On 27 January 2010, the House Judiciary Committee marked up the Equal Justice For Our Military Act of 2009. During the markup (available here), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) stated:
[H]aving been in the Army 4 years, having been very familiar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the justice in the military, it is—people in the military do not have the same rights under the Constitution that everybody else does, even though it is constitutional because as the Supreme Court said, you have to have a system where under certain circumstances, people follow orders.
. . . .
They need to have a fair but separate system in order to protect us the way they have for over 200 years.
So I really appreciate the efforts, but it is important to know what it will do to the discipline in the military. There doesn’t need to be this additional system in order to have fairness and constitutionality under the military that we need to protect us.
Today, opposing prosecution of the SEALs, according to this CNN report, “Gohmert said those who bring harm to Americans should not get the same judicial treatment as U.S. citizens. ‘They get all their constitutional rights. Well, we’ve got heroes around who deserve the constitutional rights of an even better caliber. And yes, there are different levels of constitutional rights,’ he said.” Has Rep. Gohmert’s view of the rights that should be accorded U.S. servicemembers tried by court-martial expanded? An enemy combatant tried either in U.S. district court or by military commission would have a right to ultimately seek Supreme Court review of his conviction. Such an enemy combatant would also have a right to appeal his conviction regardless of sentence. Would Rep. Gohmert favor providing those protections to U.S. servicemembers tried by court-martial?