Ashleigh Banfield "UCMJ=Guilty Until Proven Innocent" (Vanity)

MSNBC Report ^ | March 26, 2003 | TankerKC

[TankerKC]

Two vanities in a week...I'm losing it.

I've caught reports from Ashleigh Banfield twice today on MSNBC. Both times, she made a point of saying that in the military justice system, you are guilty until proven innocent. This just isn’t true…right?

[TankerKC]

Any JAGs out there that can clear this up?

[Bogey78O]

Uh...I think they need to review their facts. What they're describing is the Napoleanic code.

A person doesn't have to prove their innocence in the military. The burden of proof is however lower to convict IMHO.

[dinok]

I don't think that is true. But the particulars of military law are different.

We do need a JAG of this one.

[Red Dog #1]

Ashley is absolutely wrong.

[meisterbrewer]

Clear what up, that she is a moron that doesn't know what she is talking about? Sure, she is, and she doesn't.

The UCMJ says no such thing.

[prairiebreeze]

The only thing I know is that this is the ONLY story that Banfield is reporting on at all. Nothing else. Period.

Prairie

[Bob J]

Tonight we welcomew new show host TOM ATKINS! *GARY ALDRICH Former FBI agent, Author of Unlimited Access Gary will discuss his new book, and America's current political situation.
*PIERRE DE HAIL Former French Special Ops fighter, president of Risk Management International Pierre will offer exceptional insight in the Iraq war, and controversial opinions on France, Europe

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep! HIFI broadband feed HERE! (when available)

Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Send an email to radiofreerepublic-subscribe@radioactive.kicks-ass.net!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room! OPEN AND CHATTING NOW!

Miss a show?

Click HERE for RadioFR Archives!

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Here's what I found in an online Army manual:

Presumption Of Innocence

Under our legal system, everyone is presumed innocent until a court finds them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A court may make a fair and just decision only after it has heard all the evidence relating to the guilt or innocence of an accused.


Here's the link: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-1/Ch1.htm

[Retrofire]

Bogey is correct. You are not guilty until proven innocent, but there is no trial by impartial jurors either. It's a tribunal of enlisted and officers who are likely to have very strong feelings about things like treason.

The net result is that there is nobody in the military who hasn't heard about this traitor now, and unless the evidence against him is very flimsy, he has very little chance of getting acquitted.

But no, you are not guilty until proven innocent, but having been at the business end of military justice a time or two in my youth, it sure felt that way. Heh-heh.

[meisterbrewer]

I'm JAG, sort of. I've been picked up by the Navy JAG Corps, but don't go active duty until October. Still have six weeks of law school left.

Plus, I did ten years as a sub officer.

She has no idea what she is talking about.

[DugwayDuke]

I'm no JAG, but as a part of military training which was extensive I've had many hours on the UCMJ. She's full of crap. The UCMJ is completely consistent with the US Constitution.

[jwalsh07]

UCMJ

[Malesherbes]

Banfield is Canadian. Maybe she's confusing our army with her own.

[Fury]

What is an Ashleigh Banfield? It sounds like a fake TV name.

[cynicom]

Consistent with the constitution? Not really...What are "peers" to an enlisted person?

[meisterbrewer]

The military justice system is designed to be able to work in a dynamic environment, for instance in a battlefield. Something that the civilian justice system doesn't have to do.

So, there are different levels available, like non-judicial punishment (NJP), where the rules of evidence are different and the conduct of the trial. But, to protect individuals, anyone who is offered NJP can opt for a courts martial. Also, the punishments are limited.

But, when a courts martial is convened, it works much the same as a regular civilian trial.

[TADSLOS]

I'm not a JAG, but I know from experience that this is B.S. Every serviceman is entitled to a fair hearing, consult with counsel, review of charges etc...The trial by courts martial process differs from civilain criminal proceedings by how it proceeds, either by Special Courts Martial or by Summary Courts Martial, which defines who sits as a jury.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Banfield is guilty of violating Articles 115 and 134. The 101st should throw her Cannuck a** in a cell and throw away the key.

[pnz1]

Anyone see her report in which she stated one of the injured was a JAG?

[A Simple Soldier]

Not a JAG, but a former company commander who exercised legal authority under the UCMJ.

If anything, soldiers have more due process than civilians and are certainly afforded top-notch counsel. You cannot be a Trial Defense Service (defense) attorney in the military without first being a Judge Advocate (prosecutor).

The major difference is that the standard for conviction at a court martial is not unanimity, but either 2/3 or 3/4. I do not have my Manual for Court Martials handy (currently in storage from my last move).