Court-Martial Trial Practice BlogHere is a link to some of the charge sheets through The News Tribune.
Articles Tagged with UCMJ
Pending NMCCA argument
For various reasons the issue of homosexuality and DADT has been in the news for a while. The results of the various surveys to servicemembers and familys are still pending.
Tomorrow, NMCCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Hayes:
I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE’S COMMENTS ON THE RECORD AND DURING THE “BRIDGING THE GAP” DISCUSSIONS WITH COUNSEL REFLECT AN ACTUAL BIAS AGAINST THE APPELLANT’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION, RESULTING IN THE MILITARY JUDGE’S DISQUALIFICATION FROM PRESIDING OVER APPELLANT’S COURT-MARTIAL?
Ramrod Five sitrep 6
The Guardian (UK) has this report:
Twelve American soldiers face trial over an secret "kill team" that allegedly blew up and shot Afghan civilians at random and collected their fingers as trophies.
Five of the soldiers are charged with murdering three Afghan men who were allegedly killed for sport in separate attacks this year. Seven other soldiers are accused of covering up the killings as well as a violent assault on a new recruit who exposed the murders when he reported other abuses, including members of the unit smoking hashish stolen from civilians.
Coast Guard boating collision update 3
San Diego Online has this short piece on the Coast Guard boating case and the ongoing Article 32, UCMJ, hearing which began today.
Lawyers for the driver of a Coast Guard boat that killed an 8-year-old San Diego boy in December said the Coast Guard is prosecuting Petty Officer 3rd Class Paul Ramos in order to duck responsibility, and a lawsuit.
“The family is rightly suing the Coast Guard,” said Navy Cmdr. Brian Koshulsky, one of Ramos’ military attorneys. “It’s in the Coast Guard’s interest to blame my client.”
More on LTC Lakin from the motions hearing – IV
And now for the political question doctrine.
See fn. 2., I believe at one point Mr. Jensen was complaining that the military judge wasn’t going to apply any “civilian” cases.
See fn. 3., for the judge’s rather sparse treatment of the de facto officer doctrine.
More on LTC Lakin from the motions hearing – III
And now for some history. Those with some basic familiarity with military law and who have been following the blogs of those with military law experience will recognize the cases cited.
More on LTC Lakin from the motions hearing – II
From the conclusions of law:
More on LTC Lakin from the motions hearing
I posted a tease here, and it didn’t take long for Dwight “My Liege” Sullivan to crack the code.
In other words, Judge Lind used the word “embarrassment” in precisely the political question doctrine context (and using almost exactly the same words) as CAAF in New and the Supremes in Baker v. Carr. And all the breathless birther commentary saying that she was attempting to avoid personal embarrassment to President Obama is just so much guano.
As always one has to admire Dwight’s pithy commentary. OK, here is some more (working from a “bigger” computer, netbooks have some limitations).
Humor in military uniform law
Here is a link to the 3 September 2010 Federal Register for the recent MCM amendments signed by The President.
And the humor you say – – – –
Hat tip to Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored blog (a not a birther blog).
LTC Lakin continues to spin
Found at birtherreport.com.
LTC Lakin and Mr. Jensen will be on the Barry Farber radio tonight at 2000.
Apparently the “embarrsassment” language was intended by the judge to alert Congress that they need to begin impeachment proceedings.