Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mongrel]

The UCMJ is pretty similar to civilian law in a lot of cases, but at the same time can be very old fashioned and harsh.

Yeah. that's what I'd gathered anytime something came up that invoked it, which is precisely why I'm wondering what will happen in this case because this guy is pretty clearly not all there.

[McDohl]

C-Chan's got it right, but I don't really think there's much in the way of insanity defense in the UCMJ.  You'd have to look in the JAG Manual for that.  Most of the UCMJ is maximum allowable punishment for particular crimes.

The entire text of the UCMJ.

[Romosome]

Further interestingness: Heroic civilian cop took town Maj. Hasan in spite of being wounded herself.

Well, there's your TV movie-of-the-week right there.

the fun part is that she wouldn't be allowed to serve in combat

[Detonator]

The UCMJ is pretty similar to civilian law in a lot of cases, but at the same time can be very old fashioned and harsh.

Yeah. that's what I'd gathered anytime something came up that invoked it, which is precisely why I'm wondering what will happen in this case because this guy is pretty clearly not all there.

You have to be pretty crazy to go on a homicidal shooting spree, but what difference does it make?  You seem intent on making the "he's definitely insane" distinction, Mongrel, so I'm wondering how you think that applies in this case, if you think it does.

[Mongrel]

The UCMJ is pretty similar to civilian law in a lot of cases, but at the same time can be very old fashioned and harsh.

Yeah. that's what I'd gathered anytime something came up that invoked it, which is precisely why I'm wondering what will happen in this case because this guy is pretty clearly not all there.

You have to be pretty crazy to go on a homicidal shooting spree, but what difference does it make?  You seem intent on making the "he's definitely insane" distinction, Mongrel, so I'm wondering how you think that applies in this case, if you think it does.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I'm taking the premise that we can all generally agree that this man is not mentally competent*. In civilian courts, this can lead to a variety of outcomes. Because this man is a high-ranking officer in the US military, those avenues will likely be closed to him.

I was (and am) genuinely curious as to what will happen. As SCD pointed out, the response will almost certainly be some variation of "hang him from the yardarm", if not more gruesome. While serving in the military is serious business (in the true sense) and some very harsh justice may soon be meted out, a man that far gone won't really be in a position to appreciate it all that much.

Perhaps they'll kill him, perhaps not. It's a wash anyway. He's permanently lost to the rest of the species and there's a dozen dead soldiers that won't be coming back no matter whether we take the high road or the low. A damned pointless tragedy either way.

*_{If you disagree, then we can debate that. But that's not where I was going.}

[SCD]

I mean, hell, I couldn't even tell you how this would be treated in the Canadian system (SCD that's your cue).

Honestly I haven't seen a precedent out here, although we tend to be a bit more liberal.  I would say 2 years less a day in Club Ed, a really notorious prison, than the other 23-life elsewhere where he might have a chance to go on parole considering it was a one-shot affair. 

That's just guessing however.  We tend really only to throw the book at repeat offenders, and I don't believe it could be the military's problem after the two years less a day, even if they wanted to make him their problem. 

But really this is a lawyer question.  I do not have sufficient background to give anything more than that educated guess.

--

As far as my gut feeling goes, Senior officer in Texas.  A secular-conservative culture in a bible-belt conservative land.  According to some sites, some noncoms are in line for the juice for less.

[TA]

* 850a. ART. 50a. DEFENSE OF LACK OF MENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
(a) It is an affirmative defense in a trial by court-martial that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the accused, as a result of a sever mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of the acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.
(b) The accused has the burden of proving the defense of lack of mental responsibility by clear and convincing evidence.

It's not quite as broad of a defense as is available in criminal trials, but it's definitely there.

[Ted Belmont]

Further interestingness: Heroic civilian cop took town Maj. Hasan in spite of being wounded herself.

Well, there's your TV movie-of-the-week right there.

the fun part is that she wouldn't be allowed to serve in combat

Actually, female soldiers serve in combat all the time. They're simply not allowed to hold combat MOSes.

[Cthulhu-chan]

This is true, although it's kinda funky what with the ladies in the Marines, who are all unofficially infantry regardless of MOS.

[Classic]

I'm sorry, but if you don't explain what that acronym means I'm going to think you're talking about transistors.

Before anyone complains: I read MOS as Metal-Oxide Semiconductor. It's the technology that builds chips in modern computers.

[Kayin]

"Military Occupation Specialties"

[SCD]

So, take an idiot with power.

Take some CIA bunglery, to which one can assend on.

Create a socialist revolution, only to have key industries flop and have reduced access to goods.

Keep spotlight on US, which is slightly increasing US presence to knock out criminal and rebel elements in Columbia.  Kindly decline to mention that you are supporting rebel elements with hardware and intelligence support.

See flop go so far as to create power outages in a gas and oil-exporting nation with the 4th largest river. 

So your popularity dip below 45% for the first time. 

Oh fuck.  What do you do?

Well good news, over the years your preparations in gaining 150k new russian rifles, creating a 20k+ strong paramilitary force and acquiring the latest in Russian Aircraft and Anti-Aircraft hardware leaves you in a pretty good spot for mountain and jungle warfare. 

High time for a short victorious war

I could go on about this in many directions, but if they did, in fact send 15k troops (That's about as much as personnel in the Canadian armed forces, and 150/8 times the escalation against the "us imperialist move of aggression) then I wouldn't be surprised if under these conditions he would engage. 

[Mongrel]

Oh boy, woooo.

Equipment aside, I wouldn't give too much for Chavez's chances. Wow, what an idiot.

Anyway, if they do start shooting, that will be a hell of a brouhaha.

