Dempsey, Dunford, and the right response to Trump's military pardons
By: Tom Rogan - Washington Examiner - 5-22-19
RE:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...litary-pardons
Media speculation is growing that President Trump will pardon a number of military personnel convicted of breaching the U.S. Code of Military Justice in Afghanistan and Iraq. But there's a right way and a wrong way for active and retired senior military officers to deal with that possibility.
The wrong way is what former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey said on Tuesday. Tweeting that, "Absent evidence of innocence or injustice the wholesale pardon of US service members accused of war crimes signals our troops and allies that we don’t take the Law of Armed Conflict seriously. Bad message. Bad precedent. Abdication of moral responsibility. Risk to us. #Leadership."
While I broadly agree with Dempsey that a wholesale pardon would be the wrong action, he is the wrong messenger. Don't take my word for it, take Dempsey's. In a 2016 essay, Dempsey warned against retired general officers engaging in political advocacy. As Dempsey put it then, retired officers should avoid political advocacy because "we have a special role in our democracy, and because we will serve whoever is elected ... So retired generals and admirals can but should not become part of the public political landscape. That is, unless they choose to run for public office themselves. That’s different. If they choose to run themselves, they become accountable to voters. In simply advocating -- or giving speeches -- they are not."
The Dempsey of 2016 was right, and 2003 Dempsey's aggressive combat leadership was right, but 2019 Dempsey is wrong. As with former CIA Director John Brennan, Dempsey should keep his views to himself and protect the integrity of the organization he served.
Still, there are good reasons to oppose Trump's mass-pardoning here. Some of the named individuals are deserving of a pardon (as are the Marine snipers convicted of mistreating Taliban bodies), and others deserve a trial before a pardon is considered. But a mass pardon would shred the principle of military law. There is a special absurdity in the suggestion that a Blackwater contractor convicted of shooting numerous civilians might be pardoned.
So what should be done if Trump does pardon all these individuals at once?
Well, I believe that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joe Dunford should, and will, consider resigning. The top ranking U.S. military officer will regard multiple simultaneous presidential pardons as fundamentally detrimental to the U.S. military's integrity. This is not to say that Dunford will become a Trump critic if he does resign, or even that he will openly say why he resigned. The former Marine combat infantry officer is not a politician: He's an old-school Marine, dedicated to the Corps and its central ethos of honor. He is also a veteran of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and keenly aware of the challenges his Marines faced in both theaters.
Dunford may quit out of concern for the Corps' honor, were Trump to pardon all those under consideration. Honor is integral to the Marine identity: imbued in officer candidates from their first day at Quantico. I doubt Dunford would risk its degradation.
Yes, as commander-in-chief, Trump has absolute authority to pardon any military service member he wishes. Dunford could not and would not challenge that authority. Any quiet resignation would simply reflect his defense of honor. Dunford's replacement could then continue serving Trump in the best possible faith.
For more on the USMJ re: Well, I believe that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joe Dunford should, and will, consider resigning. The top ranking U.S. military officer will regard multiple simultaneous presidential pardons as fundamentally detrimental to the U.S. military's integrity. This is not to say that Dunford will become a Trump critic if he does resign, or even that he will openly say why he resigned. The former Marine combat infantry officer is not a politician: He's an old-school Marine, dedicated to the Corps and its central ethos of honor. He is also a veteran of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and keenly aware of the challenges his Marines faced in both theaters.
Dunford may quit out of concern for the Corps' honor, were Trump to pardon all those under consideration. Honor is integral to the Marine identity: imbued in officer candidates from their first day at Quantico. I doubt Dunford would risk its degradation.
Yes, as commander-in-chief, Trump has absolute authority to pardon any military service member he wishes. Dunford could not and would not challenge that authority. Any quiet resignation would simply reflect his defense of honor. Dunford's replacement could then continue serving Trump in the best possible faith.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice: Articles 1 thru 146 can be found here.
