Comments on: Courts-Martial Not Good Enough For Congress Gohmert Anymore

By: Friend

Friend — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:44:54 +0000

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?

By: Mike "No Man" Navarre

Mike "No Man" Navarre — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:06:05 +0000

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.

By: Friend

Friend — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:47:17 +0000

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.

By: Cap'n Crunch

Cap'n Crunch — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:26:41 +0000

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.

By: Late Bloomer

Late Bloomer — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 01:00:55 +0000

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

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 00:50:41 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 00:49:04 +0000

It depends.

By: CPT Rob M

CPT Rob M — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:47:08 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:23:34 +0000

At least he wasn’t a Marine.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:55:31 +0000

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

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:30:25 +0000

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