AP is reporting that the Khadr detainee trial will begin again 18 October.
Here is an interesting Washington Post opinion piece about some contractors in Iraq.
THE ALLEGATIONS are sadly familiar by now: The men were picked up by U.S. military forces, locked in tiny cells, deprived of sleep, and subjected to extreme temperatures and loud music.
Attorneys for a disgruntled Army Reserve soldier who fatally shot his supervisor after his vacation was denied say his fasting to meet stringent military weight guidelines left him in a trancelike state.
(This courtroom sketch shows Army Reserve Sgt. Rashad Valmont during military hearing Monday, Aug. 30, 2010 at Fort McPherson, Ga. Attorney William Cassara, not shown, said Valmont was dehydrated, exhausted and delirious when he burst into Master Sgt. Pedro Mercado’s office in nearby Fort Gillem in June and shot him six times. (AP Photo/Richard Miller) (Richard Miller – AP))
CAAFLog previously put out:
FY 2010 DOD Authorization Act includes a provision (Section 506) establishing a five-member “independent panel to review the judge advocate requirements of the Department of the Navy.” The panel “shall carry out a study of the policies and management and organizational practices of the Navy and Marine Corps with respect to the responsibilities, assignment, and career development of judge advocates for purposes of determining the number of judge advocates required to fulfill the legal mission of the Department of the Navy.” Among other specific directives, the bill tells the panel to “review career patterns for Marine Corps judge advocates in order to identify and validate assignments to nonlegal billets required for professional development and promotion.”
The Independent Panel To Review the Judge Advocate Requirements of the Department of the Navy will meet 1 September 2010. Hat tip to CAAFLog.
In the July Army Lawyer Judge McDonald has some comments based on his first year on the bench. (I have noted over the years that it takes most judges about a year to get their relative bearing.) I think we can all echo his comments and find a myriad of examples from our own and other cases. What I wanted to comment on though was something in the section about keeping track. If this is not what Judge McDonald does in trial or had not meant to convey then I’ll be the first to apologize, but . . .
I have presided over more than a few judge-alone cases where I have asked more questions than the trial counsel, including asking witnesses about elements that were not covered by the Government.
At page 39 (emphasis added).
Two items relevant to the internet, privacy, and the Fourth Amendment. Orwell would be . . .
Orin S. Kerr, Applying the Fourth Amendment to the Internet: A General Approach, 62(4) STANFORD L. REV. 1005 (2010).
This Article proposes a general approach to applying the Fourth Amendment to the Internet. It assumes that courts will try to apply the Fourth Amendment to the Internet so that the Fourth Amendment has the same basic function online that it has offline. The Article reaches two major conclusions. First, Fourth Amendment protections online should depend on whether the data is content or non-content information. The contents of communications, like e-mail and remotely stored files, ordinarily should be protected. On the other hand, non-content information, such as IP addresses and e-mail addresses, ordinarily should not be protected. Second, courts should ordinarily require a search warrant if the government seeks to obtain the contents of protected Internet communications. Further, the scope of warrants should be based on individual users rather than individual accounts.
ACCA has released an unpublished opinion in United States v. Delagarza. It’s an odd case.
A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of violating a general order, false official statement, and two specifications of larceny (from his fellow soldiers), in violation of Articles 92, 107, and 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 892, 907, and 921 [hereinafter UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for eighteen months, and reduction to the grade of E-1. The military judge further recommended that only twelve months of confinement be approved, if appellant made full restitution. The convening authority, as an act of clemency, limited confinement to fifteen months, and otherwise approved the adjudged sentence.
In his brief, appellant raises one assignment of error, post-trial ineffective assistance of counsel, which warrants discussion, but no relief. (Emphasis added.)
USNavySEALS.com reports a possible widening of the Wikileaks – Manning investigation:
Former computer hacker Adrian Lamo (who pointed federal authorities to the Army Intelligence analyst who allegedly leaked the documents, Bradley Manning), has implicated two men in the Boston area in the controversy. Lamo shared that these two men have told him through phone conversations that they provided Manning with assistance, in the form of encryption software. They also allegedly taught Manning how to use the software.
Temple Daily News has this odd report concerning John Galligan.
A child molestation case in the Bell County court system more than a decade after the military closed it out took a bizarre turn Friday when a judge ruled the defense attorney must be removed because he could be a potential witness.
Lamar Andre Smith, 41, now of Georgia, appeared before Judge Fancy Jezek of 426th District Court wearing an orange jail-issued jumpsuit on Friday, his attorney John Galligan to his left.
Here is a link to the July Army Lawyer.
“I Won’t Participate in an Illegal War”: Military Objectors, the Nuremberg Defense, and the Obligation to Refuse Illegal Orders
United States v. Blazier: So Exactly Who Needs an Invitation to the Dance?
That is the headline from the Navy Times:
A judge has sentenced a former university student to join the military for a post he made on Facebook that led to a lockdown at Faulkner University here.
Zachary Lambert, 23, agreed to plead guilty to the misdemeanor charge of harassing communications for a message that made reference to a deadly campus attack at Virginia Tech in 2007. He originally was charged with making a terrorist threat, a felony, and placed in jail on $500,000 bond.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
