.jpg)
Here is a link to the notice of the Second Cox Commission's public meeting on June 16, 2009 at George Washington University Law School, Moot Court Room, L101, 2000 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20052.
Here is a link to the proposed agenda for the Commission. The notice also directs members of the public to submit written comments to coxcommission@wcl.american.edu or by mail to National Institute of Military Justice, 4801 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20016.
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
-
▼
2009
(520)
-
▼
May
(86)
- This week in military justice -- 31 May 2009 edition
- DOD witness identified for Supreme Court cert juri...
- Degraded comments?
- BIG news: Rodriguez files cert petition
- SCOTUS extends SG's response period in Wuterich
- House Judiciary Committee confirms 5 June hearing ...
- Fascinating published AFCCA opinion
- NMCCA sets aside child porn distribution convictio...
- DOD web site indicates House Judiciary subcommitte...
- ACCA holds an accused's statements dissing the Arm...
- No Chessani Certification
- Fairley and Crotchett Writs
- Art. 32 Today in Air Force Euthanasia Case
- CAAF grant
- Sotomayor to SCOTUS?
- CAAF assesses petitions' timeliness
- Chessani watch
- Foster follow-up
- This week in military justice -- 24 May 2009 edition
- Recent activity in the Gray habeas case
- A final thought about the Green case [REVISED]
- More on Green sentencing
- A quick thought about CAAF's proposed rules changes
- NIMJ proposes sea change in CAAF's practice
- Green receives life sentence
- MUST READING for military appellate defense counse...
- Green sentencing deliberations to continue Thursday
- CAAF grant
- New published AFCCA case narrowly construes R.C.M....
- Second Cox Commission Public Hearing and Topics An...
- New Published NMCCA Case, Garner
- New issue of JAG Magazine
- Navy JAG certifies Article 120 constitutionality c...
- Green capital MEJA sentencing case concludes
- CAAF Opinion: Collier on Defense Right to Present...
- No Denedo, 2 MilJus Denieds at SCOTUS
- Court-Martial News Roundup
- Corrected notice of proposed CAAF rules changes
- Next week in military justice -- 15 May 2009 edition
- Coast Guard trial judge moots Article 120 challeng...
- A short look at Yammine
- Green sentencing case continues
- Professor Gary Solis testifies at Green capital ME...
- Another en banc published NMCCA opinion
- Green capital MEJA prosecution update
- Bio of Colonel Wintrhrop published
- Sergeant Charged in Camp Liberty Shootings
- CAAF rejects Care inquiry challenge
- CAAF releases Sanders opinion
- BREAKING NEWS: NMCCA grants government's Crotchet...
- Gray's counsel move for extension to filing deadline
- Prosecution rests sentencing case in Green capital...
- This week in military justice -- 10 May 2009 edition
- A look ahead at the Green MEJA capital prosecution...
- Humble Response to the McCain-Graham WSJ Op-Ed on ...
- U.S. district court grants Gray's motion for appoi...
- CAAF finds waiver in Campos
- April Army Lawyer online
- ACCA's Anderson decisions
- Ayala MEJA Case Sentencing
- Is 1st Lt Watada Free and Clear?
- Green capital sentencing phase to start on Monday
- CAAF grant
- Green convicted in Iraq rape, murders
- Published ACCA decision
- No second court-martial for 1LT Watada
- CAAF releases its opinion in Delarosa
- Jury begins deliberations in United States v. Green
- Defense rests in Green capital MEJA prosecution
- The Green capital MEJA trial: the prosecution rests
- CAAF annual reception
- Ediger grant, cont'
- Amusing SCOTUS typo
- No Denedo Siting
- This week in military justice -- 3 May 2009 edition
- Green update
- Charlie Gittins vows to use DOJ memos to challenge...
- Two CAAF grants
- Further clarification regarding attempts to have N...
- Proposed CAAF rules changes
- Gray petitions for appointment of CHU counsel
- United States opposes Gray's habeas petition
- Big news day
- Carlson Part Deux, NMCCA Rules on USACIL Problems
- Chessani Denied, Not Much More
- Exit Justice Souter
-
▼
May
(86)
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
12 comments:
I also hear the commission will be considering whether to require the other services (not just the Army) to have JAG officers with actual law degrees instead of just an undergrad degree with a "law certificate" from their respective basic schools. Personally, I think this is a great idea. It would help the navy, marines, and air force with credibility in their JAG ops, plus it would make their JAG officers more marketable in the civilian world.
Me no have "law certificate." Me forgot to get one at TBS. Oorahh!
Hey Anon 2137,
I also heard that they are considering adding "culpable ignorance" as a new offense under the UCMJ. Look out.
Reading the agenda items, this commission seems like a good idea farm for folks far removed from the needs of good order and discipline and the practicalities of military life. Normal business hours for courts-martial? This is the military - court schedules are driven by operational commitments not the convenience of trial observors. Do away with summary court-martial? This tool benefits both trial and defense by allowing for punishment that satsifies the needs of g.o.d. without marking the accused permanently with the stigma of a criminal conviction. Regional convening authorities? Convening Authority is a key tool for operational commanders to enforce g.o.d. in their units. The current system balances this power with robust procedural safeguards against UCI. I hope current practitioners and operators will be heard.
Should be no more helpful than the First Cox Commission. And where did former Judge Cox get the authority to commission a Commission? Self-importance is not a good judicial trait.
Does anyone know whether the Government commissioned the Cox commission, or did it commission itself, as suggested by the prevoius post?
It is not a Gov commission, so really it is a commission to the same extent I am a ruggedly handsome intellectual. It doesn't make it true just because I say it a lot on line. At least the tax payer won't have to pay for it.
It was commissioned by NIMJ.
Two months ago I had a telephone conversation with a very senior attorney on the Senate Armed Services Committee for the majority (who I won't name here). I was suggesting that Congress consider a Congressionally sanctioned commission with the ability to issue subpoenas and take sworn testimony and then issue a formal report back to HASC and SASC. His response: "We have the Cox Commission, Code Committee and the JSC, everything is fine." As I heard that I thought gee that just sounded like a boilerplate DoD response.
Anon 1529 correctly pointed out the Cox Commission is not a government sanctioned commission. Nevertheless, at least we have some sort of oversight by it. If anyone has ever been to a Code Committee - you'd know that's pretty much a joke. It has a public meeting once a year that lasts maybe 20 minutes and no public comments are permitted. One year a CAAF judge quetioned why the five active judges are even on the Code Committee in the first place. And isn't the JSC the one that made certain recommedations to Congress on the new UCMJ art. 120, which were then adopted, and now some are saying are unconstitutional?
I do applaud NIMJ for putting together the Cox Commission. Congress has been UA (or AWOL) with respect to Congressional oversight on the UCMJ for quite sometime. Congress has not undertaken a thorough review of the UCMJ in over a quarter century. Conversley, most of our allies (including my other home country of Australia) have robust governmental reviews of their military justice systems and have enacted modernized systems.
The UCMJ is outdated. It's a 20th century military justice system operating in the 21st century. It needs a thorough review followed by updates. Our allies, who serve alongside us in the multi-theatre war on terrorism, have far more advanced military justice systems than that of the United States.
My recommendations to the Cox Commission can be found here.
Norbs,
You got you facts regarding 120 wrong. I expect more from a self-professed Hill insider.
Anon 0940: I don't believe I have my facts wrong. This is my understanding (feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood something): Congress asked DoD for its thoughts on a new art. 120 and DoD at first opposed. Then the JSC went to work and made several proposals and recommendations to members of HASC and SASC basically stating that in the event Congress did create a new art. 120 here's what DoD recommends. Some of those proposals and recommendations were then adopted - - and have now been questioned as being unconstitutional. You can find some of those DoD/JSC proposals on the OGC website reading room located here. Though that webpage doesn't contain all the documents JSC/DoD provided to HASC and SASC on the subject matter.
Back to my original point. Congress hasn't performed a thorough review of the UCMJ in over a quarter century. Whilst NIMJ's Cox Commission is a good start - it's not Congressionally sanctioned. I believe Congress should convene a commission to review the UCMJ. That commission should have subpoena power, have public hearings, take sworn testimony and deliberate. Then issue a report with any recommendations to HASC and the SASC for consideration. Don't you agree a review of the UCMJ - - lets say every 15 or 20 years - - is warranted? Or do you think everything is just fine?
Post a Comment