tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post2410019270117551213..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: Supreme Court filings focus on military death penalty systemDwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-18002727423033455172008-09-24T20:11:00.000-04:002008-09-24T20:11:00.000-04:00Everyone seems to have missed the Article 36, UCMJ...Everyone seems to have missed the Article 36, UCMJ, implications in Kennedy vis-a-vis the federal statute.<BR/><BR/>CAAF ducked the issue in Stebbins, 61 MJ 366, 369 (2005); both sides missed Evans, 23 MJ 665, 666, n.2 (ACMR 1986) [capital referral for rape of 4 y/o].<BR/><BR/>Both sides in Kennedy have overlooked the "French" principle, 27 C.M.R. 245, 251 (CMA 1959), that says if "death" is not in the statute, which it is not in the codification, it's not a permissible punishment, regardless of what the MCM says.<BR/><BR/>If the Supremes grant Recon - an odds-on favorite - there will be Amici out the ying-yang on this issue!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-56519133368831768172008-09-19T07:38:00.000-04:002008-09-19T07:38:00.000-04:00I wonder whether the attorneys that originally ide...I wonder whether the attorneys that originally identified this case at cert-worthy (Adams & Reese) bothered to consult the former JAG attorneys that they employ? (For that matter, I wonder if A&R even participated to a great extent in the brief writing?) I certainly know they didn't call the current JAG attorney who only three years ago worked on appellate issues 20 feet from Martin Stern's desk.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-60400995799640897482008-09-18T09:04:00.000-04:002008-09-18T09:04:00.000-04:00wait...if he really raped a child, then kill him. ...wait...if he really raped a child, then kill him. Duh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-38745225503805161062008-09-18T05:15:00.000-04:002008-09-18T05:15:00.000-04:00If Kennedy's counsel were to consult me, I doubt t...If Kennedy's counsel were to consult me, I doubt they will, I would suggest turning the Art. 2(a)(10) argument on its head. The UCMJ only applies to civiians who serve with/accompany armed forces that are in the field in times of a contingency operation. The limitations placed on when the child rape provision could apply to a civilian demonstrates the very difference Kennedy's counsel was trying to highlight, that military society is different and should not be considered as part of a larger societal trend. Essentially 2(a)(10) says you have to be like a military member to have this child rape provision apply to you. Any other time . . . it doesn't apply.Mike "No Man" Navarrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11434921480452541955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-35845888157487670252008-09-18T00:42:00.000-04:002008-09-18T00:42:00.000-04:00It's possible that Kennedy's lawyers didn't seek m...It's possible that Kennedy's lawyers didn't seek military counsel because it was a military lawyers that re-opened this whole can of worms in the first place....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com