Things you learn on LJ

[mandragora]

I was helping out someone who posted a question about courts martial of British Army officers on the little_details LJ community. I was able to assist him on the general law, but not the specifics. However, I do have colleagues who specialise in Army courts martial, so was able to ask one of them for information.

The scenario involved a Major assaulting a Lt Colonel in private, and whether there would be a resulting court martial. In a word, no. The colleague is an ex-Army officer himself and stated categorically that there would be no court martial - unless the Major actually wanted a court martial for some reason, to prove a point. Essentially, because both are officers they're considered to be gentlemen and capable of dealing with the matter on a private basis, by way of an apology or, if sufficiently serious, by resigning his commission.

Similarly, if an officer went AWOL for some reason, when they returned they could simply resign their commission and that would end the matter. Courts martial of officers are rare - the recent court martial of the Army doctor who refused to return to Iraq could most probably have been avoided as he could have resigned his commission. However, the doctor actually wanted the court martial because he wanted to raise the issue as to whether the Iraq invasion was illegal. It turned out to be pretty expensive for him. I'm still wincing at the 8 years prison sentence.

What interests me is how the British Army system compares with the American. On the little_details LJ, in response to the question posted there was an answer from someone who stated that they are US military, and said that in a similar case in the US, detention and dishonourable discharge would be would be likely though death would be a real possibility for charges of this magnitude. Eeek! Contrast that with the British way of allowing quiet resignation of commissions. I'm not certain, though, whether what the poster states would be the actual result in the US military. Are quiet resignations of officers not allowed, I wonder?

Why am I wondering about the US military? Oh, it all comes down to SGA, of course. *g* The military presence in Atlantis is multi-national and therefore presumably there must be some leeway in the regulations, especially if there's significant differences in the way that different countries deal with breaches of discipline in their armed forces.

I do think it likely, though, no matter what the regulations state, there is room for interpretation. For example, the interesting discussion about the impact of DADT here shows that its impact is not (usually) quite as bad as one might think.

Comments

[fledge.livejournal.com]

Good God! Quite apart from anything else, I'm amazed that they would impose the death penalty for anything less than murder or repeated aggravated offence. But I wonder if they are at an elevated state of security because it's wartime, and whether the British army would be more severe during times of war?

As far as Atlantis goes, I've always supposed that Elizabeth would deal with any transgressions as she saw fit, but that if she wished to hand them to the appropriate authorities back on Earth, then they would be dealt with accordingly. This might well give her pause if she knew it would result in the death penalty, and did not herself believe the offence warranted such harsh punishment.

But that always begs the question, what if someone else were to report what happened; would the Earth authorities be allowed to intervene if they felt that the case had not been dealt with appropriately?

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

Good question. And, which Earth authorities. For example, if the transgression involves a Canadian officer, shouldn't the Canadian authorities be the one to deal with him/her? Ditto British, Italian etc.

I'm assuming the scientists will have signed contracts that will state what law applies to them, but the military personnel must be different.

I agree with you that it makes sense that Elizabeth deals with transgressions, but there must be some sort of appeals procedure. Question is, what?

Re US military versus British military, given that the US actually has the death penalty then it's possible that it may be applicable in situations less than murder and particularly in wartime. The same doesn't apply to British military personnel, given that there is no death penalty. So far as I'm aware the same regulations apply whether during wartime or not, but more leeway is given to people who are under fire etc.

Although, yes, I imagine refusing an order under fire is regarded more seriously than when at peace. Will have to ask the assistant - he's not served whilst we've officially been at war, but did serve in Bosnia and was under fire whilst there.

[fledge.livejournal.com]

I was thinking the authorities who had legal jurisdiction over them. I don't imagine that the USAF would either want or have the authority to discipline an RAF pilot, for example. As for the laws and contracts etc., I imagine there must be similar precedents in the here and now - for example in Iraq, among the mixed Forces personnel, civilian consultants, media etc. But I wonder if Elizabeth, as elected leader of a *pioneer* expedition that initially was not guaranteed to return, doesn't hold the highest power in this situation? She indicated as much to Kavanagh in 38 Minutes. Has this power been revoked since they re-established contact with Earth?

Certainly the first question that leapt into my mind after a certain infamous episode was what Kavanagh could do to pursue a grievance against Elizabeth for sanctioning his torture. Is there anywhere - like the European Court of Human Rights - an American can appeal? I really, really despise the fact that they got away with that in a family show. Our heroes should NOT be torturing their own people, much less getting away with it scott free.

