Skip to comments.
Civilian Contractor in Iraq to Face Court-Martial
American Forces Press Service ^
Posted on 05/29/2008 4:28:56 PM PDT by SandRat
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
1
posted on
05/29/2008 4:28:56 PM PDT
by
SandRat
To: 91B; HiJinx; Spiff; MJY1288; xzins; Calpernia; clintonh8r; TEXOKIE; windchime; freekitty; ...
FR WAR NEWS!
If you would like to be added to / removed from FRWN,
please FReepmail Sandrat.
WARNING: FRWN can be an EXTREMELY HIGH-VOLUME PING LIST!!
2
posted on
05/29/2008 4:29:14 PM PDT
by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
To: SandRat; 1stbn27; 2111USMC; 2nd Bn, 11th Mar; 68 grunt; A.A. Cunningham; ASOC; AirForceBrat23; ...
Officials said Ali is being afforded all the same rights, protections and privileges servicemembers receive in military court, including the right to counsel, right to speedy trial, protection against self-incrimination and presumption of innocence. He is represented by military defense counsel. They've GOT to be kidding.
3
posted on
05/29/2008 4:35:38 PM PDT
by
freema
(Proud Marine Niece, Daughter, Wife, Friend, Sister, Cousin, Mom and FRiend)
To: freema
They've GOT to be kidding.No, they're not. Holding civiians, under any circumstances, to the UCMJ is dificult enough. To do so with less than the protections a uniformed servicemember receives under those same rules would be an impossible task. They are proceeding correctly imho...
the infowarrior
To: freema
Nope. They are not kidding.
5
posted on
05/29/2008 4:47:40 PM PDT
by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
To: SandRat; Allegra
6
posted on
05/29/2008 4:53:00 PM PDT
by
RDTF
(my worst nightmare is being on jury duty sequestered with 11 liberals)
To: freema
They've GOT to be kidding. Why would you say that?
7
posted on
05/29/2008 4:54:20 PM PDT
by
Michael.SF.
("They're not Americans. They're liberals! "-- Ann Coulter, May 15, 2008)
To: infowarrior
“No, they’re not. Holding civiians, under any circumstances, to the UCMJ is dificult enough. “
I don’t understand how they can do it. I took an oath and signed a contract when I joined the service, did this guy? Did someone wave a magic wand and now civilians are subject to military law? It just seems weird.
8
posted on
05/29/2008 5:06:44 PM PDT
by
dljordan
To: freema
They've GOT to be kidding. Which protections would YOU take away from military contractors? Do you favor summary execution upon accusation? Would you be willing to be a military contractor if that was the standard?
9
posted on
05/29/2008 5:08:40 PM PDT
by
PAR35
To: dljordan
Did someone wave a magic wand and now civilians are subject to military law? It just seems weird.Read the article. It appears that *someone* has, indeed, "waved a magic wand", that someone being the US Congress. Rightly, or wrongly, and it would take the SCOTUS to figure *that* out, it's now in force, weird, or not. I'm not saying that I agree with this, but my post was that *all* the protections provided for uniformed service mambers under the UCMJ should apply to civilians undergoing actions under the UCMJ as well. There must be only one set of rules...
the infowarrior
To: freema; RDTF
They've GOT to be kidding. No. If a civilian is going to be tried under UCMJ, then the same rights must be afforded.
It's very rare that a civilian gets UCMJ action, but any of us working directly with the military are subject to it and we sign the dotted line acknowledging this prior to deployment.
That being said, I'd sure hate to be in this guy's shoes. We heard about this on the "Iraq Grapevine" at least a couple of months ago. Stabbing a co-worker...well, if he's guilty, he deserves what he gets.
11
posted on
05/29/2008 5:51:27 PM PDT
by
Allegra
(If you lived here, you'd be home by now.)
To: dljordan
Did someone wave a magic wand and now civilians are subject to military law? It just seems weird. Not all contractors are subject to UCMJ, but those of us working directly with the military are. We are also subject to General Order #1 and we have to sign papers acknowledging that and the fact that we are subject to UCMJ.
Sux. :-P
12
posted on
05/29/2008 5:54:23 PM PDT
by
Allegra
(If you lived here, you'd be home by now.)
To: Allegra; Lil'freeper
Allegra is it just the courts-martial portion of UCMJ or are some contractors subject to or non-judicial punishment (article 15) aspects of UCMJ also?
13
posted on
05/29/2008 5:58:42 PM PDT
by
big'ol_freeper
("Preach the Gospel always, and when necessary use words". ~ St. Francis of Assisi)
To: Allegra
I do not agree that civilians should be held under the same laws as the military. Ever.
14
posted on
05/29/2008 6:04:59 PM PDT
by
RDTF
(my worst nightmare is being on jury duty sequestered with 11 liberals)
To: RDTF
Civilian contractors were placed under UCMJ jurisdiction when it was discovered that they were subject neither to US nor Iraqi law - and at least one Blackwater guard allegedly used that jurisdictional hole to go on a shooting spree just for the heck of it.
these contractors are big boys. They've signed contracts agreeing to UCMJ jurisdiction, and are being paid multiple times more what an experienced Soldier earns. It is a small price for them to be subject to the UCMJ.
15
posted on
05/29/2008 6:11:51 PM PDT
by
jude24
(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
To: jude24
most of your post is absolutely false. And I speak from experience. Do you?
16
posted on
05/29/2008 6:13:55 PM PDT
by
RDTF
(my worst nightmare is being on jury duty sequestered with 11 liberals)
To: RDTF
It is completely true. You’re wrong.
17
posted on
05/29/2008 6:15:45 PM PDT
by
jude24
(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
To: jude24
So then no, you don’t speak from experience and haven’t a clue what you are talking about.
18
posted on
05/29/2008 6:19:11 PM PDT
by
RDTF
(my worst nightmare is being on jury duty sequestered with 11 liberals)
To: jude24
"It is a small price for them to be subject to the UCMJ."
Having tried cases under both sets of rules, I would rather be tried under the UCMJ than the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure any day.
19
posted on
05/29/2008 6:22:56 PM PDT
by
joebuck
(Finitum non capax infinitum!)
To: RDTF
Bull. I just don’t crow my bona fides.
20
posted on
05/29/2008 6:32:16 PM PDT
by
jude24
(Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson