Legal action against individuals in the Armed Forces

personally i am ok with the trials being conducted by the military, so long as it is under a strong condition of public transparency

its a tough call because of all of the conflicting loyalties and perspectives - its not that i dont belive a civillian is capable of relating to war or in-combat decisions so much as that most simply havent developed the NEED to, and this does result in an unfair set of expectations

war, as has been said before, is hell, and when every decision made is guaranteed to result in death, no matter what, the standard for judging is different

imo the problem with civillian participation in military trial is that its too late - the public should hold itself responsible for the use and deployment of the military rather than for the regulation of it - the expectation (not tolerance of what can and should be changed, but understanding of the reality of what has always happened before and will always happen in war) should be that injustice and unfair tragedy and death and even murders are going to be perpetuated on all sides

that is the cost of war and violence -dignity is cast aside in favor of demand - as far as i can tell, this is the very definition of war

the public is responsible for oversight, certainly, but my view is that once the public has agreed that it is appropriate to unleash the war machine on an enemy, they forgo much of the right to pass judgement

you have to be there

if youre not aware of whats happening "on the ground" then you just dont have the perspective to judge imo

it has to be assumed that there are no "right" choices or "good" choices in war

the "right" and "good" are what we use to prevent war - to get out and to stay out of war

i do belive that court proceeding need to be open to public review - but my position is that while yes, the public should expect a high degree of in house regulation from the military, and we have to be a part of the information loop, and the feedback loop, in such a way that as to remain relevant to the overall trends of policy and deployment, as a general rule it is more than fair to allow - maybe better to say "EXPECT" - the military to be able to wash its own laundry, so to speak

OB1Shinobi wrote: imo the problem with civillian participation in military trial is that its too late - the public should hold itself responsible for the use and deployment of the military rather than for the regulation of it - the expectation (not tolerance of what can and should be changed, but understanding of the reality of what has always happened before and will always happen in war) should be that injustice and unfair tragedy and death and even murders are going to be perpetuated on all sides

that is the cost of war and violence -dignity is cast aside in favor of demand - as far as i can tell, this is the very definition of war

the public is responsible for oversight, certainly, but my view is that once the public has agreed that it is appropriate to unleash the war machine on an enemy, they forgo much of the right to pass judgement

The problem is the 'public' that unleashes the 'war machine' is not your everyday civilian. The people bringing litigation against the military are not the people that told them to go in the first place.

US military law was written (as far as I can tell) by lawyers. I'd just be learning a new specialty. But they'd also have to learn the military language.

That's why I said they'd have some learning to do. We just already have specialized legal personnel. (One gleefully told me once that he loves his job because the government paid him to fight against it)

Having been Army Law Enforcement, honestly the laws are not much different- it's the process that is slightly different. It wouldn't take a civilian lawyer much to do their job effectively.

@Edan
i dont know what the solution is beyond saying that i dont feel that american soldiers should be held accountable to anyone outside of america and that every american should consider themselves responsible for american war policy

and that i rather expect for other countries citizens to feel the same way about themselves, provided they live in what likes to call itself a democracy

american war time standards are pretty high - so are british afaik - and if our military steps over the line we have mechanisms in place to address that no matter who it is that points it out

so if someone makes a claim that something has happened, then there is someone on our side who is willing to look into it, generally speaking - theoretically speaking

certainly im NOT going to "hand over" any american to any other nation under any circumstances

situations need to be investigated and addressed and maybe there should be civillian involvement - definitely oversight - but imo the essential details should be handled "in house" as it were

this should be the expectation imo

i belive the standards of professionalism are sufficiently high that our militaries are capable of this - so long as there is transparency

as for the public being the ones who unleash the machine

i was not in support of the iraq or afghanistan invasions

still, i consider myself just as responsible for them as every other american citizen

because i am american

to my way of thinking, the entire nation bears that responsibility

to my way of thinking, we have to; it has to be seen that way

because the idea that anyone can simply wash their hands of what their nation does in the world with the explanation "I didnt do it - I didnt agree to it" is extremely dangerous - it creates a safe and comfortable little box to hide in where we can abjugate our responsibility behind the idea that it wasnt our idea

the rest of the world sees us as responsible - everywhere i may go outside of america other people will see me as a representative of american policy regardless of my actual support or opposition to any particular decision/s

once this box of "it wasnt MY decision" is made, the result is that we can now go on with our lives as if nothings going on

this whole affair of this "war on terror" really broke my faith in america to a great extent- on the one hand there were the politicians who obviously (to me) sold out all of us

then there was the public who took up the "crusade" and never did so much as a google search on "iraq weapons of mass destruction UN inspection results"

