January 13th, 2010 by Brian F. George
A single mother who was scheduled to deploy with her unit to Afghanistan on November 5 has been charged with missing movement, absence without leave, dereliction of duty and insubordinate conduct. The specialist’s mother was supposed to take care of her 10-month old son for the year-long deployment , but reportedly backed out a few days before the scheduled deployment. The New York Times report indicates that the matter will be scheduled for an Article 32 investigation.
January 11th, 2010 by Brian F. George
Two of the three Seals charged with abusing an Iraqi detainee will face court-martial in Iraq, not in Norfolk, as originally anticipated. Today, a military judge granted defense motions to move the trials to Iraq where the alleged victim is being held and can be produced as a live witness instead of by deposition, the way the government wanted to produce him. Two of the courts-martial will take place in April. A third Seal is awaiting a hearing on Wednesday.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/01/navy_seal_detainee_case_011110w/
January 11th, 2010 by Brian F. George
The government is seeking a delay in the first scheduled court-martial of the three Navy Seals charged with abusing an Iraqi detainee, a case which has garnered significant attention. The first court-martial was to start today. The defense is opposing the delay and as of this morning, the matter appears unresolved, according to the AP.
January 6th, 2010 by Brian F. George
This Stars and Stipes article highlights an interesting case pending at Fort Stewart, GA, in which a soldier is accused of threatening violence toward other soldiers and to go on a “rampage.” In addition, he is charged with distributing, “to soldiers in his unit original songs wrongfully threatening acts of violence against members of his unit.” This charge is apparently related to a rap song in which the soldier allegedly discusses shooting those responsible for his stop-loss orders.
August 26th, 2009 by Brian F. George
The California State Senate passed a resolution yesterday calling for an end to “don’t ask, don’t tell”, the colloquial name for the federal law which bans openly gay men and women from service in the military. The Palm Springs Desert Sun is reporting that the resolution passed 23-16.
The ban, signed into law in 1993, has been controversial since day one. It prohibits military members from engaging in homosexual acts, marrying or attempting to marry, or making statements about their homosexuality – essentially anything that would make known their sexual orientation. In the event a member is found to have violated the policy, the result, absent any accompanying criminal allegations, is typically discharge with an honorable characterization of service.
Opponents claim the law is unlawfully discriminatory and argue that men and women should be able to serve their country without regard to sexual orientation. They also point to the costs, in time, money and experience, of discharging trained military members in the midst of two wars.
Supporters argue that allowing openly gay service members would be detrimental to unit cohesion and is an attempt at social engineering in the military.
As a practical matter, when I was a JAG advising commanders on what to do in these cases under the law, I found the administrative guidance implementing “don’t ask, don’t tell” to be quite cumbersome. The regulations almost seemed to have an implicit bias against further inquiry, or at least in favor of carefully controlling the inquiry. In most cases, there was much “adult” supervision and approval required before any further investigative steps could be taken on an allegation (”Adult” in this context being defined as someone with three or four stars on his or her shoulders). So, despite being (usually) administrative in nature, there was more supervision involved in these cases than, by contrast, in a routine criminal investigation.
While President Obama campaigned on repealing the law, he has not yet taken affirmative steps to do so since taking office.
As California goes…? We shall see.
