Military types and Legal Eagles: Questions for you...

[texpatriot2004]

What's the purpose of amending the Manual for Courts Martial? What do you think about the sealing of envelopes in this context?

Changes as per recent Exec. order:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051014-1.html

This is one change:

<snip>

"Rule 1103A. Sealed exhibits and proceedings.

(a) In general. If the record of trial contains exhibits, proceedings, or other matter ordered sealed by the military judge, the trial counsel shall cause such materials to be sealed so as to prevent indiscriminate viewing or disclosure. Trial counsel shall ensure that such materials are properly marked, including an annotation that the material was sealed by order of the military judge, and inserted at the appropriate place in the original record of trial. Copies of the record shall contain appropriate annotations that matters were sealed by order of the military judge and have been inserted in the original record of trial. This Rule shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12958, as amended, concerning classified national security information.

(b) Examination of sealed exhibits and proceedings. Except as provided in the following subsections to this rule, sealed exhibits may not be examined.

(1) Examination of sealed matters. For the purpose of this rule, "examination" includes reading, viewing, photocopying, photographing, disclosing, or manipulating the documents in any way.

(2) Prior to authentication. Prior to authentication of the record by the military judge, sealed materials may not be examined in the absence of an order from the military judge based on good cause shown.

<snip>

[BeHereNow]

1. In summary- yes, I got your PM-

Complete squelching of ALL dissent in
military ranks.
Complete secrecy surrounding any and all evidence
of war crimes.
Think of the ACLU suit for the release of the
unreleased torture photos and videos.

BHN

[texpatriot2004]

2. Does this affect civilians directly in anyway? n.t

[BeHereNow]

3. Well, in that they are proposing martial law-

to deal with "disasters."
Yes.
Look at the big picture.

BHN

[MADem]

9. Yeah, there is no way a reporter or citizen can access that info

No FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) ability to find out what happened. Kangaroo Court, you will never know....

[greyl]

76. I don't think it says that.

If I'm wrong, please educate me.

[MADem]

78. If evidence in a CM is sealed, you cannot get at it, is how I read it

No FOIA, no nada. It is like juvenile records, you can't get 'em.

[cynatnite]

82. And can be reversed by a military judge...

It can happen early on or during the appeal process.

[MADem]

85. But YOU cannot look at it without the say so of the convening authority

or other competent authority listed in the EO. If the appeals process is exhausted, the stuff goes in a black hole.

Thus, if photographs, letters, film, video of anything disturbing is entered into a trial as evidence, and appeal fails, well, POOOF, they are GONE. No copies, no duplicates, no screen shots, no nada. Lock and key. Like it never happened. Guess we cannot handle the truth...

This sure isn't a sunshine type directive.

[cynatnite]

86. The appeals process is a lengthy one...

and given the variety of military judges there are I don't find this too alarming.

Keep in mind, this sort of thing has been around for years. Evidence gets sealed and unsealed for one thing or another. The military will do it, then a military judge will undo it and so on.

The UCMJ is a pretty thick book and I don't see any reason to get worked up over some changes that have already been in effect well before bush and his minions took control.

Research it and you'll see.

[MADem]

89. I do

I used to refer to the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts Martial on a fairly frequent basis during my career, and I never saw this coming down the pike until the Monkey took office.

This seems to be all about preventing another Lindy England/naked pyramid type expose. Lift the rug, and sweep it all under it. Call it all evidence, and wrap it up tight.

Bush signed that EO on the 14th of this month. This addedum was not part of the UCMJ/MCM prior to that.

[cynatnite]

94. I wasn't talking about this particular addedum...

This type of thing has been going on a long time and I find it rather humorous that people are just now getting upset over it.

[MADem]

100. This particular addendum is cause for concern, It severely limits the

Freedom of Information Act access to anything that they suddenly decide is evidence in a courts martial. It essentially puts up a wall preventing access by journalists or other interested parties from accessing this information at all, and appears to trump FOIA. It is a legal black hole, and I find it very troubling.

Guess the ACLU will have an even tougher time than they are presently having: http://www.aclu.org/International/International.cfm?ID=13962&c=36%0D%0D

[cynatnite]

102. That's because of two words...

National security.

People should have been troubled long before this since it's not an uncommon to use those two words to squash evidence in military hearings.

The ACLU has been using the FOIA for sometime to access information from the government and two words have been used time and time again to deny them. National security.

This doesn't change how the government operates.

[MADem]

114. National embarrassment, more like

This is all about getting rid of inconvenient truths by using a device to cloak them. You can throw a ham sandwich into evidence at a courts martial, and per this rule, that ham sandwich will be locked away, never to be seen by a reporter wanting to investigate what role the sandwich had in the trial. The ham sandwich does not have to be classified, does not have to have NATIONAL SECURITY SENSITIVE INFO stamped on it, once it goes into evidence, they can keep it out of sight and out of mind.

Near as I can tell, you don't need a conviction to keep the thing hidden, and the convening authority does not have to tell you WHY you cannot see it, either. It is a big black hole...

[cynatnite]

115. I'm not disagreeing with you on that aspect...

There is the potential for evidence the public has a right to know to be buried never to see the light of day.

My assertion is that it's always been so. I know it doesn't necessarily make it right.

While we don't trust buscho and those with it, who should determine if evidence is a matter of national security or not? Who do we trust with that determination?

[MADem]

131. No, this is actually brand new, it only went up for Congress's OK this

past April or so. It was buried at the end of a HUGE change that dealt with rape, sodomy, stalking, child abuse, confidentiality of psychiatric records, and all sorts of things that any thinking person would get behind, and say, oh, fine, that makes total sense. In fact, the bulk of the change is all about sex of some sort, to include sending people to jail for a year if they patronize prostitutes--the forces in Germany are rather put out by that change, FWIW. The final result though, goes beyond these cases where you are dealing with child molestation or protecting victims of other crimes of violence, and basically removes a check and balance from the entire process.

If you look at the language sent to Congress, there are two issues at play here--first, preventing reporters and the public from seeing evidence that might intrude upon the privacy of a victim, OR that just might discredit the Armed Forces, and second, NAILING any attorney or legal assistant who causes those embarrassing bits of evidence to be released. PDF of the HASC version here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/php/docs/HASCMeeting42105.pdf

[cynatnite]

134. This is new, but suppression of evidence for national security isn't...

That's my entire point.

People can get charge for adultery under the UCMJ. No money has to be involved at all.

Nothing new here.

[MADem]

137. But NATIONAL SECURITY no longer needs to be asserted, and that is a big

difference. Basically, you enter something dodgy into evidence at a trial, and seal it up. No pesky national security arguments at all. If you want it to go away, make it EXHIBIT A! And it does not even matter if there is no conviction, the stuff can still disappear down the rabbit hole.

This IS new, it is a new trick. And guess who holds all the cards? Not the civilian legal establishment--the military does.

I frankly think this provision needs to be challenged, as our nation asserts civilian control over the military, except in this odd corner of the UCMJ.

[texpatriot2004]

184. How do you challenge it? n.t

[MADem]

187. You don't...not without a new President, and a new SECDEF

A new President could strike all this during the annual review process, and undo it, or fix it so it makes sense, as quickly as it was put in place.

I imagine someone could try going the legal route by trying to get a constitutional determination, but they've snuggled this thing in with a bunch of good things, that protect the privacy of abuse, rape and molestation victims.

I think you have hit on something, though--a good way to go after this whole issue is to challenge the inability to achieve redress or even question the sealing. The guy who seals the records is the one who tells you that you cannot see it, basically. There needs to be another tier, a civilian tier, that is accessible to everyone with an interest in the cases that have evidence sealed under this new rule.

[beam me up scottie]

141. Who decides the classification of

evidence?

And if exhibits were classified top secret, who would be allowed to see them?

Previously, I mean.

[charlie]

146. delete

whoops, replied to wrong post.

Edit, again:

Wait, no I didn't, you changed your post! :) Here's a repost:

You need Acrobat or some sort of PDF reader to access it. Here's the Google cache:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:YLQ4Qya8aBAJ:www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/php/docs/HASCMeeting42105.pdf+ucmj+%22court+martial%22+sealed+disclosure&hl=en

Do a search for this phrase

"Rule 1103A. Sealed exhibits and proceedings

for the relevant portion.

[beam me up scottie]

147. Thanks, I actually edited my

post to ask a couple of questions since I repeated myself downthread.
Sorry.:blush:

[charlie]

149. Heh

We're just zooming past each other. I reposted, and this time it's staying put :)

[beam me up scottie]

151. Ah! Got it!

Section–By–Sectional Analysis
"Rule 1103A.
2005 Amendment: The 1998 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial
introduced the requirement to seal M.R.E. 412 (rape shield) motions, related papers, and
the records of the hearings, to “fully protect an alleged victim of against
invasion of privacy and potential embarrassment.” MCM Appendix 22, p. 36. As current
Rule 412(c)(2) reads, it is unclear whether appellate courts are bound by orders sealing
Rule 412 information issued by the military judge.
The effect and scope of a military judge’s order to seal exhibits, proceedings, or
materials is similarly unclear. Certain aspects of the military justice system, particularly
during appellate review, seemingly mandate access to sealed materials. For example,
appellate defense counsel have a need to examine an entire record of trial to advocate
thoroughly and knowingly on behalf of a client. Yet there is some uncertainty about
appellate defense counsel’s authority to examine sealed materials in the absence of a
court order. This authority applies to both military and civilian appellate defense
counsel.
The rule is designed to respect the privacy and other interests that justified sealing
the material in the first place, while at the same time recognizing the need for certain
military justice functionaries to review that same information. The rule favors an
approach relying on the integrity and professional responsibility of those functionaries,
and assumes that they can review sealed materials and at the same time protect the
interests that justified sealing the material in the first place. Should disclosure become
necessary, then the party seeking disclosure is directed to an appropriate judicial or quasi-
judicial official or tribunal to obtain a disclosure order."

Thank you very much.

And please excuse me while I make a cup of coffee before I look at this.

Yuck.

Maybe I'll make a pot.

[MADem]

154. Classification is now moot!

They don't even have to classify stuff anymore, or go through histronics to try to claim that something is classified. They can just seal it up, so long as it is ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE, and good luck to those of us trying to get a peek at it.

Previously, there would be periodic classification reviews, and over time, a classified document will be downgraded. This still happens, of course. We have all seen top secret stuff from WW2 and beyond, that has subsequently been declassified, but now, they don't even have to trouble themselves with that annoying classification justification stuff. It all is in a black hole, so long as it is entered into evidence and needs to stay hidden.

[beam me up scottie]

164. Okay.

First, in your opinion, is the analysis accurate?

If it is, then this suggests only counsel had the right to view these documents before this change.

Is that correct?

[MADem]

185. It is written in such a way that it can be used for other purposes

The original intent appears to be protecting victims of familial crime, rape, molestation, stalkers, and to preserve the privacy of these people. But the change is written in such general fashion that it can be applied anywhere the convening authority wants it.

And once the evidence is sealed, even COUNSEL will have a hard time looking at it--there can be no copies, no reproductions, no nothing. So, a civilian lawyer for a military client is going to be highly inconvenienced, not being able to take copies back to his or her office, but instead, going to the location of the convening authority to view the evidence.

[cynatnite]

74. No, this applies only to those in the military...

It's the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

[BeHereNow]

4. Kicking because EXECUTIVE ORDERS

are not to be ignored.
Sometimes I wonder about DU...
Maybe you should include EO in your subject line OP?
Do Duers even know what an EO is?
I repeat, sometimes I wonder...
BHN

[BeHereNow]

5. Isn't it strange that all the DUers inquisitive about the abuse photos

have COMPLETELY missed this thread?
Kicking for the NON-brain-dead.
BHN

[greyl]

15. Could you please explain what you're upset about? nt

[BeHereNow]

19. Could you please take the time to READ the EO?

The photos and videos in question will NOT be released EVER.
due to the EO of October 14th, 2005.
Any and ALL dissent from military now is subject
to GITMO court proceedings.
What part of my outrage do you NOT get?
READ the EO.
BHN

[greyl]

23. I was hoping you could demonstrate some comprehension of the EO nt

[BeHereNow]

33. For cripes sake Greyl, READ it-

If you can't comprehend what is happening,
I swear to God, I can't help you.
BHN

[greyl]

34. I DID FUCKING READ IT!

[sandnsea]

44. Where's the dissent part

I get the sealed records part, I'm not grasping the dissent/GITMO part.

[greyl]

49. It's not there, is it?

Plus, the "sealed records part" leaves plenty of room for opening sealed records.

[BeHereNow]

53. You OBVIOUSLY have NOT read the EO

So why do you insist on commenting?
Can't help but wonder.
BHN

[greyl]

60. Supply some evidence please.

All you have to do is copy and paste from the EO, that information that supports your reaction.
Just copy and paste.



We are braindead, remember?

[charlie]

63. Seems to me

that the order's specificity to matters of courts martial don't affect the ACLU's FOIA case, which is occurring in federal court, not military.

Bush is just tightening the screws on the military judicial apparatus, making sure the onus falls on a career military judge's head (or ensuring he/she passes the buck until it's decided in an appellate venue waaay down the road).

[sandnsea]

66. Appellate authorities only

"Except as provided in the following subsections to this rule, sealed exhibits may not be examined."

The subsections only apply to courts. It seems clear to me that this rule limits the viewing of any military material to courts.

[charlie]

69. In matters courts martial only

This has no bearing on the ACLU's case, as far as I can tell.

[sandnsea]

73. Limited to court martial cases

Nobody else can get them, only judges in court martial related cases and only under very specific circumstances. That's how I read it.

[charlie]

79. That might be the intent

But it won't be easy making UCMJ regulations apply in civilian court, which is the venue for the ACLU lawsuit.

[sandnsea]

90. See #92

The thing says what it says. Examination of sealed exhibits and proceedings are limited to appellate authorities, civil or military. That's what it says.

[charlie]

104. Yes, I read the EO

And again, those are instructions for a specific circumstance -- court martial. It'll be hard to get sealed evidence sought from a military court case. But, that's not what the ACLU has requested, and that's not where they're looking. The problem doesn't lie with the amendment to the UCMJ, it's with Bushco's classification of Abu Ghraib material as national security documents.

[sandnsea]

110. I'm getting a headache

If they're classified, they're sealed and ONLY judges can see them. The pictures are part of court martial cases. That's what the rule says and it just seems quite clear to me.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

62. No, it doesn't

A court is not the same as public. I don't even know how you could imagine that they are. I was asking a serious question because it's late and I'm tired and I wanted to know which section I should look at.

[greyl]

68. A court can rule that sealed evidence be opened.

It's right in the EO. The EO doesn't state that sealed records can never be opened. THE EO DOES NOT STATE THAT SEALED RECORDS CAN NEVER BE OPENED.

I never said that a court is the same as public, and I have no idea where you got that.

[sandnsea]

71. Not to the public

It says records can be opened for review by appellate officials, NOT that they can be released to the public.

[greyl]

81. Where do you see that?

It simply does not say that, for example, photographs of bruises sustained by a rape victim in the Air Force, can never be made public under any circumstance.

Show me where this EO takes power from the FOIA.

[sandnsea]

88. It says what it says

"Rule 1103A. Sealed exhibits and proceedings

If the record of trial contains exhibits, proceedings, or other matter ordered sealed by the military judge, the trial counsel shall cause such materials to be sealed so as to prevent indiscriminate viewing or disclosure…implemented in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12958, as amended, concerning classified national security information.

Examination of sealed exhibits and proceedings. Except as provided in the following subsections to this rule, sealed exhibits may not be examined.

(4) Reviewing and appellate authorities.

(A) Reviewing and appellate authorities may examine sealed matters when those authorities determine that such action is reasonably necessary to a proper fulfillment of their responsibilities under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Manual for Courts-Martial, governing directives, instructions, regulations, applicable rules for practice and procedure, or rules of professional responsibility.

(E) For purposes of this rule, reviewing and appellate authorities are limited to:
(i) Judge advocates reviewing records pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 1112;
(ii) Officers and attorneys in the office of the Judge Advocate General reviewing records pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 1201(b);
(iii) Appellate government counsel;
(iv) Appellate defense counsel;
(v) Appellate judges of the Courts of Criminal Appeals and their professional staffs;
(vi) The judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and their professional staffs;
(vii) The Justices of the United States Supreme Court and their professional staffs; and
(viii) Any other court of competent jurisdiction."

[greyl]

97. Right. So concerning a court martial, sealed exhibits can be opened

by:

(i) Judge advocates reviewing records pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 1112;

(ii) Officers and attorneys in the office of the Judge Advocate General reviewing records pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 1201(b);

(iii) Appellate government counsel;

(iv) Appellate defense counsel;

(v) Appellate judges of the Courts of Criminal Appeals and their professional staffs;

(vi) The judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and their professional staffs;

(vii) The Justices of the United States Supreme Court and their professional staffs; and

(viii) Any other court of competent jurisdiction."

Are you aware of how this section of the UCMJ used to read?

[sandnsea]

105. Uhm, yeah

It didn't, hence the "Insert the following NEW R.C.M. 1103A"

http://www.uscg.mil/legal/MJ/Flowcharts/RCMs/RCM1103.pdf

[beam me up scottie]

127. So they CAN be opened?

Much like they could before?

Or not?

Explain the difference, if you would.

[sandnsea]

130. It's a new rule

It wasn't there before, as far as I can tell. So the rules for sealed material is new, and now only judges can see sealed material. That's the way I read it. I could be wrong, but so could greyl who seems to have an agenda in the matter, although I can't figure out what it is.

[beam me up scottie]

133. Greyl is a skeptic.

So am I.

There's no agenda, we just require knowledge of the all of the facts before we formulate an opinion.

So far, no one on this thread has provided any.

But, thanks for your honesty, I'm ex-military and most of this stuff is incomprehensible.

That's why I'm asking what has changed, you can't tell from this document or the simple handling of evidence procedures posted by others in this thread.

[sandnsea]

138. You can tell

And I can tell the difference between people honestly trying to figure something out, like you are, and people who are just being disagreeable.

In any event, the section on sealed records is new. It's not in the Rules Courts-Martial, not that I could find. I provided the link. You don't create a new rule for no reason, that's just common sense. As far as I can tell, the rule is to keep information from getting to the public. I can't see any other reason for it at this late date.

[beam me up scottie]

139. But who was allowed to open the records before?

If records are classified, they don't allow any shmoe to walk in there and view them.

And who decided on the classification?

I have a hard time believing this is really "new" as far as the military having the power to stop the public from viewing files.

[sandnsea]

143. Judges, even to the public

That's what the ACLU case is about, not letting the government seal military court records, getting them released to the public. A civilian judge ruled on that. The way I read the new rule, sealed records can only be reviewed by appellate authorities, judges. Viewed. Period. Not released to the public.

[beam me up scottie]

153. I just posted the analysis of the amendment.

See post 156.

[sandnsea]

155. I'm not buying, sorry

Bush signed an executive order to protect rape victims? I'll need a little more info before I believe that. For starters, the link to where you got your analysis from. Skeptics abound, it seems.

[beam me up scottie]

157. You're not buying what?

This is the html version of the Dept of Defense link MADem provided.

[sandnsea]

158. The DoD version

Lol. Mmmkay, I believe every word that they have to say. It is rare when I get to show my more lefty liberal colors around here. Thank you so much!

[beam me up scottie]

160. What are you talking about?

Who said you had to believe anything, for chrissake, I haven't even read the damned thing yet.

[sandnsea]

163. You posted "the analysis"

I guess I thought that when somebody posted something and labeled it "the analysis", they thought that it represented "the analysis". Apparently you didn't. My bad.

[beam me up scottie]

167. Sorry, I should have put the title in my post.

If it is correct, (and I'm not clear on that either) it seems to say that in rape shield cases only counsel had the right to view sealed documents before and that this only addresses the question of whether or not they needed a court order to view them.

[countryjake]

175. It's not an amendment, it's an addendum...

of Rule 1103 - Preparation of Record of Trial and it's in general, not specific to any sex-related offenses, meaning General Courts Martial. It just happens to be tucked in amongst various other amendments of that sort, making it seem as tho they're really concerned about protecting some poor victim's privacy! Sure!

What it means is that say, British Columbia has another bird-flu scare like it did last year. My state, which has a fairly large poultry-based economy, phases in all the same precautions it did back then, meaning my backyard flock is a potential risk to that economy. Somebody at our local hospital reports unusually high number of flu cases...quarantine is declared, before any tests are conclusive...military is called in to enforce it...soldier blows my head off in front of my chicken house because I refuse to allow them to gas my healthy birds...mate takes picture of murder from the house...flu scare is found to be non-threatening...mate tries to prove injustice of it all...soldier gets off scott-free...picture is never seen by an honest soul!

At least, that's what I think it means.

[beam me up scottie]

178. Actually, my wording came from the document:

"Rule 1103A.
2005 Amendment: The 1998 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial
introduced the requirement to seal M.R.E. 412 (rape shield) motions, related papers, and the records of the hearings, to “fully protect an alleged victim of against invasion of privacy and potential embarrassment.” MCM Appendix 22, p. 36. As current Rule 412(c)(2) reads, it is unclear whether appellate courts are bound by orders sealing Rule 412 information issued by the military judge.

I think you and your flock are safe from this particular modification.

But I agree that anyone who keeps their own poultry (thank you for not patronizing factory farms, by the way:thumbsup:) should be paying close attention.

[countryjake]

182. This is an addition to the General Rule for Preparation of Record of Trial

Here's what follows that paragraph which you've posted:

"The effect and scope of a military judge’s order to seal exhibits, proceedings, or materials is similarly unclear. Certain aspects of the military justice system, particularly during appellate review, seemingly mandate access to sealed materials.
For example, appellate defense counsel have a need to examine an entire record of trial to advocate thoroughly and knowingly on behalf of a client. Yet there is some uncertainty about appellate defense counsel’s authority to examine sealed materials in the absence of a court order. This authority applies to both military and civilian appellate defense counsel.
The rule is designed to respect the privacy and other interests that justified sealing the material in the first place, while at the same time recognizing the need for certain military justice functionaries to review that same information.
The rule favors an approach relying on the integrity and professional responsibility of those functionaries, and assumes that they can review sealed materials and at the same time protect the interests that justified sealing the material in the first place. Should disclosure become necessary, then the party seeking disclosure is directed to an appropriate judicial or quasijudicial official or tribunal to obtain a disclosure order."


Don't you see the difference in the numbers? They are using Rule 412 as an explanation of why they feel a need to make things clearer, in general.
It may appear that this is related to rape and such but that is simply the reasoning they give for making the new rule. It's flat-out deceptive, to non-legal types who may try to read it. Plus the Contents page has a damn typo on it, misidentifying the rule in question.
With all this talk of how necessary it is for our government to rely on the military to maintain order in case of an emergency, I personally don't think any of us are safe anymore, at least our legal recourse has been limited by this new Rule.

[Kurovski]

42. But, there's nothing in the title about abuse photos.

:shrug:
The title asks for military types and legal eagles.

I'm neither of those things, and yet I'm indeed interested in the proof of Abu Ghraib abuses.

[greyl]

47. Good point.

Maybe it is unreasonable to call Du'ers who aren't having a myocardial infarction over this EO "braindead", eh?

[BeHereNow]

51. Time will tell, eh?

The problem with the majority of Americans is
the fact that they have NO clue as to how to read
the writing on the wall.
You prove that fact most efficiently.
If it is not spelled out for you in tele-friendly marketing code then
you clearly have NO ability to comprehend the message, eh?
BHN

[greyl]

I'm just asking you to explain yourself.

Sorry.

Why don't you supply some evidence for your emotions by citing lines from the EO?

If it's so important to you, I would imagine that you would take the time to do that. You've taken plenty of time to ridicule DUers at large after all.

Bush used to be a cheerleader, ya know.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MADem]

64. You can take most of the blame for that

Look at your thread title. You ask for MILITARY TYPES AND LEGAL EAGLES, not the rank and file, to respond to your query.

If your title said something like BUSH EXECUTIVE ORDER WILL RESTRICT ACCESS TO MILITARY TRIAL INFO or something along those lines, you probably would have gotten a better and bigger bite.

[texpatriot2004]

183. Sorry about the title, that was me. I didn't really understand how

to read the document though I could tell there is something there. You're right, your title is better and would likely have gotten more response.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nofurylike]

8. thank you for explaining and linking this, BeHereNow. eom

[nofurylike]

7. if i hadn't read BHN's other post referring to this one, i would not

have read it, being far from a military type or legal eagle, n all.

you may still have time to edit the subject??


anyway, thank you for the information, texpatriot2004.
horrific as it is...


peace!

[texpatriot2004]

10. Oops, too late to edit. n.t

[nofurylike]

13. thank you. will kick it and BHN's post helps too. it's just so very

important.


peace

[understandinglife]

11. PAY ATTENTION EVERYONE!

Recommended.


Peace.

[BeHereNow]

12. The usual suspects...

...have shown up on this thread.
I repeat, NOT for the brain dead.
Understandinglife- you are most certainly NOT among
the Brain-dead DU.
I KNOW you "get it."
The photos will NEVER be released now-
by "executive order" and any and ALL
military dissent has effectively been SILENCED.
((((((((((HUG)))))))))))
BHN

[texpatriot2004]

16. So this effects the recent ruling about the release of the photos

from Abu Ghraib? I mean not just the ones from now on but also retroactive?

[BeHereNow]

20. Quite simply-

YES.
BHN

[greyl]

21. "The photos will NEVER be released now" - Not true

I think you are missing the following:

(b) Examination of sealed exhibits and proceedings. Except as provided in the following subsections to this rule, sealed exhibits may not be examined.

(1) Examination of sealed matters. For the purpose of this rule, "examination" includes reading, viewing, photocopying, photographing, disclosing, or manipulating the documents in any way.

(2) Prior to authentication. Prior to authentication of the record by the military judge, sealed materials may not be examined in the absence of an order from the military judge based on good cause shown.

(3) Authentication through action. After authentication and prior to disposition of the record of trial pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 1111, sealed materials may not be examined in the absence of an order from the military judge upon a showing of good cause at a post-trial Article 39a session directed by the Convening Authority.

(4) Reviewing and appellate authorities.