"haliburton/cheney"

"bush family history"

"why to NOT invade a foriegn nation" lol

it was obvious to anyone that didnt WANT to be caught up in war fever

no one is responsible for it more than the american public imo

but then look what we did - we sent our military over to fight and allowed the nation to pretty much just go on "business as usual" so long as no one in our immediate family was sent

much of the nation pretty much forgot that there were two wars going on and this was allowed to happen because we were allowed to tell ourselves "it wasnt MY fault - it wasnt MY decision"

my response to that is "yes it was"

we ARE the government

we ARE the media

the responsibility for war is ours

it has to be

i dont need others to agree with me, and i respect the opinions of those who dont, but thats how i feel about it

Actually, in countries we have bases in, there have been cases where we do hand over our military to the local authorities if they've broken their laws. If I'm not mistaken they are considered AWOL while they're in jail too.

http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/okinawa/marine-given-four-years-for-sexual-assault-of-okinawa-woman-1.200527

I'm afraid your post is rather too long for me to respond to tonight, I'll have a look tomorrow when I'm more awake.

I will say though that if our (in my case I mean British) soldiers do something unacceptable outside Britain, they should be held accountable even if it is only in Britain, because they did it under Britain's name.

I don't think the article made any mention of 'handing over' military personnel to other countries, and it isn't really part of my original question.

I disagree however on being responsible for British military because I am British; I vote, and I can sign petitions, and I can even protest, but if the military went to war and I opposed it, I am not accountable, my government is. I only have limited means of disagreement and control, especially as they will be privy to information I am not.

I think what you'll find if you go through US military law is that it's controlled by Congress, which includes controlling who can and cannot act on US military law. Likewise, if you look through some of the articles, you'll find any punishments for them are fairly openended. I recently wrote a paper on sexual assault in the military for one of my university classes, and I was amazed to find how differing punishments per military law are from punishments from federal law. To put it simply, the military has no minimum sentencing for sexual assailants who are military members; federal law at least requires imprisonment (up to life)... that's not taking into consideration if the victim is a minor, where minimum requirement is 30 years. Repeat offenders get double the normal conviction. And yet, some military assailants remain on active duty, never see a day behind bars, repeat multiple times, and then go on to receive honorable discharges. (Yes, I know this is a rarity, and growing rarer by the year, but it has and does sometimes happen.)

Another thing to consider is that, while in the military we are/were required to obey all lawful orders. Unfortunately, what is always lawful is not always ethical. I can't speak for UK's military, but I would imagine that, per our own laws, we've done plenty of ethically debatable and yet still entirely legal things. That being the case, the military and the government are, in my opinion, required to step in and defend military members from such litigations as those I read in the article (which was first thing this morning and still very much asleep-ish).

I can understand civilians not supporting what military members do, especially when they aren't familiar with military procedure and the intelligence which the military determines their course of actions on; I expect the government responsible for the military's actions to defend those members carrying out those lawful orders, no matter how unethical the outcome appears to be in hindsight. I also expect the government to take responsibility for the fall-outs of such determined legal yet unethical scenarios, not hand out military members out on a silver platter to the wolves.

Something tells me in the case of this general, there's a lot more to the story than what meets the eye, but I'm not familiar enough with that particular scenario to comment one way or the other on it.

No, they're not considered AWOL, but we can charge them again, it does not become double-jeopardy in cases like the one in Naha you cited (as it would happen, I was an MP in Okinawa for three years). You can still have representation from a military JAG officer if you're charged by the local government.

Kamizu wrote: Actually, in countries we have bases in, there have been cases where we do hand over our military to the local authorities if they've broken their laws. If I'm not mistaken they are considered AWOL while they're in jail too.

http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/okinawa/marine-given-four-years-for-sexual-assault-of-okinawa-woman-1.200527

in my post i was thinking about actions done in the course of pursuing mission and safety of personnel requirements

my declaration of "under any circumstances" was incorrect