![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I 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.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
