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. 

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.

What are the Branches of the Military?
Within the construct of the United States Military, a variety of individual branches of the military exist; responsible for a multitude of combat operations:
•    The Army is the ground forces overseen by the United States Department of Defense responsible for a wide variety of military deployment, ranging from both domestic and foreign in location
•    The Marine Corps are a branch of the Navy who engage in ground and amphibious deployment – the Marine Corps have been consider to converge the boundaries between marine and infantry-based warfare
•    The Air Force is responsible for the engagement of flight-based, airborne combat
•    The Navy undergoes military operations through the usage of a variety of military equipment and technology, ranging from marine to airborne combat operations

Branches of the Military Legal Jurisdiction
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 Branches of the Military 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:
Uniform Code of Military Justice: Individuals – regardless of service in the various branches of the 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 various branches of the 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 branches of the military will be assessed by court officials appointed for the oversight of such matters.
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, variousBranches of the Military 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 responsible for legal oversight with regard to variousBranches of the Military. 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.

What is the United States Army JAG?
The Army JAG Corps – or Judge Advocate General Corps of the United States Army – are the acting legislative body responsible for the legal oversight with regard to the United States Army. Army 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 Army JAG Judicial System
In many cases, the legal issues addressed by the acting Army 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.
Army JAG Court Martial: An Army 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.

Army 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 Army 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 byArmy 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.

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

What is the United States Air Force?
The United States Air Force is the branch of the United States Military that is responsible for the engagement of flight-based, airborne combat. Although the United States Air Force may share certain airborne duties with the United States Navy, the primary objective attributed to those serving in the United States Air Force is the protection of any and all airspace undertaken by the United States of America; such airspace may range from airspace existing on a domestic level, as well as on an international one.

The United States Air Force Judicial System
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 Air Force 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, which 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 Air Force 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.

Judge Advocate General (JAG Corps): The JAG Corps – or Judge Advocate General Corps – are classified as the acting legal body within the United states Air Force. 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.

The United States Air Force and Military Law

The United States Department of Defense (DOD) is a branch of the Federal Government that maintains all operations involving the United States Air Force; this includes recruitment, weapons development, administrative staffing, military strategizing, and war operations – the United States Department of Defense is responsible for the protection of American citizens, both domestic and international, from any means of aggression:
•    The implicit parameters latent within both the process of Military judicial review, as well as punitive recourse imposed by Federal Judicial Officials or Judge Advocate General Corps may be handled outside of the protocols latent within Civil Law
•    Matters involving the United States Air Forceservice members – or military operations undertaken – may constitute overlapping legal fields with regard to the corresponding legal proceeding; furthermore, in the event that an individual is brought before a military court with regard to matters concerning the United States Air Force, service members should be made aware that military law – as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice – varies on a locational basis
•    Individuals serving in the United States Air Force are encouraged to consult with legal professionals specializing in military law, as well as civil law

What is a Court Martial?

On November 13, 2012, the Department of Justice announced that James Momon Jr (a former US Army Major) of Alexandria, Virginia, received 18 months in prison for his involvement in a bribery scheme when he was stationed as a contracting official in Camp Arifjan, Kuwait.  The bribery reportedly occurred from 2005 to 2006.  Momon was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in the District of Columbia.
In addition to the prison time, Momon is also required to serve three years of supervised release and pay $5.8 million in restitution jointly and severally with the other co-defendants.
19 individuals have pleaded guilty to cooperation in the bribery scheme so far.  Momon pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy and two counts of bribery.
Court documents show Momon admitted to accepting multiple bribes from Department of Defense (DOD) contractors that provided bottled water and other items to troops in Kuwait.  The bribes motivated Momom to help award the contracts.
Momon was also bribed to help in the award of blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) as well.  These contracts let the DOD order supplies as they are needed at a price that is previously negotiated.  In total, Momon accepted $5.8 million from the co-conspirators, and $1.6 million was in cash and luxury items.
Court documents also indicate that Momon started his contracting duties in place of U.S. Army Major C. Cockerham.  Cockerman admitted to accepting bribes himself during his time in Kuwait from 2004 to 2005, and he pleaded guilty in February of 2008.  He was sentenced to 210 months in prison, and the judge ordered him to pay $9 million in restitution.
The case is still being investigated by the Defense Criminal Investigation Service, the Army Criminal Investigation Command Division, the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, the FBI, and the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice