. . . well at least when three Navy SEALs are being court-martialed.  In addition to the comparison that CAAFlog made of Rep. Louie Gohmert’s (R-Tex.) statements about military justice, here, that seem to indicate support for the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2009, he made other comments that we’d like to highlight.  Compare Rep. Gohmert’s statements, link here, about the military justice system Thursday at the press conference involving the 3 Navy SEALs:

The very people who can sign off and make sure charges take place or go away are the very people who hand pick the jurors,” Gohmert said.  “There’s no random selection. You get the jurors that the people that sign off on the charges pick for you. …What we have seen too much in the military in recent years, it’s become very political.

With his statements only 3 weeks ago, here, about courts-martial in the context of the trials of 9-11 detainees:

The Army taught me that defendants in a military court do not have the same rights as defendants in a U.S. district court. No one screamed that our military should be tried only in a district court. That is because the military system was constitutionally created by Congress. Our Constitution anticipated a military with more discipline, less right to question, and more command control than a civilian workplace. Military members are afforded “constitutional rights,” but they’re different from civilians’.

And three months before that, here,

To say that these guys cannot get a fair trial is to say that anyone who is tried in a military court does not get a fair trial and that is simply not true. When I was at Fort Benning for four years, there were acquittals there. . . . Those were done under the same UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice], so certainly they can get a fair trial . . .

Now that’s consistency.

11 Responses to “Courts-Martial Not Good Enough For Congress Gohmert Anymore”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Sounds like truth is relative, at least for Rep. Gomert.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Aren’t the conservatives the ones opposed to moral relativism???

  3. Anonymous says:

    At least he wasn’t a Marine.

  4. CPT Rob M says:

    While I enjoy pointing out hypocrisy and double standards as much as the next guy, I think it’s a bit disingenuous to title the post “Court Martial Not Good Enough for Congress Anymore” This is, after all, just a single representative. Even the couple dozen who signed the letter to the CA and SECDEF cannot be considered to represent Congress.

  5. Anonymous says:

    It depends.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Disingenuous is a wee bit strong of a word. Democrats are generally on-board with the changes advocated, it was the Republicans mostly who weren’t as much on-board.

    An alleged assault on an alleged terrorist may have changed all of that…allegedly.

  7. Late Bloomer says:

    Wait…so using the word “disingenuous” is a bit disingenuous?

  8. Cap'n Crunch says:

    While I am the first one who will stand up and say that bad facts should not lead to the enacting of bad law, I personally would not be opposed to a revamp of the military justice system that required the member pool to be selected regionally or nationally on a per-service basis (which the Army has been experimenting with for some time), just as I would not be opposed to opening cert. jurisdiction to military members irrespective of whether CAAF grants review, just as I would not be opposed to allowing for appellate review before the service courts in any contested SPCM or GCM case regardless of sentence (and allowing an accused to knowingly and voluntarily waiving such review in an appropriate plea bargain), just as I would not be opposed to a few other worthy tweaks (such as limiting the government’s ability to challenge the credentials of an expert it supplies; imposition of a notice and demand requirement in drug cases to deal with Melendez-Diaz).

    If Congress believes that the SEALS need additional protections for the protection of their rights, then those same rights should extend to all service-members.

  9. Friend says:

    I love the First Amendment and discussion, even more when you don’t disagree with me.

    I also love MOC/the press/the media/the bloggers that have no idea what the military is all about having never served and think watching The Guns of Navarone on TBS or Breaker Morant qualifies them to make these lofty judgments about war, peace and military justice.

  10. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    Friend:
    Just to be clear, I fully admit that Rep. Gohmert knows about the military and military justice from his service as an Army judge advocate (1978-82). But, I will have to also admit that his background is exactly why I blogged about his public statements.

  11. Friend says:

    Mr No Man: The good congressman practiced under the old manual. I get concerned where he intimates that military justice is some meager lesser form of justice (used loosely here) meted out in some tent, trench or fan room by burly MPs, APs, or MAAs without the basic protections afforded under the Constitution.

    How many of you bloggers even practiced under the old manual anyway?