Facebook
Home Military Page 2

Military

What Happens When You Desert the Military?

What Happens When You Desert the Military?

What is Desertion?
Desertion, which is the military term ‘Absent without Leave (AWOL)’is defined as the unlawful desertion of a service member with regard to their respective commitment to the United States Armed Forces. Service members accused of desertion may undergo such allegations as a result of a variety of action, which constitutes the active and purposeful disavowal from service in the United States Armed Forces.

Desertion vs. Missing in Action (MIA)


Desertion – the classification of personal absence on the part of an individual serviceperson deemed as abrogation – differs from individuals for who cannot be accounted as a result of a disappearance resulting from combat operations. Individuals classified as ‘Missing in Action’ are granted a legislative pardon mandated by the acting Military Judicial body responsible for the oversight of the legal jurisdiction of the United States Armed Forces; Individuals deemed to have abandoned positions may be tried by military court and subsequently court martialed.
Judicial Hearings and Charges of Desertion


The Judge Advocate General Corps (JAG Corps) serves as the acting legal body within the United States with regard to the judicial process concerning charges of Desertion; this judicial body is responsible for the oversight the court martial process, as well as the promulgation of the protocols and parameters expressed within legislation concerning allegations of activity potentially-classified as Desertion.
Desertion and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)


Individuals in the service of the United States Military are typically subject to their respective adherence to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which serves as a code of legislative protocol that exists in conjunction to legal matters applicable to service members of the Armed Forces. Service members suspected of Desertion will be subject to judicial review under the Judge Advocate General Corps in lieu of civil court legal proceeding(s). 
Implicit Legality of Desertion Charges

Those serving in the United States Military do so under the implicit understanding that the enlistment in the service of the United States Armed Forces is irrevocable unless premature termination of service is approved by applicable military authorities responsible for the oversight of such matters.Military law differs from civil law – specifically with regard to matters concerning desertion from the Armed Forces – as such matters are neither standard nor applicable to civilian legislative parameters. As a result, legality specific to military service may be subject to military judicial review, as well as military court-mandated classification and punishment(s).
Punitive Recourse with Regard to Desertion Charges

A court martial exists in the event that an offense is deemed to be under the jurisdiction of both military court judicial review, as well as military court oversight; court martials may mirror the legal process that exists within civil court, yet military personnel – service members and prisoners of war – are the only individuals able to be subject to such proceedings. Furthermore, individuals suspected ofDesertionservice members may constitute overlapping legal fields with regard to aDesertion charge with regard to subsequent activity undertaken during the unlawful desertion in question.

A Guide to the Delta Force

A Guide to the Delta Force

Delta Force Defined:

The Delta Force is one of the United States’ Tier One counter-terrorism and Special Mission Units. Typically known as Delta, the Delta Force unit is officially referred to by the United States Department of Defense as the Common Applications Group. 
Delta Force is an elite fighting unit under the branch of the Special Operations Units. The unit’s primary tasks revolve around counter-terrorism, national intervention operations and direct action. The unit is extremely versatile and is capable of an assortment of military actions including running covert missions, conducting raids, and rescuing hostages.

The Delta Force is organized through numerous detachment designations:
Unit D is the command and control headquarters
Unit E is responsible for communications, intelligence and administrative support. This branch organizes all matters involving finances, logistics, medical detachments, research and development, technology and electronics
Unit F is the operational Arm of the delta Force
The Medical detachment department distributes medical doctors to various bases around the country to provide medical assistance to soldiers in need

The Operational Support troop is the in-house intelligence arm of Delta.
The aviation squadron transports soldiers to and from operational deployments and training exercises within the unit
The United States Delta Force Court System
As a service member, an individual will typically undergo circumstances that are unique to military service. On one hand, military law is similar to civil law in the manner that applicable legal codes specify any or all punitive recourse with regard to crimes and offenses; military law offers a specific framework for conducting, trying, and sentencing. On the other hand, military law differs from civil law – specifically with regard to matters concerning Delta Force – as such matters are neither standard nor applicable to civilian legislative parameters. As a result, legality specific to military service may be subject to military judicial review, as well as military court-mandated classification and punishment(s).

