Huffington Post has a piece about MEJA.
In the perpetual debate over legal accountability of, and prosecution if necessary, of private military and security contractors one often sees the arguments reduced to two simplistic arguments.
PMSC opponents argue the contractors argue in a legal vacuum and with utter impunity. This is, of course, as anyone who has even done the most cursory reading on the subject knows, is utter nonsense. . . .
TPMMuckracker his this update, on the alleged “threats” from LTC Brodsky.
Late Update: Margaret Hemenway of the American Patriot Foundation told TPM that the account of Brodsky’s comment and Lakin’s response came from Lakin himself. “It’s bizarre,” she added of Brodsky’s “threat,” and “looks very bad.” Hemenway continued that they’re “going to have to wait and see how they deal with this,” and suggested that the APF is anticipating some kind of disciplinary action against Brodsky. “What was he thinking?” she wondered repeatedly.
Late, Late Update Army Public Affairs Officer LTC Robert Manning told TPM that he was “there at the arraignment and I did not hear” LTC Brodsky’s alleged comments. “I was there at the proceedings the entire time,” he said, adding that the Army is “committed to ensuring that Lt. Col. Lakin receives fair treatment and due process.”
World News Daily has a piece on LTC Lakin and his radio inteview with G. Gordon Liddy. Here are a couple of interesting points from the article.
“We are today (12 August 2010) officially requesting that discovery,” Jensen said. “If the government refuses to give it to us, then we will, a week from today, file a motion to compel discovery.
“I can’t think of a single reason why the judge would take the government’s position,” he said.
Note to file. Don’t spend time gossiping with Dwight while burglars are having their way in your house. It’s not helpful or conducive to a good day and it interferes with blogging. Second note to file: send thank you to ADT (a la USAA) for an efficient alarm system, and note of thanks and donation to the APD Patrolman’s Benefit Association.
Anyway, back to LTC Lakin.
I told Dwight that a minor nit was LTC Lakin and his counsels’ failure to stand when first addressed by the military judge. I have the client stand on the “are you . . .” in all cases and its de rigueur in Navy and Marine Corps cases. It’s a minor sign of respect to the court. Anyway, at the time it was just a bit of post-Lakin gossip for Dwight. But then I chanced to look at the photograph on APF along with the fund-raising plea. LTC Lakin is probably lucky the SGM wasn’t around with a Taser complaining about a poor example to the enlisted personnel. I know, I know, it’s a nit. But I did not see a “No cover area” sign around outside the (now temporarily housed in a warehouse) court-room. BTW Fort Meade courtroom is a lot more professional looking and much more space for a gallery.
Here is a piece by Eric R. Carpenter, an Army judge advocate.
Applying the Capital Jury Project Findings to Court-Martial Practice, Army CGSC, Fort Leavenworth, 11 June 2010.
Navy Times reports:
Second Lt. Douglas Sofranko has spent the last year impressing his fellow soldiers in the Florida Army National Guard with stories of his days as a Navy SEAL, while proudly wearing the distinctive Trident insignia on his Army uniform. He even had the SEAL Creed hung on the wall of his office.
The problem is, it was all a lie.
Navy Times reports:
Big Navy is trying to work around a recent military court decision striking down a fleet-wide rule forcing sailors to report any drunken-driving or other civilian arrests to their command.
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus revised a high-level Navy regulation July 20 in response to the case of a chief who claimed the self-reporting requirement was unconstitutional and violated his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
I’m aware of one case in the military where the NCIS used GPS tracking (after getting a warrant). Fourthamendment.com recommends:
The D.C. Circuit held on Friday that a warrant is needed for prolonged GPS surveillance, recognizing People v. Weaver from New York and limitingKnotts. [This is a highly important decision. Every criminal and constitutional lawyer needs to read it.] United States v. Maynard, No. 08-3030 (D.C.Cir. August 6, 2010)[.]
Two circuits, relying upon Knotts, have held the use of a GPS tracking device to monitor an individual’s movements in his vehicle over a prolonged period is not a search, United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007), but in neither case did the appellant argue that Knotts by its terms does not control whether prolonged surveillance is a search, as Jones argues here. Indeed, in Garcia the appellant explicitly conceded the point. …
On 28 July 2010, ACCA issued a memorandum opinion and decision for the government appeal in United States v. Kirk, ARMY MISC 20100443 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 28 July 2010).
At trial the accused blew providency on an AWOL plea. The prosecution decided they wanted to go forward on the desertion. As part of the case the prosecution wanted to use unwarned statements made to the First Sergeant. The military judge said the statements were coerced, etc., and excluded them. The prosecution appealed. Of course the ACCA ruled in favor of the government that being dragged to the First Sergeant’s office, locked up, and asked a bunch of questions, was not an interrogation and any statements were voluntary. Cases cited are United States v. Duga, 10 M.J. 206 (C.M.A. 1981); United States v. Loukas, 29 M.J. 385 (C.M.A. 1990). Basically it is in the mind of the questioner, not the person being questioned.
Here is the noteworthy piece.
World News Daily has this report:
At the conclusion of the arraignment, Lakin was ordered not to speak with the press and was taken back to Reed under military escort, surprising and disturbing a civilian lawyer who has been working on his case.
“This was completely inappropriate. Col Lakin was brought here and taken away from here as if he was a common criminal. He was prohibited from talking to the press for two minutes; he was prohibited from talking to anybody, even me,” Paul Rolf Jenson said.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog