Articles Posted in Up Periscope

Navy Times reports:  The executive officer of the Norfolk-based carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower was “temporarily reassigned” to staff duty last week pending the results of an ongoing investigation, Naval Air Force Atlantic confirmed Wednesday.

jumping out of a perfectly good and operating airplane.

Florida Wires reports (and it’s on FB to some of us) that:

Sentencing for an Army sergeant convicted of murder has been delayed by a military judge after the lead defense attorney in the case suffered injuries in a skydiving accident.

Navy Times reports:  The commanding officer of the patrol boat Anacapa was fired Monday over a loss of confidence in his ability to command, according to a Coast Guard press release.

In United States v. Hall, the AFCCA ordered the release of the appellant based on CAAF’s resolution of the issues in United States v. Beaty, 70 M.J. 39 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

United States v. Hohman was decided today.  This is another USMC case where the military counsel was “severed” due to a release from active duty.  Without a sufficient showing of prejudice CAAF affirms NMCCA.  NMCCA held that the MJ erred in his abatement order.

Here’s a link to Hohman at NMCCA.

with thanks to concurringopinions:

Robert M. Chesney, Who May Be Held? Military Detention Through the Habeas Lens, 52 B.C. L. Rev. 769 (2011) [PDF], 52:3 B. C. L. REV. 769 (2011).

Here are Dwight “My Liege” Sullivan’s summary of the military death penalty since 1984.

Under the current military death penalty system, which President Reagan promulgated in January 1984, there have been 52 known capital courts-martial resulting in 16 adjudged death sentences, for a 30.8% death sentencing rate.  (Convening authorities commuted two of the adjudged death sentences and appellate courts reversed eight of the approved death sentences.)

Here’s a breakdown by branch:

Making Padilla Practical: Defense Counsel and Collateral Consequences at Guilty Plea

Gabriel J. Chin

University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law; University of Arizona School of Government and Public Policy

Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff between Privacy and Security

Daniel J. Solove

George Washington University Law School
Daniel J. Solove, NOTHING TO HIDE: THE FALSE TRADEOFF BETWEEN PRIVACY AND SECURITY, Chapter 1, Yale University Press, 2011

Abstract:
"If you’ve got nothing to hide," many people say, "you shouldn’t worry about government surveillance." Others argue that we must sacrifice privacy for security. But as Daniel J. Solove argues in this book, these arguments and many others are flawed. They are based on mistaken views about what it means to protect privacy and the costs and benefits of doing so.
In addition to attacking the "Nothing-to Hide Argument," Solove exposes the fallacies of pro-security arguments that have often been used to justify government surveillance and data mining. These arguments – such as the "Luddite Argument,"the "War-Powers Argument," the "All-or-Nothing Argument," the "Suspicionless-Searches Argument," the "Deference Argument," and the "Pendulum Argument" – have skewed law and policy to favor security at the expense of privacy.
The debate between privacy and security has been framed incorrectly as a zero-sum game in which we are forced to choose between one value and the other. But protecting privacy isn’t fatal to security measures; it merely involves adequate oversight and regulation.
The primary focus of the book is on common pro-security arguments, but Solove also discusses concrete issues of law and technology, such as the Fourth Amendment Third Party Doctrine, the First Amendment, electronic surveillance statutes, the USA-Patriot Act, the NSA surveillance program, and government data mining.

Human Rights First posted:  Today [a post on 25 May 2011], the Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing titled, “Holding Criminals Accountable: Extending Criminal Jurisdiction to Government Contractors and Employees Abroad” addressing the need to clarify criminal jurisdiction over U.S. contractors.  Human Rights First has long called for legislation that would clarify U.S. criminal law over contractors for serious abuses committed[.]

In order to address this problem, Human Rights First supports passage of the Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (CEJA), legislation that was introduced in the 111th Congress and is anticipated to be reintroduced this year. The bill would clarify and expand U.S. criminal jurisdiction over U.S.

Here is a link to Huffington Post on the issue.