Blog powered by Typepad

« Lawyers - heh! | Main | The Sunday Rumble: 29.3.15 »

Saturday, 28 March 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It could end up being the case that the CO says march in the next guilty bastard Sgt Major.

Actually the Article 32 (UCMJ Investigation) was completed in October.

Since, Susan G.[enius] Rice, she of such "intellectual gifts"

has been "studying the results."


One of the little technicalities of US Military Justice is that any one subject to the code can file charges against any other person subject to the code, which in a felony case must result in an article 32 hearing. The goal being to prevent arbitrary action by commanders (in chief) since the lowest private can raise the question to very high visibility. This is seldom done, but on a case like this it was pretty certain that if charges were not brought in the normal procedure some one was going to swear out the charges.

Hank, I hope you're well.

(& thank Al Gore for inventing the Internet - wishing he'd waited though til I'd sold off my voluminous texts on the UCMJ!)

"In order for military charges and specifications to be referred to trial by General Court-Martial, the case must first be considered in an Article 32 investigative hearing (UCMJ Article 32 and RCM 405). In an Article 32 investigation, an appointed Investigating Officer considers the case (witnesses and evidence) and makes non-binding recommendations about his/her view of the truth of the allegations, how the case was charged, and how the case should be resolved (a court-martial or some other course of action). These non-binding recommendations are then considered in the referral decision. An Article 32 hearing is not required for a Special Court-Martial.

An Article 32 Investigating Officer can make many different recommendations. For instance, the Investigating Officer can recommend that the case proceed to a General Court-Martial, that charges be amended or added, that the case proceed to Special Court-Martial, that alternative dispositions (such as administrative discharge, resignation, or nonjudicial punishment) be considered, or that the case be dropped altogether; however, again, this recommendation is not binding."


I am well, and you I hope.

You are right of course, the point being that even if an article 32 recommended doing nothing, the fact that there would be one could be one greatly limits the opportunities to sweep things under the rug.

I am afraid I threw my USMJ stuff in the trash long ago, so I guess it is good Al Gore invented the internet.

The comments to this entry are closed.