Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
For those who descry the efforts of proponents for change in the military justice system, yesterday could be thought of as a historical reminder that change is hard to achieve.
On 12 April 1633, the Roman Catholic church began it’s heresy inquisition of Galileo.
CAAFLog has a rant today (one of his many and always meaningful), but it’s well worth considering. So before the Tory’s hold their auto da fé on DHS, I have an additional money related question (one I’ve been asking since 1991), why do we need three JAG schools, why can’t the Army take single service responsibility. There are many areas where one of the Services has single service responsibility (for example military confinement facilities). The idea of differences in Service approaches to issues (and a similar argument to the multiple CCA’s) is just that, an argument. Having spent the last nine years since retiring from the Navy practicing in Navy, Marine, Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, courts, I’ve yet to see a situation where there is so much Service difference that a reasonably competent teaching staff can’t address it. And if it’s such a problem, do what the Armed Forces Staff College does, have “Services Week,” either at the beginning (as AFSC does) or the end.
To go back to CAAFLog’s point about appellate courts. If the Services being “different” is justification, there is anecdotal evidence that such an argument is not very persuasive. When the military had facilities in Panama it was not uncommon for Navy and Army judges to try cases from the other Service. I’m fairly certain a historian could uncover intervening cases up to today. And for example we have an Army trial judge presiding over an Air Force court-martial.
So, like DHS I think a purple CCA is achievable, but I also think the same goes for training schools.