New Executive Order released.

[redirish28]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080724-10.html

Executive Order: 2008 Amendments to the Manual for Courts Martial, United States


Now the Annex attached I can't seem to see.

[Ichingcarpenter]

1. This looks like it is a forgiveness for war crimes?

a) Nothing in these amendments shall be construed to make punishable any act done or omitted prior to the effective date of this order that was not punishable when done or omitted.

(b) Nothing in these amendments shall be construed to invalidate any nonjudicial punishment proceedings, restraint, investigation, referral of charges, trial in which arraignment occurred, or other action begun prior to the effective date of this order, and any such nonjudicial punishment, restraint, investigation, referral of charges, trial, or other action may proceed in the same manner and with the same effect as if these amendments had not been prescribed.

I need to look at the other material but the above portion looks alarming.

[dems_rightnow]

2. Huh?

Though it doesn't say what it's changing, the part we can see is that it doesn't make any punishment retroactive.

I believe that war crimes were, technically anyway, already a court martial offense.

[onenote]

3. that's simply standard non-retroactivity language

Pretty standard due process requirement: you don't punish people for acts that were not prohibited when they were committed

[jmowreader]

6. It's fine.

Basically, any act committed before the effective date of the changes falls under the previous version of the MCM.

[SoCalDem]

4. Translation

[DCKit]

5. OK, fine, give the NCOs and other plebes a break.

The eighteen and nineteen year olds who joined in the last eight years probably had the whole "honor and duty" spiel omitted from their basic training, and they sure as hell didn't get that training "in country".

However, officers are supposed to know what constitutes an illegal order and no regime can prosecute an illegal war if all their officers refuse to carry out illegal orders. Sure, a few generals got fired for not towing the party line, but each member of the armed forces takes an oath to defend the Constitution, not the policies of a rouge regime.

Additionally, those who sought to approve torture by having legal opinions custom crafted by toadies, are doubly guilty and need to be held to account. A legal opinion is NOT the law, and the law says torture is illegal. Always has, always will.

Off to the Hague, Motherfuckers.

[jmowreader]

7. I downloaded the new Manual for Courts-Martial...oh god...

There's nothing about war crimes in the new amendments. (It was already in there.) What he's actually done is imposed a lot of the inflexibility of the civilian justice system on the military one.

As far as I can tell, the biggest change is in Article 134. All soldiers love Article 134, the "General Article." It used to read "any crime not covered in the preceding Articles (Article 77 through Article 133)" is to be punished under it. A lot of commanders wouldn't use it--they could fit any crime into the specific articles. Bush has made Article 134 really fucking long, without justification in some cases. Example of unjustified padding: making and uttering a worthless check by dishonorably failing to maintain funds. It's an unjustified addition to Article 134 because bad checks were already covered in Article 123a. He's also added "burning with intent to defraud" to Article 134 when Article 126 already covered arson, and "sodomy" to Article 134 when Article 125 always covered sodomy. They also added "wrongful cohabitation." Okay, I can see this one: people HAVE done this, mostly to draw rations and quarters allowances they're not entitled to. Apparently Article 107 (false official statements) isn't good enough anymore. Escaping from correctional custody is now illegal, but it was covered under Article 105 (misconduct as a prisoner). They've got negligent homicide in there, but obviously adding it to Article 118 (murder) or 119 (manslaughter) wouldn't work. Pandering and prostitution, including frequenting prostitutes, is now covered. I wonder, though: if you're stationed in Germany or you travel to Nevada, where prostitution is legal, will they charge you with buying sex? One of the requirements is that the activity be "wrongful,' which it's not if local law allows it. Article 134 also covers "offenses against or by a sentinel," which is EXACTLY what Article 113 (misbehavior of a sentinel) covers.

But my favorite is "abusing a public animal." One of Sergeant Wimer's favorite stories was from when he was stationed in Panama. The base commander was in love with drug dogs. He'd send them through the barracks every couple of days looking for marijuana. All the troops knew if you were going to smoke that shit you were supposed to go off post to do it so there wouldn't be any weed in the barracks, and you should leave a change of clothes at one of your married friends' homes. Go out, get stoned, then shower and change before going back on post. The dog never found a thing but that didn't stop the harassment. So...they pooled their money, bought a pint of opium oil, mixed it into paint and floor wax, and had the GI party to end all GI parties. When they were done, they had freshly painted walls throughout the barracks, the floors shone like glass, and they could never bring a drug dog in there again. They tried it three times and the poor thing passed out every time they tried it. Now, that would be illegal.