![[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: 11 May 2006 09:05 (UTC)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!
no subject
Date: 11 May 2006 21:50 (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 11 May 2006 23:27 (UTC)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!
no subject
Date: 23 May 2006 17:20 (UTC)Morning is definitely a good time for some of us. *g*
Am going to go and friend you back now.