My surprise was less at the death penalty (I know they have it) than the circumstances under which it could be applied. But I know military discipline is often harsher than civilian - whatever country you look at - so I could see a situation where a crime that didn't warrant the death penalty under US civil law would meet it under military law. And there again, I wonder if a member of an international expedition would have recourse to any kind of appeal - for sanctuary, for example!

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting question whether there's anywhere to appeal to. The US ultimate court is the Federal Court and that's it. I think that's one of the reasons why the US sanctions things that no European country will get away with.

Our heroes should NOT be torturing their own people, much less getting away with it scott free.

Oh, I don't know. I think it makes them more interesting - shades of grey and all that. Maybe it's because I was in HL fandom, where the hero had canonically gone on a revenge spree after Culloden, where he killed men whilst their children were watching. And Methos, of course, was once Death on a Horse.

My view on the SGA characters is that they're essentially good people thrown into a scary and stressful situation, and sometimes they cope well with it and sometimes they don't. Re Kavanagh, I think they thought that they were most likely dead if they didn't stop the ZPM from overloading - Atlantis would have been destroyed and with the Wraith in the area it's unlikely they'd have been able to escape on the Daedulus. And that's assuming the Daedulus had the capacity to take everyone on board and still make it back to Earth. In other words, they were desperate, the clock was ticking and it was a matter of life and death. In those circumstances even good people do reprehensible things. And no hero is ever all good, you know. They've all got flaws, because they're human. Well, mostly. *g*

I'd have liked to see some real consequences, though, and not the cop out of Kavanagh fainting. However, if he was try and bring a legal claim for damages, given the situation and the fact that he acted like an utter ass, I suspect that even if Atlantis was found to be liable (and I'm not sure given what I've written above how culpable they'd be held to be in the circumstances) I think Kavanagh would receive nominal damages at best.

On the death penalty point, apparently no US military person has been executed since late 50s/early 60s. So I doubt it would be applied in such circumstances (I would find it amazing if no officer has hit another in the intevening period).

Sanctuary - interesting idea. You could write a story using that premise...*g*

[kaseido.livejournal.com]

Fascinating stuff - I may have to check out that community. Thanks!

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

Little details has all sorts of fascinating queries posted on it. I believe that it was featured as one of *the* LJ communities a while ago and had a huge influx of new members then. I've been a member since it was founded and have learnt all sorts of stuff.

[zoerayne]

I suspect that some of the difference in how the US Military and the British Military would deal with offences has to do with their entirely different philosophies. The US Military is based on the concept of taking a recruit, breaking him or her down, and rebuilding him or her as a soldier.

I understand that the philosophy in more civilized nations (Britain, Australia, and Canada come to mind) is different. *g*

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

Oh, I dunno. There's a certain amount of breaking down and rebuilding in the British Military, too. But, according to my assistant, even privates in the British Army are given a certain amount of leeway that US privates aren't. He served alongside US personnel in Bosnia and was quite eloquent on the subject, and the different approaches.

Interestingly, he rates the US Military as absolutely superb combat troops, second to none. But once the fighting is over, in his opinion they were very poor at maintaining the peace, both in Bosnia and now in Iraq. I know the British Army is fairly blunt in stating that the US Army has fucked up the Iraqi situation because of the way they treat the civilian population. An example - it's part of the culture for teenage boys and young men to play chicken with the troops, firing at them but at such an angle and such a distance that they're just not going to hit anything. The British soldiers ignore it. The Americans...don't. They open fire and then go and try and catch the perpetrators, those who survive, that is.

Since there's no intrinsic difference between a British squaddie and a US private (most of them will be decent lads -- and lasses -- who joined the army to make their way in life, learn some useful skills etc), IMO it all comes down to training. The British Army have learnt from Northern Ireland how to not antagonise the locals unduly, but the US troops haven't been taught the same lesson.

And, God, how much between them have our two countries fucked up Iraq? Sigh.

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

Oh, I meant to add that *I'm* not saying that the US Army has fucked up Iraq, BTW (I think those who planned to send in such a low number of troops - Cheney - did that quite comprehensively when not enough troops were sent to keep order in the first place). But I have seen and heard interviews on the TV or radio with former British Army officers who have openly stated that, and my colleague who sees his former Army colleagues (they're all Majors now) at Regimental dinners, at weddings and stag do's etc says that is the commonly held view in the British Army.

But clearly there were several occasions when the British Army managed to fuck-up quite spectacularly all on its own...

