Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MikeinIraq
Logically, the Army probably figured that they couldnt court martial them. That means there was at least a shred of validity to their claim.

That's completely false and the opposite of the facts. An Article 15 is offered in lieu of a court martial. If the soldier is offered an Article 15 and refuses it (he has that option), he can be court martialed under the same charges. An Article 15 must meet court-martial criteria before it is proffered. The fact that the soldiers accepted the Article 15 means that the charges were rock solid. If they were not, all one would have to do would be to refuse the Article 15 and walk away with no court martial and no additional punishment. What the Article 15 does is save time and money. Both sides win. The government saves the cost and time of a trial and the soldiers get a lesser punishment than they would receive if they had gone to trial.

46 posted on 12/06/2004 8:14:09 AM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: FreedomCalls

Yes but they should have, had the charges been totally true, gone to a courts martial.

They are handing out article 15s over here for smoking while walking for God's sake. The Army wimped out....


87 posted on 12/06/2004 10:02:39 PM PST by MikefromOhio (34 days until I can leave Iraq for good....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson