U.S. civilians can face military trials

[Kytro]

United Press International*-*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

"Right now, you have two different standards for people doing the same job," Graham said. "This will bring uniformity to the commander's ability to control the behavior of people representing our country."
Legal experts say the change will likely raise constitutional challenges, as civilians prosecuted in military court don't receive a grand jury hearing and are tried by members of the military, rather than by a jury of their peers.
Until now, civilians could be tried under the military code only during a declared war, but neither operations in Afghanistan nor Iraq involve such a declaration.

Something about this just seem so insidious, added to a spending bill. It seems like another attempt by the government to gain ever more power. Scary

[Pro Street]

What bill?

What was the phrase entered?

i'm trying to find this myself right now.. I'll post if I find anything.

EDIT: Thomas is slow.. this might take a while.

[Pro Street]

heh, they bumped retirement for reservists from 62 to 64

lol

I'm almost there... lots of good info in ths bill.

[Pro Street]

SEC. 522. REVISIONS TO RESERVE CALL-UP AUTHORITY.

• (a) Maximum Number of Days- Subsection (a) of section 12304 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking `270 days' and inserting `365 days.'

just posting random info that might be useful to know.

[Pro Street]

ok I found what I believe to be it:

SEC. 552. CLARIFICATION OF APPLICATION OF UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE DURING A TIME OF WAR.

• Paragraph (10) of section 802(a) of title 10, United States Code (article 2(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended by striking `war' and inserting `declared war or a contingency operation'.

so I went to the UCMJ and found what I believe to be the change

802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipman.

(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal Service.

(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.

(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.

(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.

(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.

(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

so essentially, they are saying:

(10) In time of declared war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying in an armed force in the field [will be punishable under the UCMJ]



Now, this means that civilians cannot be tried as they make it seem, this means that civilians during an operation while accompanying the military are punishable under the UCMJ. This would be a good thing, as it closes a loophole that Merc groups such as Blackwater and such, were immune to military and US law in Iraq.

That is all this provision says.


Cliffs: Newspapers need to do more research.




also, please give me rep points.. I just spent an hour going through a 1000 page FY2007 military appropriations bill.

[motivez]

That would seem to mean embedded reporters as well..

I have a problem with American civilians and non military personnel not being tried by a group of peers.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by motivez

That would seem to mean embedded reporters as well..

I have a problem with American civilians and non military personnel not being tried by a group of peers.

I understand that concern, but remember as embedded reporters they may be exposed to things that might be considered secret or top secret, including operations or technologies. I see this more as protecting the military from the actions of civilians.

Also, in the UCMJ it is stated that anything that is deemed a breech of the UCMJ or US law may be brought to light.. so if reporters do see something that the US does bad, they still can report it.

If a reporter walks up and shoots someone, unless this provision is in there is no accountability. The US would have no jurisdiction at all over the reporter.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

If a reporter walks up and shoots someone, unless this provision is in there is no accountability. The US would have no jurisdiction at all over the reporter.

Wouldn't they be under the jurisdiction of the nation they are in ?

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Wouldn't they be under the jurisdiction of the nation they are in ?

Not exactly.

The examples I gave are in situations where they are not under such jurisdiction, such as in Iraq.

And in cases where they are, I would prefer to have a UCMJ tribunal over any foreign trial. I have more trust of those in the military regarding civilians than foreign governments.

an example, when I worked for Unisys, we had "things" we did in the Middle East. One of our employees was involved in a traffic accident.. a taxi driver in Turkey lost control, went across the road, and hit our worker thus flipping the car. He was charged with the "crime" and arrested, not the taxi driver.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by motivez

That would seem to mean embedded reporters as well..

I have a problem with American civilians and non military personnel not being tried by a group of peers.

if they are serving with the military, how is the military not their peers ?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Not exactly.

The examples I gave are in situations where they are not under such jurisdiction, such as in Iraq.

Wait...non-US military are not held to Iraq law while in Iraq? They damn well should be.

Originally Posted by Pro Street

And in cases where they are, I would prefer to have a UCMJ tribunal over any foreign trial. I have more trust of those in the military regarding civilians than foreign governments.

Perhaps you do, but while in other nations they should be accountable to the laws of that nation.

Originally Posted by Pro Street

an example, when I worked for Unisys, we had "things" we did in the Middle East. One of our employees was involved in a traffic accident.. a taxi driver in Turkey lost control, went across the road, and hit our worker thus flipping the car. He was charged with the "crime" and arrested, not the taxi driver.

Risks of working in dodgy situations.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

if they are serving with the military, how is the military not their peers ?

Because they're not members of the military, and the rules and regulations they abide by are not the same as ordinary citizens.

[ballz2wallz]

I think that's to account for civilians helping the insurgents or military of the enemy. Good, if they attack us we should be able to punish them just as we would anybody else.

[motivez]

You know what they say about the road to hell, so regardless of the good intention of the bill I think it's much too broad and vague.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by motivez

Because they're not members of the military, and the rules and regulations they abide by are not the same as ordinary citizens.

They are under military law, so who should judge them ?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

They are under military law, so who should judge them ?

They're there as guests of the military, not as servicemen. They have not enlisted in the military and thus IMO it's inappropriate to be subject to their laws.

They're still bound by all US laws as well as international I suppose, but not the UCMJ.

Note I'm talking about reporters here, as far as mercenary groups, that could be a different story as far as I'm concerned, I'd have to look into it further.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by motivez

Note I'm talking about reporters here, as far as mercenary groups, that could be a different story as far as I'm concerned, I'd have to look into it further.

Reporters arent the issue, contractors are.

Sad thing is this all boils down to the insertion of the words "or a contingency operation" Even before this change, those who served with US troops in war faced military trial.

[MKULTRA]

Calling some of these guys contractors is being generous. Mercs is the appropriate term for most. I can tell you firsthand that Dyncorp employees some of the worst scum in this country. I have worked alongside those slime overseas and they get away with things worse than murder and openly brag about it. From what I hear, things haven't changed. I'm generalizing. There are a few guys with them that I'm sure are decent humans but most aren't.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

Calling some of these guys contractors is being generous. Mercs is the appropriate term for most. I can tell you firsthand that Dyncorp employees some of the worst scum in this country. I have worked alongside those slime overseas and they get away with things worse than murder and openly brag about it. From what I hear, things haven't changed. I'm generalizing. There are a few guys with them that I'm sure are decent humans but most aren't.

You do realize that contractors are everything from security, to technicians, to cooks right ?


And what makes mercs anything worse then career Soldiers ?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

And what makes mercs anything worse then career Soldiers ?

Career soldiers sign up to serve the country. The government decides where to send them based on what is supposed to be "need".

Mercs sign up to get paid, and while I'm sure someone will try to make the point that they're doing it to serve their country, there's always the military if their motive isn't profit.

I'm not saying that all of them are bad, or just enjoy profiting off of war (though I'm sure they all enjoy the money), but they're certainly different than someone who signs up to serve their country.