The United States Delta Force and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
Individuals in the service of the United States Military are typically subject to their respective adherence to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); the UCMJ is considered to be a code of legislative protocol with regard to legal matters applicable to service members – service members may be subject to be tried under military court in lieu of civil court. Those serving in the United States Military do so under the implicit understanding service members may be subject to Military Court hearings in lieu of Civil Court hearings. Matters undertaken under the jurisdiction of the military, such as the United States Delta Force, will be assessed by court officials appointed for the oversight of such matters.

A Careful Look at War Crimes

A Careful Look at War Crimes

What are War Crimes?
A war crime refers to a serious violation of the laws present in an armed conflict (also known as International humanitarian law). Such actions give rise to individual criminal responsibility; although the actions in a war are violent and in many cases inhumane, there is a firm legal code that surrounds a state of war. 
Examples of war crimes include the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents as well as the murder of common citizens in occupied territories. The killing of hostages or the ill-treatment of prisoners of war is also considered war crimes. 
War crimes were established during the Geneva Conventions, which are four intertwined treaties adopted between 1864 and 1949. Such treaties outlined a legal basis for International law with regard to war conduct. That being said, not all nations have signed the Geneva Convention and as such retain a different code and value system with regard to wartime conduct. Domestically speaking, the United States has developed military laws that are separate from the Geneva Convention.
War crimes are significant aspects of international humanitarian law because they are specific areas in which international tribunals (such as the Nuremberg Trials and Tokyo Trials) have been convened. Through the administration of these trials the definition and the attached punishments have been elucidated upon. For example, the modern concept of a war crime was further expanded under the auspices of the Nuremberg Trials. During this time, the charter who oversaw the trials (the London Charter) further defined war crimes as any violation against peace and crimes against humanity.

Military Law vs. Federal Law
The United States Department of Defense operates under Federal Law as per the guidelines expressed within the disbursement of a triune governmental oversight system, which allows for the United States to exist under the jurisdiction of the Executive branch of the government; this results in the appointment of the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief of the entirety of the Armed Forces. However, Military Law – a legal field classified as a subgenre of Federal Law – typically addresses the activity and behavior of military personnel; this can include:
Absent Without Leave (AWOL): The unlawful desertion of a service member with regard to their respective commitment to the United States #; individuals deemed to have abandoned positions may be tried by military court and subsequently court martialed.
Martial Law: Martial Law is the instatement of Military rule over specific jurisdictions within a country or nation; in many cases with regard to the implementation of heightened security measures, the United States # may be appointed in the event that the acting body of civil law enforcement is unable to maintain sufficient order.
Judge Advocate General (JAG Corps): The JAG Corps – or Judge Advocate General Corps – are classified as the acting legal body within the United states #. JAG Corps not only oversee the court martial process, but also are responsible for upholding the maintenance of the protocols and parameters expressed within the UCMJ; in many cases, the legal issues addressed by the acting JAG Corps are specific – these include: war crimes, treason, sedition, refusal to obey orders, undue violence, and offenses directed against military personnel. 

A Guide to the Navy Seals

A Guide to the Navy Seals

Navy Seals Defined:
The Navy Seals is a principal unit of the United States’ Navy. The unit is a special operations force and an acting foundation of the Naval Special Warfare Command as well as the maritime branch of the United States Special Operations Command.
The Navy Seals are an extremely versatile military unit; the unit’s acronym is derived based on the branch’s ability to operate at sea, in the air and on land. That being said, the unit separates itself from other branches due to the soldier’s ability to operate underwater. 
The Navy Seals is organized into the following classifications and configurations:
Naval Special Warfare Group 1: Comprised of SEAL team 1,3,5,7
Naval Special Warfare Group 2: Comprised of SEAL 2,4,8,10
Naval Special Warfare Group 3: Comprised of SEAL Delivery Vehicle Teams 1
Naval Special Warfare Group 4: Comprised of Special boat Teams 12,20,22
Naval Special Warfare Group 5: Comprised of SEAL Teams 17,18
The Navy SEALS were formally established in World War II when the US Navy recognized the need for soldiers to coordinate landing breaches and ultimately guide the forces through the rough waters. Similar to other branches of the military, the Navy Seals are governed by Federal law as well as the distinct regulations established by military law.