[SCD]

Another theroy is that they may have noticed how ineffectuve SecState Clinton was in Israel the other week when she was tricked by isreali officials so horribly, that even abu mazen gave up.

Between that and just how busy one of the few adults, Robert Gates is, I believe that Chavez is banking on his ape-like sounds would convince USA to abandon columbia, especially considerig the new deal where the modest non combat arm troop increase was involved, there was also the caveat that us forces would not engage in combat missions. 

[Mongrel]

Another theroy is that they may have noticed how ineffectuve SecState Clinton was in Israel the other week when she was tricked by isreali officials so horribly, that even abu mazen gave up.

Between that and just how busy one of the few adults, Robert Gates is, I believe that Chavez is banking on his ape-like sounds would convince USA to abandon columbia, especially considerig the new deal where the modest non combat arm troop increase was involved, there was also the caveat that us forces would not engage in combat missions. 

Well, I'm pretty sure the US doesn't want to actively get into a war in Columbia... but there have been more than enough other places they didn't want to get into a war in either. It's harder to say what will happen here though, because a straight-up invasion by Venezuela would actually be a pretty damn clear case of a foreign aggressor making moves against a sovereign US ally - as opposed to an insurgency or similar.

On the subject of sensiblity, I'd say we're really starting to see more of it from the traditional South American powerhouses, most especially Brazil, and Chile. I think while in the past those more distant neighbours might have been inclined look the other way in this kind of fight, that for the first time ever it's worth asking what some of the larger latin nations might do to cool things down. Or at least help broker a ceasefire if things do come to blows (i.e. if no one can get Chavez to come down off his soapbox).

On the subject of idiot children... what's this about Hilary Clinton allowing herself to be fooled by the Israelis? The most recent story I can find is her calling for an end to all Israeli settlement in a story dated a week ago (which really isn't anything new).

[SCD]

Problem is that with prior experience, Israel is a land of diplomats and the careful selection of the english language.

From the Economist article "Is Israel too strong for Barak Obama?"

Mr Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, made matters worse by actually praising Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, for promising merely to “restrain” Israel’s building rather than stop it altogether, as he was first asked to do. Previously Mrs Clinton had insisted that stop meant stop. There should be no “organic growth” of existing settlements and no exceptions for projects under way. Nor did she specifically exempt East Jerusalem, which Palestinians view as their future capital but which many Israelis see as theirs alone. And she had earlier castigated Israel for demolishing Palestinian houses in the city’s eastern part. Now, in Israel on October 31st, she changed her tune, seeming to acquiesce in Mr Netanyahu’s refusal to meet those earlier American demands and congratulating the prime minister on his “unprecedented” offer to build at a slower rate than before.

Mr Netanyahu’s case is that being “prepared to adopt a policy of restraint on the existing settlements” is indeed a concession. No new settlements would be started, no extra Palestinian land appropriated for expansion. But some 3,000 housing units already commissioned must, he said, be completed. Building must go on in East Jerusalem, he has repeatedly said, as it cannot be part of a Palestinian state.

Mrs Clinton later awkwardly backpedalled, assuring the Palestinians that she still considered all settlements “illegitimate”, while pleading with them to resume talks. That seems unlikely. A storm of abuse raged in the Palestinian and Arab press. Mr Obama, it was widely deduced, had caved in after his own ratings in Israel had slumped, according to some Israeli polls, to as low as 4%. Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Fatah party who presides over the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, expressed extreme disappointment—and continued to insist that talks could not resume until there was a full building freeze.

No one else noticed.  Not even Fox, although if they got their head out of their ass, there just happens to be a gold mine of good (albiet secular) issues to talk about.

[Mongrel]

Yeah, that's a lot of HURRDURR right there.

In spte of all that, I'm actually more hopeful on the MidEast thing than I have been in some time. See, no real peace was ever going to come to pass without both sides agreeing to something and abiding by that agreement.

Now, back when pretty much the whole western world and a good portion of Asia was lined up behind Israel, they were largely free to impose whatever they wanted with little in the way of reprisal. Now people are becoming more aware of the conditions the Palstinians live under and what they've lost (however vague and uneducated that awareness is right now). The ridiculous giant wall also acts a blatant symbol of past human stupiditiesthat are being tragically repeated by Israel.

It's happening excruciatingly slowly, but it's happening nonetheless. Combined with the demographics of  Palestine and Israel, some form of reparation is inevitable*.

*_{Unless the extremists completely take over in Israel, in which case all bets are off and OH GOD, COVER!}

[SCD]

They're not in charge in the knesset, but currently ears on the ground as well as some articles indicate that illegal settlements in the WB are on the rise, and the ultra-conservatives are armed and nasty. 

They usually don't make the media - lack of media freedom in the occupied territories does that.

They are still a major point of contention and the army appears to be reluctant to pull them away (a wise move as they don't enforce all laws, although that does make for a back hole)

I digress, the value of life for an Israeli is much higher than the surrounding Arabs.  The Arabs can lose 20 wars and carry on as if it was and still sit back and press play like nothing ever happened (the dead can come).

The Israelis don't have that luxury, and have nukes.  Right now my hopes are more glum than ever, of course that's only because I'm doing a paper for next week on the Israel Syria bit.  These things happen.

[SCD]

On Iraq,

A prominent anti-war activist gets her due, after years of toil at the side of Petraeus and Odinero by someone in the US media.

[Mongrel]

Nice to see.

I would find it more frightening that after all that's happened in the past 40 years, that the US military seemed to find itself in the same boxed-in echo chamber that prevents even the most basic understanding of the local view... but, bizarrely enough, they seem to have taken the lesson to heart this time - not just from the likes of Sky, but from quite a few people.

That new adaptability and sensibility has easily been the most surprising thing about the Iraq war. It's almost like they want to do their job right and win or something!