Military Law. Uniform Code of Military Justice. Soldier Who Went AWOL on November 3, 1964, Was Absent in "Time of War" and May Not Rely on Statute of Limitations. United States v. Anderson, 17 U. S. C. M. A. 588, 38 C. M. R. 386 (1968)

1968 ◽  
Vol 82 (2) ◽  
pp. 483
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
Uniform Code ◽  
Military Law

Military Law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice

1955 ◽  
Vol 55 (8) ◽  
pp. 1244
Author(s):  
A. Arthur Schiller ◽  
William B. Aycock ◽  
Seymour W. Wurfel
Keyword(s):  
Military Justice ◽  
Uniform Code ◽  
Military Law

Military Systems of Justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Crosbie ◽  
Meredith Kleykamp
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Military ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
Uniform Code ◽  
Military Systems ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
American Case ◽  
Military Law ◽  
Armed Services

Sociologists have largely ignored the study of military tribunals and justice systems. We offer a descriptive overview of military systems of justice intended for use by political and military sociologists, focusing on the case of the United States armed services. We contextualize the principal military systems of justice and provide extended discussions of how the American case connects through formal and informal channels to international legal structures. American military law and justice link three key legal realms: international law on conflict and security at the global level; the so called National Security Constitution at the national level; and the Uniform Code of Military Justice at the institutional level.

Litigating National Security Cases under The United States Uniform Code of Military Justice

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 250-274
Author(s):  
Lieutenant Commander Ursula Smith ◽  
Colonel Daniel J. Lecce
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
National Security ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Military ◽  
Military Rule ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
Uniform Code ◽  
Military Commissions

This paper will discuss classified litigation procedures in United States Military Courts-Martial, governed by Military Rule of Evidence 505 and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The differences between United States Federal Court procedures and United States Military Commissions, governed by the Classified Information Privilege Act (cipa) and Military Commissions Rule of Evidence 505, are also discussed. Finally, best practices and selected military cases regarding espionage are presented.

scholarly journals The Geneva Boomerang: The Military Commissions Act of 2006 and U.S. Counterterror Operations

2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack M. Beard
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Bush Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
Uniform Code ◽  
Military Commissions ◽  
The Military ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Practicable Method ◽  
The U.S

Over five years have passed since President George W. Bush issued the much-criticized order making an obscure device, military commissions, the primary tool for the United States to bring accused Qaeda terrorists to justice. Some legal scholars suggested in the wake of the issuance of that order that military commissions were the only practicable method available to address many of the problems presented by the trial of accused terrorists in civilian U.S. courts. True or not, it is clear that the decision to approach the problem of terrorists primarily in terms of war rather than crime continues to have far-reaching legal consequences. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which found that the military commissions designed by the Bush administration were inconsistent with the requirements of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (U.C.M.J.) and the law of war as incorporated in that statute, the U.S. Congress attempted to fashion a compliant charter for these commissions through the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA).

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

2006 ◽  
Vol 100 (4) ◽  
pp. 888-895
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky ◽  
Peter J. Spiro
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Uniform Code ◽  
Military Commissions ◽  
The Military ◽  
The U.S

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. 126 S.Ct. 2749.United States Supreme Court, June 29, 2006.In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the military commissions established by President George W. Bush were unauthorized by law and inconsistent with both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Rejecting jurisdictional challenges to its resolving the legality of the tribunals, the Court found the military commission proceedings against Hamdan to violate the “uniformity” requirement of the UCMJ, under which military commissions must be governed by the same standards as courtsmartial except where impracticable. The Court also found the tribunals to violate the Geneva Conventions as incorporated by Article 21 of the UCMJ, because the commissions did not qualify as “regularly constituted courts” as required under Common Article 3.

A Treatise on the Military Law of the United States

1898 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 148
Author(s):  
S. H. ◽  
George B. Davis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Law ◽  
The Military

Bulldog decision

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Travis Lee Cyphers ◽  
Julianne Renee Apodaca
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Authentic Leadership ◽  
Ethical Decision ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
Commanding Officer ◽  
Academic Level ◽  
Military Law

Theoretical basis The theoretical basis for this case is a focus on ethical decision-making based upon a decision-making tree proposed by Bagley et al. (2003). Once multiple options are determined as ethical, integrating authentic leadership into the decision-making process can help leaders made difficult decisions. Research methodology The authors conducted extensive research through IBISWorld, EBSCOhost, and academic journals to review ethical decision-making and authentic leadership. The authors successfully piloted the case with over 100 undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in leadership courses. Case overview/synopsis The case describes an ethical decision a young commanding officer must make. A soldier under their leadership has been charged with an inappropriate relationship with a minor. The officer must decide between two actions that are legal within the military justice system. Each decision has ramifications that will significantly affect the organization. Complexity academic level The case is best taught in undergraduate and graduate leadership courses. Course participants do not need a detailed understanding of military leadership or military law to apply fundamental concepts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document