The United States Navy SEAL Court System
As a service member, an individual will typically undergo circumstances that are unique to military service. On one hand, military law is similar to civil law in the manner that applicable legal codes specify any or all punitive recourse with regard to crimes and offenses; military law offers a specific framework for conducting, trying, and sentencing. On the other hand, military law differs from civil law – specifically with regard to matters concerning Navy SEAL – as such matters are neither standard nor applicable to civilian legislative parameters. As a result, legality specific to military service may be subject to military judicial review, as well as military court-mandated classification and punishment(s).

Navy Seals and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
Individuals in the service of the United States Military are typically subject to their respective adherence to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); the UCMJ is considered to be a code of legislative protocol with regard to legal matters applicable to service members – service members may be subject to be tried under military court in lieu of civil court. Those serving in the United States Military do so under the implicit understanding service members may be subject to Military Court hearings in lieu of Civil Court hearings. Matters undertaken under the jurisdiction of the military, such as the United States Navy SEAL, will be assessed by court officials appointed for the oversight of such matters.

Armistice

Armistice

 


An armistice occurs in war when two countries or groups decide and agree to stop fighting.  The term does not necessarily mean the war is over but rather acts as a cease fire resolution until peace treaties are formed or another type of agreement is settled upon.

Perhaps the most famous armistice in history was during World War I.  Allies and Germany agreed to cease fire until the Treaty of Versailles was signed in 1919 on November 11.  On the same day, President Wilson proclaimed the first Armistice Day and a two-minute pause of business was recognized at 11 a.m. 

The recognition of the historic day was adopted by France and the United Kingdom in 1920, and Congress went on to pass legislation over the next couple of days that eventually led to Veteran’s Day. 

For example, Congress declared November 11, 1921 a legal Federal holiday the month before on October 20.  The majority of states began to recognize November 11 as a legal holiday throughout the 1920s and 1930s, and Congress passed legislation on May 13, 1938 to make November 11 a recurring Federal holiday.  The federal government can only declare national holidays for federal employees, but most stated recognize Federal holidays now. 

On June 1, 1954, President Eisenhower signed legislation that changed the name of Armistice Day to Veteran’s Day.  Observance of the day was moved to the fourth Monday in October in 1968, but observance of the day was switched back to November 11 in 1978. 

Although the most famous armistice is associated with World War I, the cease fire agreements have continued throughout history.  The Korean War ended with a cease fire in 1953, and the Persian Gulf War ended on cease-fire terms on April 6, 1991. 

The conditions of cease fires have continued to change as many countries like the United States maintain troop control in countries that initially declared cease fires. 

 

Results of the attack on Pearl Harbor

Results of the attack on Pearl Harbor

 

The surprise bombing of the American naval harbor of Pearl Harbor on December  7, 1941 by the Japanese navy had many consequences, including its role in precipitating the United States' entrance into World War II. However, in legal circles, the most important results of the attack on Pearl Harbor were the justifications that the event provided for forcing Japanese and Japanese-American citizens living in the United States to be confined to so-called "relocation camps" for the duration of the war.

 

The results of the attack on Pearl Harbor and its impact on Japanese-American citizens began when president Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 in February of 1942. This order directed the Secretary of War to declare certain areas of the country to be off limits to people of any or all ethnicities for the purposes of greater national security, specifically from preventing spies to conduct espionage. Subsequently, areas with large Japanese and Korean populations were declared to be such "military zones," requiring that these citizens be transferred to "relocation camps" for the remainder of the war. One of the results of the attack on Pearl Harbor was therefore the confinement of roughly 110,000 people for the duration of the war.

 

One of the results of the attack on Pearl Harbor was the Supreme Court case of Korematsu v. United States, which was heard in 1944. The subject of the case was the refusal of a Japanese-American citizen, Fred Korematsu, to leave his California residence and enter a relocation camp. In his lawsuit, Fred Korematsu charged that Executive Order 9066 was unconstitutional. The government argued that the order was constitutional because the importance of preventing espionage.

