and covers a wide variety of human behavior. If a member of the United States Navy was to violate one of these laws, they are liable to be send to Captain Mast or Court Martial. If a service member of the United States Navy was to violate certain rules of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and be brought before a military court upon allegation, he or she could be separated from the military.

Almost everyone who has seen a cop television show or movie has heard the saying “You have the right to remain silent”. In America, people are raised to believe that the justice system never fails, and that no matter what happens justice will always prevail, though for some people this safety net has failed them. Since the late 1980s six studies have documented 250 interrogation-induced false confessions. Police-induced false confessions are the result of multistep process and sequence of influence, persuasion, and compliance. Imagine that a solider of the U.S. military is brought in for questioning, kept locked up for sixteen hours in an interrogation room, constantly threatened with the death penalty if they did not confess to the crime, and the whole time left without representation. In 1997 this was the case for four individuals from Norfolk, Virginia held without representation and forced to give false confessions.

“How powerful is the law? The laws of armed conflict—grandly and euphemistically called "international humanitarian law"—have never been better cultivated by so many jurists, yet somehow hundreds of thousands of Iraqis managed to die after our 2003 invasion, with a perhaps greater number perishing due to the economic sanctions between our Gulf Wars” (Madar, 2014). Within today’s society we have criminals of all kinds. These criminal’s may truly not be criminals, they are just labeled with this term and held under lock and key until proven not guilty. Here in the United States they claim one is innocent until proven guilty. This is why Habeas Corpus was put into place, to protect said criminals from being detained for no apparent

Military tribunals have long been a controversial subject since most are created through Military Orders, which have been considered to be undermining the constitutional principle of separation of powers. For instance Bush Order instructed the Secretary of Defence to secure custody of anyone the President lists as subject to the Order. While the constitution requires, at an absolute minimum, that: (1) offences be characterised ahead of time by a positive legislation; (2) the legal branch be interested in testing whether any given individual is appropriately subject to the tribunal jurisdiction, and (3) whether the arrangement of tribunals in general accords with the constitutional commands. Invariably, the blueprint of tribunals eschews cardinal

behavior, and deviant acts, warrants law enforcements organizational restructuring (Balla, 2009, pp. 71-85). For example, throughout history, we have seen the evolution of criminal activities increase in veracity; the simplicity of Sir Robert Peels influence has significantly been altered from beat walking to patrolling boarders to the advancement of cyber units, crime is inevitable. This information indicates that will continue to evolve, warranting the evolutionary restructuring of law enforcing. As a result of our historical implications, effective leadership and administrative stakeholders will need to formulate additional agencies, as we have been accustomed to such as restructuring.