[denyeverything1.livejournal.com]

I'm surfing friends friends and saw your post -- hope it is okay to comment.

in a similar case in the US, detention and dishonourable discharge would be would be likely though death would be a real possibility for charges of this magnitude

I'm not military, though I was raised in a military family, and I highly, highly doubt this. No member of the U.S Armed Forces has been executed following court martial since the late 50s or early 60s -- there were no executions even during Viet Nam. The last U.S. soldier to be executed for desertion was in WWII. I could see detention and dishonorable discharge happening under highly aggravated circumstances (particularly an officer on officer assault -- it would be more of a certitude if it was enlisted on officer), but not death.

I do not know the frequency of quiet resignations, or whther they are allowed or not allowed specifically in the code. I would assume that they do happen, though.

As for SGA, from my memory (not always the best source, granted) the civilian/scientific presence in Atlantis is multinational, but the military is all U.S., isn't it? Even more specifically, U.S. Marines. Which makes the odd, ATA-gifted Air Force pilot (Sheppard) stick out even more (which is kind of fun).

Finally,

I do think it likely, though, no matter what the regulations state, there is room for interpretation.

Yes, I think so, too.

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

Of course it's okay to comment and I'm very glad you did, because your comments were very interesting.

What you write - about the fact of no executions since at least the early 60s etc - it makes much more sense that dishonourable dischange and possible detention is the worst that can happen.

I have the impression that the Atlantis military is actually multi-national. For example, Sergeant Campbell (who takes Grodin's place in the gateroom after his death) is a Canadian soldier and I think I've seen British and Italian flags on some soldier's uniforms, as well. There are probably other nationalities I've missed, also. But it's definitely US Marines dominated, so Sheppard still sticks out. Which is, I agree, fun. *g*

[liresius.livejournal.com]

Oh I found you on lj! I used to vist your website in the xfiles days! Interesting discussion and yes, I would think there would have to be leeway with military from different cultures working together. I have heard about moments of friction between ways of doing thing, militarily in Iraq - between Australian orces and ... Uh I think American. But generally I got the impression that the military from other countries was theoretically, under the overall jurisdiction on the Americans, or if not formally then it was unofficially. We don't get to see the details of daily life but I expect there is quite a lot of moment by moment negotiation going on if and when they are cooperating.
Thanks! This was really interesting even if I came too late. Do you mind if I friend you? I'm fanning over sga now - my first really serious fan interest since xfiles!

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

Of course it's okay to friend me - so far as I'm concerned there's no need to ask permission, given that 'friending' (sometimes) means 'LJs I want to read regularly'.

But I'm not sure that you've actually got the right person - I've never been in X Files fandom (read many of the stories but that's it - I never even joined any X Files mailing lists). Sounds like there may be another Mandragora around. Damn! I thought I was unique, as well (not really, it's not that unusual a pseud). *g*

Re the military, the British forces have certainly had friction with the US forces in Iraq. From what I can gather, the British are fairly autonomous, in that they patrol a fairly distinct area. But the British blame the Americans for screwing up the situation post-war. The view seems to be that the Americans are absolutely superb combat troops, but crap at keeping the peace, as they lack the training on how to deal with it. By contrast, the British Army has its hard-won experience in peace-keeping Northern Ireland (after a disastrous start in which it greatly alienated the local community). I've heard the words 'trigger happy' banded about re the US forces; on British radio, television and from serving British Army officers.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Aussies have the same response, actually, thinking of the typical Aussie laid-back and friendly approach.

It's such a pity that the Americans haven't been trained as well in peace-keeping as they have in combat; maybe Iraq wouldn't be as fucked up as it is if they had been. Sigh.

[liresius.livejournal.com]

Thank you re friending! I'm pretty new to lj so I like to ask and it's just nice to introduce oneself too.

I think you're the right Mandragora though (so *g* you're still unique ...)because I checked out your web site from your user info to make sure. I probably didn't explain very well though. It was Olivia's fic that I read on the site you share with a few others.

You comments above are very insightful and I suspect very true. I agree with you about the Australians. That's the impression, I've had from snippets I've heard. Sorry, I'm not more articulate. It's early morning here and i'm not at my most intelligent. I got up early for a change and was surprised to hear the pings of replies coming in from England. Obviously this is the RIGHT time to catch you guys er .. girls!

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

Belated response - am catching up on LK atm. Glad to know that I'm still (sort of) unique! *g* And yes, it sounds as if I'm the right one - Olivia is a fellow Pandoemonium member.

Morning is definitely a good time for some of us. *g*

Am going to go and friend you back now.