(A) Reviewing and appellate authorities may examine sealed matters when those authorities determine that such action is reasonably necessary to a proper fulfillment of their responsibilities under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Manual for Courts-Martial, governing directives, instructions, regulations, applicable rules for practice and procedure, or rules of professional responsibility.

(B) Reviewing and appellate authorities shall not, however, disclose sealed matter or information in the absence of:

(i) Prior authorization of the Judge Advocate General in the case of review under Rule for Courts-Martial 1201(b); or

(ii) Prior authorization of the appellate court before which a case is pending review under Rules for Courts-Martial 1203 and 1204.

(C) In those cases in which review is sought or pending before the United States Supreme Court, authorization to disclose sealed materials or information shall be obtained under that Court's rules of practice and procedure.

(D) The authorizing officials in paragraph (B)(ii) above may place conditions on authorized disclosures in order to minimize the disclosure.

(E) For purposes of this rule, reviewing and appellate authorities are limited to:

(i) Judge advocates reviewing records pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 1112;

(ii) Officers and attorneys in the office of the Judge Advocate General reviewing records pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 1201(b);

(iii) Appellate government counsel;

(iv) Appellate defense counsel;

(v) Appellate judges of the Courts of Criminal Appeals and their professional staffs;

(vi) The judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and their professional staffs;

(vii) The Justices of the United States Supreme Court and their professional staffs; and

(viii) Any other court of competent jurisdiction."

edit: subject

[nofurylike]

29. no, WE will never see them. eom

[greyl]

31. why do you say that? nt

[nofurylike]

36. i do not say it, that order says it. the public will not see them. eom

[greyl]

39. Where does it say that? nt

[nofurylike]

46. it says very clearly who WILL see sealed evidence. eom

[greyl]

48. Answer the first question, then show where to your last statement. nt

[thebigidea]

52. I wish people would remember that the Washington Post has them

it would be more fruitful to direct a barrage at them, instead they've managed to keep pretty quiet about sitting on the remaining photos for our own good.

[charlie]

57. Right

I never hear about that from anyone and the silence is most notable among the media bobbleheads. Everyone in Washington knows it and they're not talking about it.

[nofurylike]

14. kick and recommend! eom

[hang a left]

17. I am tired, can someone spell it out for me.

I don't get it.

[texpatriot2004]

24. I had that problem too. I really don't get it all...there are 8 pages

of changes at the link but I don't understand how to read it. I find that kind of scary because I have a college degree combined with street smarts and yet I don't get it.

[BeHereNow]

27. Short hand summary-

By executive order- all military dissent is now
subject to gitmo-patriot act no legal defense proceedings.
All evidence of WAR CRIMES are considered "national security"
items, no examination allowed by public or private prosecution.
SEALED under national security executive order.
Can you say FASCISM?
BHN

[greyl]

30. That was an unsupported summary.

Citing lines in the EO may help you persuade more people to be as incensed as you are. ;)

(especially after calling them braindead)

[hiley]

18. Recommend!

This needs noticed by everyone.

[bluedeminredstate]

22. Either the hour of the night

with many folks asleep or the fact that this thread doesn't even once mention Brangelina and their treatment of poor Jen could be it's lack of activity. I think posting in the late morning will stir some debate and outrage. Enough coffee before finding out these kind of pesky EO's adds to the sense of dread and outrage over stealth martial law orders.
:)


















0

[Neil Lisst]

25. There are only two ways to understand the differences.

1. You can read each of the original provisions side-by-side with the new provisions. This will show you how each one has changed. Knowing what it says now doesn't mean much, unless you know exactly what it said before.

2. Find a good online analysis of by some group that is informed regarding these points, perhaps ACLU or National Law Guild. This choice makes more sense, because devining the meaning of one change without the context of all changes is really not effective.

I would surmise, however, given the president is Bush, that the gist of the rule changes is to make proceedings more secret, to make them less subject to scrutiny by media or civilians, and to criminalize further any leaks.

[Kurovski]

38. I like that idea. This is boggling my little mind.

So fascism has OFFICIALLY arrived? Is that it?

I'll check back tomorrow. Good night all. Maybe some legal minds with military experience will be around then.

We can Nom and kick in the mean time, eh?

[autorank]

26. Texpatriot2004, this is some excellent analysis!

Thank you.

:kick: Recommended (#5!)

[greyl]

50. What analysis? nt

[Marr]

28. Amazing. This hasn't been anywhere in the news that I've seen.

Not that I'm surprised, of course.

This is disgusting.

[Carolab]

32. I checked the ACLU website for updates on the photo release.

There is nothing on there about this.

