CAAF confirmation hearing

Sometime in the next couple of days a transcript of today’s CAAF confirmation hearings should be available. (Apparently there’s some confirmation hearing on the Hill tomorrow that’s considered even bigger than today’s CAAF hearing; anyone know what that’s about?) I'll review it and post an analysis when it's ready.

In the meantime, we’ll have to content ourselves with the nominees’ advance policy questions, which are available on the Senate Armed Services Committee’s web site.

Lance-Judge Stucky link:

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2006/December/Stucky%2012-04-06.pdf

Lance-Judge Ryan link:

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2006/December/Ryan%2012-04-06.pdf

[Seriously, No-Man, how do I paste those in as a hypertext link?]

Here is, by far, the most interesting question:

Please describe the three decisions of the USCAAF since 2001 which you believe have been the most significant.

Lance-Judge Stucky’s answer:

United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (2001) (status of legality of an order as question of law; application of political question doctrine to courts-martial).

United States v. Marcum, 60 M.J. 198 (2004) (constitutionality of Article 125 of the UCMJ as applied, in light of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)).

United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (2006) (due process implications of excessive delays in post-trial review; applicability of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) to courts-martial).

Lance-Judge Ryan’s answer:

United States v. Wiessen, 56 M.J. 172 (C.A.A.F. 2001) – analyzing challenges for cause based on implied bias of a member and recognizing that implied bias undermines public confidence in the military justice system.

Diaz v. The Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 59 M.J. 34 (C.A.A.F. 2003) – emphasizing that the petitioner’s right to a full and fair review of findings and sentence under Article 6 embodies the concomitant right to have that review conducted in a timely fashion, and that these rights must be recognized, enforced, and protected by the government, by the appellate attorneys, and by the USCAAF.

United States v. Lewis, 63 M.J. 405 (C.A.A.F. 2006) – reemphasizing that unlawful command influence is the mortal enemy of military justice and that, where it is found to exist, judicial authorities must take those steps necessary to preserve both the actual and apparent fairness of criminal proceedings.

It’s interesting that no case appears on both lance-judges’ lists, though Moreno is a direct descendant of Diaz.

What would you, dear CAAFlog reader, list as your top three? (And try not to just list your own cases.)

--Dwight Sullivan