 

In a majority opinion in favor of the government, the Supreme Court concurred that the importance of protecting America from foreign invasion and attack was greater than the importance of respecting Fred Korematsu's constitutional rights. It therefore found that the creation of military zones was constitutionally valid.

 

One of the results of the attack on Pearl Harbor was that these relocation camps were maintained until January 1945, when their residents were permitted to return to their homes. In 1976, president Gerald Ford issued Proclamation 4417, which officially put an end to Executive Order 9066. Another of the results of the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred in 1980, when president Jimmy Carter ordered a study of the effects of these relocation camps. When completed two years earlier, the study concluded that the relocation camps were unjustifiable and that survivors were entitled to $20,000 apiece as compensation. These payments finally began to be issued in 1990 but were only issued to Japanese-American citizens.

 

The case of Korematsu v. United States was never officially overturned by another Supreme Court ruling. However, Fred Korematsu was successfully in obtaining an overturning of his conviction during the 1980s. The results of the attack on Pearl Harbor have not extended to attempts to establish new relocation camps during a state of war.

 

 

Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision

Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision

 


Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision

 

The Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision occurred in February of 2001. The Ehime Maru was a Japanese fishing vessel, while the USS Greeneville was a United States Navy submarine.

 

On the morning in question, the Ehime Maru was in the middle of a 74 day voyage designed to train high school students planning to become commercial fisherman. The USS Greeneville was conducting a Distinguished Visitor Embarkation trip, part of a program to invite notable guests to observe the Navy in action to make the case for the importance of continued funding and maintaining a strong Navy. On this voyage, sixteen such civilians were on board.

 

Prior to the Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision, the submarine performed a number of maneuvers. The USS Greeneville then prepared to perform an emergency surfacing procedure. Prior to this maneuver, Navy member Patrick Seacrest noticed that the Ehime Maru was visible on the sonar, but then recorded it as moving away from the vessel. He determined that it would be safe to ascend. Prior to the ascent, commander Scott Waddle examined the sonar and periscope but determined that the vessel was moving away.

 

The Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision occurred as the submarine rose beneath the fishing vessel, dividing the craft above it. Nine of those on board the Ehime Maru died following the collision. Japanese public outrage was increased by the slow rescue of the Ehime Maru's passengers. A National Transportation Safety Board investigation was opened. Additionally, the Navy decided to hold a public court of inquiry hearing regarding the Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. This procedure was held before a panel comprised of three admirals. The purpose of such a hearing is to obtain evidence that can be used at a later date in a court martial.

 

Prior to the hearing commander Scott Waddle requested immunity from court martial regarding the Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision but had his request rejected. However, Patrick Seacrest received immunity prior to providing his witness testimony. Following the hearings, the court of inquiry issued its report regarding the cause of the Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision. They determined that the underlying issue was a series of failures to follow proper procedure, exacerbated by Waddle's desire to impress the visitors on board, and concluded that he bore sole responsibility for the incident.

 

In addition to the procedural errors committed that led to the Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision, the court of inquiry noted that the civilian presence on board was a distraction contributing to overall negligence. The court of inquiry advised against court martial proceedings against Scott Waddle or his crew members on the grounds their actions were not deliberate or criminal in intention. Scott Waddle was subsequently fined and told he would have to resign. Several other crew members received administrative admonishments. Scott Waddle resigned from the Navy in October of that year.

 

66th Military Intelligence Brigade

66th Military Intelligence Brigade

 


66th Military Intelligence Brigade

 

The 66th Military Intelligence Brigade is a military brigade unit of the American military which reports and acts under the supervision of the army's Intelligence and Security Command. The purpose of the 66th Military Intelligence Brigade is to provide support to soldiers operating in the field of combat. Previously, the 66th Military Intelligence Brigade was a unit devoted solely to work in the field of gathering intelligence and counter intelligence. Founded in 1986, it was shut down in 1995, then reactivated in 2002.

