The Fringe | Conspiracy, News, Politics, and Fun Forum!

Full Version: 2018 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial :
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Well , it's the end of Military Tribunal Awareness Month , so thought this should be posted up for consideration .

Here's the EO from March 1 st .

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-...ed-states/

Including some completely new stuff .

[Image: annex-10.jpg]

[Image: annex-11.jpg]

American Intelligence Media has a few interesting Critiques .

https://aim4truth.org/2018/03/03/white-h...th-a-bang/

These peeps are just a little scattered in approach , but several hundred participants makes for such .

Make of it what You will , They do posses a combined critical eye .
(03-31-2018, 09:36 AM)Heir Wrote: [ -> ]Well , it's the end of Military Tribunal Awareness Month , so thought this should be posted up for consideration .

Here's the EO from March 1 st .

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-...ed-states/

Including some completely new stuff .

[Image: annex-10.jpg]

[Image: annex-11.jpg]

American Intelligence Media has a few interesting Critiques .

https://aim4truth.org/2018/03/03/white-h...th-a-bang/

These peeps are just a little scattered in approach , but several hundred participants makes for such .

Make of it what You will , They do posses a combined critical eye .

The mistake the analyst are making is that they think the UCMJ applies to civilians or non-military government employees. It doesn't. There are laws which apply in for civilians and other government employees, but they are not the UCMJ.
(03-31-2018, 10:43 AM)KillTheCarnage Wrote: [ -> ]The mistake the analyst are making is that they think the UCMJ applies to civilians or non-military government employees.  It doesn't.  There are laws which apply in for civilians and other government employees, but they are not the UCMJ.


This is changing . Certain Civilians Contractors are being subjected to Courts Martial .

You might find these interesting .

Can the Military Court-Martial Civilian Contractors?: Reflections on the Oral Argument in United States v. Ali

By Steve Vladeck  Thursday, April 12, 2012, 12:05 AM

> Pardon the interruption from the wall-to-wall Nashiri coverage, but before it disappears too far into the past, I wanted to flag United States v. Ali--a case in which the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ("CAAF") heard oral argument last Thursday (and about which I have blogged in some detail before). The argument audio itself is available here, and cogent summaries thereof can be found over at CAAFlog here and here. In short, the question presented in Ali is whether it is constitutional to subject a civilian contractor to trial by court-martial if he is "serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field" during a "contingency operation."

In a series of cases decided during the 1950s and 1960s (which I've summarized in more detail in this essay), the Supreme Court repeatedly recognized categorical constitutional limits on the military's power to try civilians (including contractors), at least during "peacetime." To similar effect, the Court of Military Appeals (CAAF's predecessor) held in United States v. Averette during Vietnam that the phrase "time of war" in the UCMJ provision authorizing courts-martial of civilian contractors should be understood to mean declared war, in order to avoid the constitutional question that would otherwise arise from trying civilians during such undeclared hostilities. That question is now squarely presented, and I don't think it's at all obvious from the argument just how CAAF will rule. (For what it's worth, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals decision under review had relied entirely on the conclusion that the Supreme Court's case law did not consider the military's power to try a civilian who "committed all of his offenses and was court-martialed (1) during a time of actual hostilities and (2) in a location where actual hostilities were taking place.") <

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-military...ates-v-ali

New Law Could Subject Civilians to Military Trial

By Griff Witte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 15, 2007

> Private contractors and other civilians serving with U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan could be subject for the first time to military courts-martial under a new federal provision that legal scholars say is almost certain to spark constitutional challenges.

The provision, which was slipped into a spending bill at the end of the last Congress, is intended to close a long-standing loophole that critics say puts contractors in war zones above the law.

But the provision also could affect others accompanying U.S. forces in the field, including civilian government employees and embedded journalists. <

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...00906.html
(03-31-2018, 11:28 AM)Heir Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-31-2018, 10:43 AM)KillTheCarnage Wrote: [ -> ]The mistake the analyst are making is that they think the UCMJ applies to civilians or non-military government employees.  It doesn't.  There are laws which apply in for civilians and other government employees, but they are not the UCMJ.


This is changing . Certain Civilians Contractors are being subjected to Courts Martial .

You might find these interesting .

Can the Military Court-Martial Civilian Contractors?: Reflections on the Oral Argument in United States v. Ali

By Steve Vladeck  Thursday, April 12, 2012, 12:05 AM

> Pardon the interruption from the wall-to-wall Nashiri coverage, but before it disappears too far into the past, I wanted to flag United States v. Ali--a case in which the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ("CAAF") heard oral argument last Thursday (and about which I have blogged in some detail before). The argument audio itself is available here, and cogent summaries thereof can be found over at CAAFlog here and here. In short, the question presented in Ali is whether it is constitutional to subject a civilian contractor to trial by court-martial if he is "serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field" during a "contingency operation."

In a series of cases decided during the 1950s and 1960s (which I've summarized in more detail in this essay), the Supreme Court repeatedly recognized categorical constitutional limits on the military's power to try civilians (including contractors), at least during "peacetime." To similar effect, the Court of Military Appeals (CAAF's predecessor) held in United States v. Averette during Vietnam that the phrase "time of war" in the UCMJ provision authorizing courts-martial of civilian contractors should be understood to mean declared war, in order to avoid the constitutional question that would otherwise arise from trying civilians during such undeclared hostilities. That question is now squarely presented, and I don't think it's at all obvious from the argument just how CAAF will rule. (For what it's worth, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals decision under review had relied entirely on the conclusion that the Supreme Court's case law did not consider the military's power to try a civilian who "committed all of his offenses and was court-martialed (1) during a time of actual hostilities and (2) in a location where actual hostilities were taking place.") <

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-military...ates-v-ali

New Law Could Subject Civilians to Military Trial

By Griff Witte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 15, 2007

> Private contractors and other civilians serving with U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan could be subject for the first time to military courts-martial under a new federal provision that legal scholars say is almost certain to spark constitutional challenges.

The provision, which was slipped into a spending bill at the end of the last Congress, is intended to close a long-standing loophole that critics say puts contractors in war zones above the law.

But the provision also could affect others accompanying U.S. forces in the field, including civilian government employees and embedded journalists. <

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...00906.html

That would only apply to contractors working with the military, not those working for other agencies of the government.

I've known about this, as I once considered becoming a contractor myself.

The money is good, but everything else about that line of work seemed to me to be shit.

It's not a surprise that congress is trying to subject contractors working with the military to the UCMJ. I would start worrying when you see congress trying to subject people or agencies not working with the military to the UCMJ.

Also, until a case has been tried and vetted by the court system, I wouldn't consider this a done deal as there are serious constitutional issues with subjecting non-military workers to the UCMJ.
The Federal Civil / Criminal Court System has plenty of work ahead with a 10 fold increase in Sealed Indictments suddenly sitting on the Roster of Dockets . The Omni - Bus Bill appears to provide sufficient funding get this System up and Pending Prosecutions underway .

Somewhere recently I ran a cross a report about new Apprentice openings at the Attorney General's Office and Justice Department . Gotta dig that back up and see if I can find the number of new positions coming up .

Now , that aside , the U. S. Court System has been operating in Military Administrative Rule under a Declared State of Emergency for longer than most here have been alive . The Feds have been operating in Bankruptcy Receivership , pure and simple . Add Emergency Regulation and We are one Signature away from outright Martial Law .

The Leiber Code will then be able to kick back into full effect . Military Tribunals could replace State Civil Courts . A little extreme and a little paranoid maybe . But it's been done before .