Posted on 05/12/2010 4:20:21 PM PDT by rxsid
bttt for later
Worthy cause ping
My understanding (and I *absolutely* could be wrong) is that the only "civilian" court to which a court martial conviction can be appealed is the SCOTUS.Assuming that my "understanding" is correct and that you understand that all appeals to a *military* appeals court would be denied (and God help you if you *don't*) please tell me which of the SCOTUS Justices would agree with you.
Ping to some DC area Freepers!
Agree 100%. I hope we get to the point where we CAN actually start contemplating retribution.
I would include in the bunch (those who have given aid and comfort) the media, many members of Congress, the judicial branch from SCOTUS to the lower courts squashing these cases being brought before them, AND let us not disregard the many members here on FR who have constantly trolled these threads seeking to disrupt any investigative work by fellow freepers (you know who you are!)
I'm hoping the crap hits the fan soon and all the above will be prosecuted for treason. Prayers going up.
Bump and sorry can not get to DC till later in the month.
The US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is a civilian court (note the .gov URL) , although it only handles appeals from the military justice system. It is comparable to the US circuit courts, although it opperates a bit differently, mainly due to it's size and caseload. The Judges must be appointed from civilian life, and military retirees (>20 years in the military) are not eligible.
In between the Court Martial and the CAAF is the US Army Court of Crimal Appeals (Or similar Court for AF, Navy, Coast Guard. It is a military court with JAG officers as judges. In many cases appeal to the USACCA is automatic. For example in a case where an officer would be dismissed as part of the sentence/punishment. They could of course not overturn the trial court, but they must hear the appeal.
So in this instance, we'd probalby have an automatic appeal to the military appeals court, and the court above that is a civilian court, but not SCOTUS. So your first assumption is wrong.
Ask jagusafr for details, since he is a Reserve JAG. IIRC he has been or is a military judge, he'd know the details much better than I would.
1. The military appeals system is much as Gato described it: 2 layers of appeal, and under certain circumstances appeal is available from CAAF to SCOTUS. Appeal is automatic where a punitive discharge is approved by the convening authority.
2. Cases are modified or overturned by military appeals courts regularly. Speaking as a former Area and Circuit Defense Counsel, the military courts system is not a kangaroo or rubber stamp process; at trial and appellate levels, it is filled with thoughtful, experienced, very bright people who truly care to see justice done. There are also some rabid prosecutors, some judges who lean toward the prosecution, some who lean toward the defense, and some genuine a**holes.
Hmm - just like the civilian system...
Colonel, USAFR
For example,if the Colonel were to waive his right to a jury,could you imagine any military judge finding the him not guilty of having disobeyed a *lawful* order? I sure can't.I could go on but this amateur lawyer won't bore any longer.Just call me cynical,I guess...particularly when it comes to likes of Hussein & Friends.
And BTW....out of curiosity,what effect,if any,might "Rule 25.1" in the document I'll reference below have in the Colonel's attempt to challenge the lawfulness of the orders that he received based on Hussein's Constitutional ineligibility to serve as POTUS? Yes,I know this is Navy but I assume it applies to all military courts.
http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/Appendix%20B%20-NMCTJ%20Uniform%20Rules%20of%20Practice%207%20FEB.pdf
“isn’t it true that every military judge and every military lawyer (prosecution *and* defense) ultimately answers to the POTUS?”
No, we ultimately answer to the Constitution. The very reason there is now a separate defense chain of command is to avoid the appearance of undue command influence, and we take it very seriously.
Colonel, USAFR
This is ridiculous. Of course there isn’t “mounting evidence to the contrary— to prove his eligibility under the Constitution to hold office.” If there was, why wouldn’t you see it in the Wall Street Journal, on Fox News, National Review, Weekly Standard, in Michelle Malkin’s columns, or The Washington Times?
We cannot allow soldiers to decide themselves whether or not they want to obey orders. If you allow soldiers to do this when Obama is president, then you’ve got to allow it when a Republican is president. Is that what you want?
These sort of posts make Free Republic look bad
Do the officers take an oath to a man (or a woman)? Or, do they take an oath to defend the Constitution "against all enemy's foreign and domestic?"
A defense of "I was only following orders" has been proven at Nuremberg, My Lai and as recently as Abu Ghraib is NOT a valid defense.
Since you believe this is "ridiculous", perhaps you can tell us how someone born a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England could possibly be considered a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S. and therefore eligible to be POTUS an the Commander in Chief of the armed forces.
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.