.jpg)
An Art. 32 Investigating Officer recommended dismissal of all charges against two Air Force officers accused of assault, communicating a threat, and conduct unbecoming for alleged acts against contractors in Afghanistan. The recommendation of the IO is available here. The story presents part of a larger on-going issue that was noted first by CAAFlog (here) regarding military justice issues and military contractor's in the field. The Art. 2(a)(10) issue raised in this report is unmistakable from the IO's recommendations.
Thanks to Anonymous for spotting, he's a good man/woman.
Military justice blogs are to blogs as military music is to music. The views expressed on this blog are offered in the contributors' personal capacity. They do not purport to be speaking for, and their views should not be imputed to, any other organization, agency, or entity.
Military justice research links
- 2008 Military Judges' Benchbook web site
- AFMAN 51-203, Records of Trial (1 Oct 1999)
- AFPD 51-2, Administration of Military Justice (7 Sep 1993)
- Air Force Instruction 51-201, Administration of Military Justice (21 Dec 07)
- Air Force Rules of Professional Conduct
- AR 27-10, Military Justice (16 Nov 2005)
- AR 27-26, Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers (1 May 1992)
- COMDTINST M5810.1D, Military Justice Manual (17 Aug 2000)
- Congressional Research Service, Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Trends (March 30, 2006 ed.)
- Congressional Research Service, The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation: Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (2002) with 2006 supplement
- JAGINST 5803.1C, Professional Conduct of Attorneys Practicing Under the Cognizance and Supervision of the Judge Advocate General (9 Nov 04)
- JAGINST 5810.2A, Military Justice Regulations (17 Sep 93)
- JAGMAN, JAGINST 5800.7E (20 Jun 07)
- Law Library Microform Consortium, Military Law Collection
- LOC military law collection
- Manual for Courts-Martial (2008 ed.)
- Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2005 ed.)
- Manual of the Judge Advocate General (JAGMAN), JAGINST 5800.7E (20 Jun 2007)
- Military Justice, Army Regulation 27-10 (16 Nov 2005)
- UCMJ (as of 28 Jan 2008)
Links
- ACCA's web site
- AFCCA's web site
- AIr Force Judge Advocate General's School's web site
- Air Force Law Review
- Army Lawyer
- Army Trial Judiciary's docket
- CAAF's web site
- CAAFlog.com
- CGCCA's web site
- Coast Guard trial and appellate dockets
- Court-Martial Trial Practice blog
- JAA American Inn of Court's web site
- JAA's web site
- JAG LAW Blog
- JAG Magazine [Navy]
- Journal of Military and Veteran Law
- Military Law Review
- Naval Law Review
- NIMJ's web site
- NJS's web site
- NMCCA's web site
- SCOTUSblog (aka, the greatest blog on the planet)
- Supreme Court's web site
- The Reporter [Air Force]
- This Court-Martial Sentences You To . . . [blog]
- TJAGLCS's web site
Blog archive
-
▼
2007
(657)
-
▼
April
(50)
- Troubling new ACCA decision
- All good things come to those who wait 64 days
- Counter update
- SCOTUS shutout
- Which do you want first, the good news or the bad ...
- Paxton: Nothing New
- Long shot misses the target
- Amicus Granted for writ appeal
- The counter
- Oral Argument in United States v. Wilson
- Two more cases
- Palenius's Platitude
- Three New CAAF Decisions
- CAAF doesn't take petitions for granted
- Supremes deny cert in New
- The counter
- Long shot
- New published CGCCA decision
- The numbers climb like the Dow Jones Industrial Av...
- New CAAFlog contributor
- Court-martial rate plummets
- The counter
- MCM Changes
- UCMJ Jurisdiction over Government Contractors
- Stuck on 50
- Hitting the half century mark
- Diaz denied
- New v. Gates: certworthy?
- Proposed CAAF Rules changes
- Upcoming Code Committee meeting
- The Counter
- Intriguing lecture
- Two new published CCA opinions
- What if they held a C.A.A.F. and nobody came?
- To paraphrase Lincoln, sometimes it is better to r...
- Non-resource alert: Army Lawyer Jan. 2007 Ed.
- Dearing Saga is Over . . .?
- CAAF rejects writ appeal challenging really ugly C...
- CCA opinion accessibility
- Supply and demand
- New conference docketed
- Taylor is a privilege to read
- New CAAF opinion is out
- Government PETITION for grant of review?
- CAAF petitioners 0-for-March
- Another stealth published opinion
- Doctoring a members panel
- CAAFlog South Asia, Si?
- Art. 32 IO Recommends Dismissal of Charges Against...
- While I was away . . .
-
▼
April
(50)
Labels
- Admin (14)
- Architecture (2)
- Art. 2a10 (27)
- Article 125 (1)
- CAAF docket (41)
- CAAF grants (28)
- CAAF judges (2)
- CAAF oral argument audio (11)
- Capital courts-martial (46)
- CCAs (32)
- CLE/Events (13)
- collateral review (4)
- Court-martial news (69)
- habeas (5)
- MEJA (31)
- Military commissions (5)
- Military justice legislation (19)
- Military justice reform (18)
- MilJus Scholarship (22)
- New Article 120 (8)
- New CAAF opinions (40)
- New CCA opinions (47)
- Rants (9)
- SCOTUS MilJus Cases (64)
- TWIMJ (39)
- US SOFAs (16)
Contributors
Our contact information
You can reach us by email at:
caaflog@caaflog.com
caaflog@caaflog.com
Posts
5 comments:
Nothing gets the No Man as excited as talking about Article 2, with the possible exception of talking about Apprendi. I'm looking forward to the No Man's upcoming article: The Apprendi Implications of Article 2's Extension to Civilian Contractors in Contingency Operations.
That makes two of you.
Yep, exactly two.
Don't even get me twisted around the potential Apprendi implications of civilian courts-martial. Suffice it to say that such an article would be the functional equivalent of The Perfect Storm. Loving v. United States meet Parker v. Levy, Parker Levy meet Reid v. Covert. The topic, is a system constitutionally supportable where civilians are able to be punished at courts-martial in operations such as hurricane relief and the recovery of the Commerce Secretary's body from a plane crash? Talk amongst yourselves.
I wonder if Gittins or the TC addressed the issue of availability of the Blackwater employee from the perspective of a civilian subject to the UCMJ? It seems the Blackwater employee was invited and not made available like a military witness.
Post a Comment