celticlord2112
Posts: 5732
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kittinSol You have the answer, spot in the middle of the article you linked: "Scott Silliman, a law professor and executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke University, said it has little to do with questioning military decisions and everything to do with whether a service member committed a crime. "From a legal point of view, there is no difference in law between war and peace," he said." Professor Silliman proves Oliver Wendell Holmes' dictum about the law being an ass. He is also wrong. Even if Sgt Nazario's actions were illegal, the controlling legal authority at the time was not Federal law, but the UCMJ. Under the UCMJ, the court of competent jurisdiction is a court martial convened by the Navy Judge Advocate General. When one enlists in the military, he or she swears the following oath: quote:
I (state your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. The charge that is laid upon all service men and women is to conduct themselves at all times in accordance with the orders of their superiors, the regulations, and the UCMJ, in that order of ascending precedence. The federal courts have no standing to hear this matter. They should have declined this prosecution as a matter of law.
_____________________________
|