![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mandragoraI was helping out someone who posted a question about courts martial of British Army officers on the ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
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 thelittle_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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 22 April 2006 19:58 (UTC)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.