 

One of the controversies which the 66th Military Intelligence Brigade has been involved with concerns the torture and death of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib facility established by the army following the invasion of Iraq. Among the facilities and groups operating at Abu Ghraib was the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center. By the end of December 2003, the 66th Military Intelligence Brigade was one of six military battalions and groups operating at the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center. At this time, the total number of personnel stationed was 160, including 45 soldiers acting solely as interrogators and 18 acting as linguists or translators.

 

The Abu Ghraib concerned a wide range of misconduct committed by American soldiers, documented in videos and still photographs which became public in 2004. The 66th Military Intelligence Brigade was implicated in several of these instances, either through active participating in inhumane interrogations or by witnessing inhumane acts committed against detainees. These incidents were documented in internal army investigations, although the names of the soldiers were omitted.

 

For example, one incident reported concerns the November 2003 interrogation of an Iraqi policeman. A member of the 66th Military Intelligence Brigade witnessed a civilian contractor using his hand to restrict the policeman's breathing and twisting the policeman's arm behind his back. The witnessing member left the interrogation cell when the contractor told the detainee that he knew how to torture detainees without leaving any physical marks as evidence. The witnessing member of the 66th Military Intelligence Brigade did not report the event. This member of the 66th Military Intelligence Brigade also saw another civilian contractor threatening another detainee with torture and coercive interrogation if they did not cooperate during interrogation.

 

Another incident reported concerns a soldier who was aware of multiple acts of soldier misconduct. In addition to witnessing a soldier slapping a detainee, this member of the 66th Military Intelligence Brigade stripped a detainee naked and then forced him to walk naked from his interrogation booth to another location outside during a cold winter night. This soldier also ordered the abuse of prisoners. This soldier also was aware that military members were taking photographs of detainees. This soldier was also aware of another incident in which a soldier forced a detainee to take a cold shower, roll in the dirt, and then stand naked outside until dry.

 

Any court martials taken against members of the 66th Military Intelligence Brigade have not been made public.

Korean Armistice Agreement

Military Commissions

Military Commissions

The Use of Military Commissions


A Military commission or military tribunal is a form of military court used to try individuals who are a part of the enemy force in times of war. They are used when a normal civil or criminal proceeding is not applicable.
Military commissions get their authority from the Articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution as well as from statutory law such as the Authorization for Use of Military Force. While they existed as early as the 1840’s, the validity of a commission was not tested until the American Civil War, where the Union Army General Order 100 said that a military commission could prosecute a case that wasn’t applicable to the Rules and Articles of War.
The legal validity of the jurisdiction of a military commission happened where the Supreme Court solidified the boundaries of a military commission. From then on they could be used in place of a common-law war court.
Today, a military commission acts as a type of military tribunal. It has been given statutory authority by the Constitution as well as by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The issue of a military commission has come up on many different occasions in the Supreme Court. Some of them include:
• Ex Parte Milligan (1866)
• Ex Parte Quirin (1942)
• Application of Yamashita
• Madsen v. Kinsella
• Duncan v. Kahanamoku
• United States ex. Rel. Toth v. Quarles
Military commissions have also been given executive authority. Since the President of the United States acts as the Commander in Chief, he has the authority to assemble military commissions.
Some examples include:
• Presidential Proclamation 2561: Appointment of a Military Commission by President Franklin D. Roosevelt
• Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, a military order by President George W. Bush
The president’s authority to create military commissions was challenged in the Supreme Court Cases Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, where the court decided that President Bush did not have the authority to create military commissions a month aver the September 11 attacks. He had created one that did not adhere to the Geneva Convention’s standards and did so without any approval from Congress.
However, Congress then passed the Military Commissions Act that authorized military commissions that could deviate from the normal rules of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
During Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign, he claimed that he would reject the Military Commissions Act, close Guantanamo, and unlike President Bush, adhere to the Geneva Conventions. However, as president he continued the military commissions for two more years. As of March 2011, he has made a new set of procedures for military commissions that would provide detainees to legal representation as well as more classified information.
¬¬
123...8Page 2 of 8
Facebook

EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY

©