RE:
http://www.ucmj.us/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The History of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
History: On 30 June 1775, the Second Continental Congress established 69 Articles of War to govern the conduct of the Continental Army.
Effective upon its ratification in 1789, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution provided that Congress has the power to regulate the land and naval forces. On 10 April 1806, the United States Congress enacted 101 Articles of War (which applied to both the Army and the Navy), which were not significantly revised until over a century later. The military justice system continued to operate under the Articles of War until 31 May 1951, when the Uniform Code of Military Justice went into effect.
The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951. The word Uniform in the Code’s title refers to the congressional intent to make military justice uniform or consistent among the armed services.
The current version is printed in the latest version of the Manual for Courts-Martial (2008), incorporating changes made by the President (executive orders) and National Defense Authorization Acts of 2006 and 2007.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This thread will allow you to review those issues:
RE:
http://www.ucmj.us/about-the-ucmj
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. Chapter 47), is the foundation of military law in the United States. The UCMJ applies to all members of the Uniformed services of the United States: the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, Navy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps, and Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. The Coast Guard is administered under Title 14 of the United States Code when not operating as part of the U.S. Navy. However, commissioned members of the NOAA and PHS are only subject to the UCMJ when attached or detailed to a military unit or are militarized by presidential executive order.
Members of the military Reserve Components under Title 10 of the United States Code (Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Forces Reserve, and Air Force Reserve) or Title 14 of the United States Code, Coast Guard Reserve when not operating as part of the U.S. Navy, are subject to the UCMJ if they are either (a) active duty Full-Time Support personnel such as FTS or Active Guard and Reserve (AGR), or (b) traditional part-time reservists performing either (a) full-time active duty for a specific period (i.e., Annual Training, Active Duty for Training, Active Duty for Operational Support, Active Duty Special Work, One Year Recall, Three Year Recall, Canvasser Recruiter, Mobilization, etc.), or (b) performing Inactive Duty (i.e. Inactive Duty Training, Inactive Duty Travel and Training, Unit Training Assembly, Additional Training Periods, Additional Flying Training Periods, Reserve Management Periods, etc., all of which are colloquially known as “drills”).
Soldiers and airmen in the National Guard of the United States are subject to the UCMJ only if activated in a Federal capacity under Title 10 by an executive order issued by the President. Otherwise, members of the National Guard of the United States are exempt from the UCMJ. However, under Title 32 orders, National Guard soldiers are still subject to their respective state codes of Military justice.
Cadets and midshipmen at the United States Military Academy, United States Naval Academy, United States Air Force Academy, United States Merchant Marine Academy, and United States Coast Guard Academy are also subject to the UCMJ. On the other hand, Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) cadets and midshipmen are by law exempt from the UCMJ (even while on active duty for training such as CTLT, LTC, LDAC, or while attending various training schools such as Airborne School, Air Assault School, Mountain Warfare School, etc.).
Members of military auxiliaries such as the Civil Air Patrol and the Coast Guard Auxiliary are not subject to the UCMJ, even when participating in missions assigned by the military or other branches of government. However, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary can be called by the Commandant of the Coast Guard into the Temporary Reserve, in which case they become subject to the UCMJ.
Retired members of the uniformed services who are entitled to retirement pay are also subject to the UCMJ, as are retired reservists who are receiving hospital care in the VA system.
Below are the Sub-Chapter(s):
RE: UCMJ Sub-Chapter
01. General Provisions
02. Apprehension and Restraint
03. Non-Judicial Punishment
04. Court-Martial Jurisdiction
05. Composition of Courts-Martial
06. Pre-Trial Procedure
07. Trial Procedure
08. Sentences
09. Post-Trial Procedure and Review of Courts Martial
10. Punitive Articles
11. Miscellaneous Provisions
12. Court of Military Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short ("All Branches") "we all know the UCMJ articles" and what to expect if they are not adhered to.
Boats