The U.S. military retains legal jurisdiction over members of the armed services and prisoners of war, as well as--more controversially--unlawful combatants and those who contest their status as combatants. In the years after 9/11, much of the discussion on military justice has focused on the use of military jurisdiction to detain and try suspected combatants. However, issues such as sexual assault within the armed forces and the high-profile court-martial of Pfc. Chelsea Manning continue to remind us that questions of military justice are not confined to military detentions and commissions--indeed, far from it.
Latest in Military Justice
We summarized the 531-page, heavily redacted report by the inspector general of Australia’s Defense Force alleging war crimes by Australian special forces in Afghanistan.
New data is available about U.S. military sympathy payments. What are these payments? What does the data reveal?
On Tuesday, June 16, at 12:00 p.m., The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel will hold a hearing on racial disparity in the military justice system. The subcommittee will hear testimony from Ret. Col.
There’s a new expert report out on potential reforms to the military justice system. The report raises some good ideas but has its flaws.
A new expert report recommends that the military justice system change who decides whether a particular service-member should be court-martialed. That would be a major shift.
Experts in military justice on Monday submitted a report to the Senate and House Committees on Armed Services arguing that the Defense Department should alter the command-based structure of the military justice system by removing the authority of commanders to determine in individual cases whether felony-level charges are brought. Under their proposal, military prosecutorial discretion to decide whether to charge a defendant with a felony would be vested in a high-level Judge Advocate General officer outside of the chain of command.
The president’s use of his Article II power to pardon war crimes raises fundamental issues of the rule of law.
The dispute between Defense Secretary Mark Esper and former Navy Secretary Richard V. Spencer may be at the forefront of the news cycle, but the real story is the corruption of military good order and discipline.
Some commentators have advocated for the National Security Council staffer to be court-martialed for obeying a congressional subpoena over the objection of the executive branch. But there are a number of problems with this argument.
In the runup to Memorial Day, numerous writers denounced President Trump’s purported plans to grant clemency to several U.S. service members accused or convicted of war-zone offenses.