Facebook
Home Military Page 2

Military

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.
¬¬

New York Man Filed False Military Discharge Papers

New York Man Filed False Military Discharge Papers


Marc S Restucci was sentenced by U.S. Magistrate Judge Marian W Payson on November 8, 2012 for filing a fake military discharge certificate.  He received two years of probation.  


The facts of the case were presented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig R. Gestring.  He stated that Restucci initially made a claim for VA Disability Benefits when he was never entitled to the benefits in the first place.  After the claim was denied by the VA, he filed more false documents with the VA.  


He submitted a fake DD-214-Certificate of Discharge that referred to combat and awards in the 1983 invasion of Grenada called Operation Urgent Fury.  He also filed fake documents that stated he received a Purple Heart Medal for wounds related to combat.  


It didn’t take long for agencies to know the documents were false.  The Department of Veterans Affairs’ Office of Inspector General determined that Restucci never saw combat in Operation Urgent Furry, never stepped foot in Grenada, and never saw hostile activity during his time in the military.  


Restucci was initially arrested for violating the Stolen Valor Act after he submitted a document with a forged signature and notary seal related to the Purple Heart Medal.  The Stolen Valor Act is a federal crime for falsely claiming a medal issued under the Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States.  However, the United States Supreme Court found that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional according to the First Amendment in June of 2012 in the case United States v. Alvarez.  Prosecution for that part of the case was thrown out, and Restucci received lesser sentence.  


The investigation was led by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  


Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Learn About the Legislative Navy JAG

Learn About the Legislative Navy JAG

What is the United States Navy JAG?
The Navy JAG Corps – or Judge Advocate General Corps of the United States Navy – are the acting legislative body responsible for the legal oversight with regard to the United States Navy. Navy 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 Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).


The Navy JAG Judicial System
In many cases, the legal issues addressed by the acting Navy JAG Corps are specific – these include war crimes, treason, sedition, the refusal to obey orders, undue violence, and offenses directed against military personnel:
Absent Without Leave (AWOL): The unlawful desertion of a service member with regard to their respective commitment to the United States Armed Forces; individuals deemed to have abandoned positions may be tried by military court and subsequently court martialed.
Navy JAG Court Martial: An Navy JAG 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. Matters involving United States Armed Forcedservice members may constitute overlapping legal fields with regard to the corresponding legal proceeding. 

Navy JAG Legal Jurisdiction
In the event that an individual is brought before a military court with regard to matters concerning the United States Armed Forced, service members should be made aware that military law – as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice – varies on a locational basis:
Civil Law: Legal parameters implicit within both the process of Military judicial review, as well as punitive recourse imposed by Federal Judicial Officials or Navy JAG Corps may be handled outside of the protocols latent within Civil Law
Military Law: In certain cases, 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 overseen byNavy JAGCorps – 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).
Federal Law: As per the guidelines expressed within the disbursement of a triune governmental oversight system, the United States Armed Forces 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. 

Navy JAGCorps 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 JAG, will be assessed by court officials appointed for the oversight of such matters

How is Military Law Different from Other Laws

How is Military Law Different from Other Laws

What is Military Law in the United States of America?
As a service member, an individual will typically undergo circumstances that are unique to military service; 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 correspondinglegal hearings applicable in circumstances existing outside of military service and military law.
Legal matters undertaken under the jurisdiction of the military – such as the protocol of Military Law upheld within the United States – will be assessed by court officials appointed for the oversight of such matters.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).

Military Law vs. Civil Law
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 Military Law – as such matters are neither standard nor applicable to civilian legislative parameters. 

Military Law vs. Federal Law

Military Law is a legal field classified as a subgenre of Federal Law, which typically addresses the activity and behavior of military personnel; this can include sedition, treason, war crimes, criminal offenses directed towards fellow military personnel, and AWOL charges -unlawful desertion of a service member with regard to their respective commitment to the United States Military Law. 
However, 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 Military Law to exist under the jurisdiction of the Executive branch of the government – resulting in the appointment of the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief of the entirety of the Armed Forces. Martial Law – the instatement of Military rule over specific jurisdictions within a country or nation – typically falls under the jurisdiction of Federal Law.

Instruments of Military Law
The following legal procedures and methodologies are common within the legal parameters of Military Law:
Individuals in the service of the United States Military are typically subject to their respective adherence to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which is a code of legislative protocol with regard to legal matters applicable to service members
Judge Advocate General Corps (JAG)serve as the acting legal body within the United states Military Law; JAG Corps not only oversee the court martial process, but are responsible for upholding the maintenance of the protocols and parameters expressed within the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as well
A court martial ordered in accordance to Military Law 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

A Guide to the Marines

A Guide to the Marines

What is the United States Marines?


The United States Marine Corps is a branch of the United States Military that is typically classified as a branch of the United States Navy; while the United States Navy largely undertakes a bulk of marine-based operations, the United States Marine Corps will engage in ground and amphibious deployment – although this classification exists, the United States Marine Corps have been consider to converge the boundaries between marine and infantry-based warfare. In many cases, the United States Marine Corps will travel alongside of the United States Navy servicemen; upon arrival, the Marines will undertake on and offshore deployment. 
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 Marines 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:
Court Martial: The procedures and legislative process implicit within the investigation – and prospective lawsuit – with regard to issues involving Military Law and the United States Marines may vary on an individual, case-by-case basis. 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. 
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 Marines may be appointed in the event that the acting body of civil law enforcement is unable to maintain sufficient order.
United States Embassies: In many cases, the United States Marine Corps has undertaken the responsibility of serving as guard and security with regard to diplomats stationed in foreign nations; due to the fact that the United States Marine Corps pride themselves on their combat versatility, many consider these servicemen as innovative and reliable combatants.

The United States Marines 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 Marines – 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).

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. 
123...8Page 2 of 8
Facebook

EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY

©