>Now, please explain to me the meaning of the UCMJ, why it is what it is, and your experience with it.....oh, you do not know, and have no experience with it????
Actually I was enlisted for 9 years so I do have some idea.
The UCMJ is the codification of the military law that, supposedly, applies to all members of the armed forces.
I did get an article 15, with the hearing and everything once.
>then what the hell are you doing giving your opinion on military judical matters????????
It’s quite simple: I have the ability to read and to apply logic.
Furthermore, ALL members of the armed forces swear an oath TO THE CONSTITUTION, the Constitution very clearly states that in ALL criminal prosecutions the accused shall “have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor”* to deny the LTC the ability to produce witnesses in his favor is nothing less than this court declaring that the Constitution does not apply to it.
*Amendment 6.
The right to have witnesses is so critical. Somebody once said that a person doesn’t have a right to bring up all kinds of stuff that doesn’t pertain to the charges. When a witness is brought forward at trial and questions are asked that are irrelevant the opposing counsel can object. You don’t stop a witness from appearing because there may be irrelevant questions asked.
This whole farce of a court-martial hinges on Lind ignoring the elements of Article 92, which say that an order is lawful if it is not contrary to the Constitution or laws and is not given by someone acting beyond their authority. Lind said an order is INFERRED to be “lawful” if it must be obeyed. That’s not what the actual law says, and she knows it.