[BeHereNow]

35. And why would that be? N/T

BHN

[Carolab]

37. I don't know, do you? n/t

[BeHereNow]

40. No, but I think it is a DAMNEDgood question.

Makes me think of Charles Shaw:
"Gatekeepers of the So -Called Left"
Honestly, I don't know what to think anymore...
BHN

[Marr]

41. I expect it will take them a few days to formulate a statement.

They've usually taken a few days to post a response to the government's endless appeals on their website, IIRC.

[greyl]

43. :) good question nt

[sandnsea]

45. It just happened on Friday

They may still be formulating a legal opinion on it.

[norml]

54. Recommended

I'll have to cover this on my show.

[BeHereNow]

55. well thank GOD for THAT-

Please Pm me with a link to your show.
God knows this is not going to get any coverage anywhere
else as evidenced by the many "brain dead" posters to this thread.
BHN

[norml]

65. It will get coverage. This is just the first noticing of it.

I'm not sure how many I reach when I'm on the radio.

My show is called "The Late Night Call in Show".

Here is a link to the station's web site.

It says that you can listen online.

http://www.kzum.org/

[nofurylike]

56. kick

[skids]

58. A few things that might help.

1) Don't expect big responses in the middle of the night on a weekend. Post during the evening.

2) Post a link alongside the EO to the original document. Without that, it is very hard to surmise what the EO actually does.

That way you might get a response without resorting to calling people braindead.

FWIW.

[Hardrada]

59. Ye gads!

[BeHereNow]

61. And your point IS?

I see that you have "ye gadded" on both of these threads,
so I can not help but ask-
What exactly is your point?
BHN

[Hardrada]

75. That is shorthand for: "This is mind boggling!"

[cynatnite]

72. UCMJ applies to those in uniform

This can be looked at in two ways. One is that in cases of national security evidence can be sealed. The other is the government using the excuse of national security can seal evidence which otherwise wouldn't be.

As with civilian courts, military judges rule a variety of different ways and not always on the side of the government or prosecutor.

Keep this in perspective folks. Changes to the UCMJ are not uncommon. The government may or may not use the changes to their benefit.

Civilian and criminal law, it's not much different. Laws and regulations have been changed and manipulated to favor one side or the other since...well, long before Bushco.

It's up to the judges to determined if it's correct or agrees with their interpretation.

I don't find this to be a big deal. Now, if it got wrapped into the patriot act or something, then I'd see reason to protest.

[nofurylike]

77. an *executive order*, yesterday! you really

"don't find this to be a big deal"?

with this timing?


kick

[cynatnite]

80. No, because changes to the UCMJ are not uncommon...

I explained that in my response along with how I think this change can be used.

Also, keep in mind another thing. The military has always had the power to seal evidence for national security reasons. It shouldn't be a shock to anyone. They've been doing it for years.

[nofurylike]

92. executive order amendments on courts martial are not common.

upcoming trials are unprecedented.

photos some wonder how could EVER be shown, that govt has already tried tricks to suppress.....

[cynatnite]

96. The government was suppressing those photos long before this...

Remember?

[nofurylike]

111. no, they have been trying to. do you not recall they were to

be released, numerous times now?

this takes care of that.

nevermind. it is true that those who have *chosen* not to get it, not to even look outside their preconceived notions and stubbornness, will not see.

i must off now

[cynatnite]

117. They've been using 'national security' and other reasons...

for some time now.

The photos and everything else is still being worked through the federal courts. The government will use this line and whatever else they can to keep a lid on it.

The government has used 'national security' to supress, hide and get rid of evidence for a long time. They don't need no stinkin' changes to the UCMJ to keep doing it. They'd do it anyway.

[MADem]

113. The UCMJ is reviewed annually, it is a requirement

There are people in the Pentagon who do nothing but that as a living, sifting through proposals and running them through the wickets.

But this is a pretty big change, though the one that seems to be getting the servicemembers' guts in a twist is not this new methodology to conceal evidence from prying public eyes, but instead, the rule about prostitution...

[cynatnite]

121. A servicemember can be charged with adultery...

It's happened. I saw an E-7 get busted down to E-4 over it and the other person was a civilian. He screwed around with an officer's wife and it cost him dearly.

This is nothing new. THe government has been hiding and suppressing evidence for years.

Come on, people. Wake up. They aren't doing anything differently than they have before bushco got in the WH.

[MADem]

135. Check post 136. I provided a link to the HASC mark up for this change

If you read the whole thing, it is couched in terms relating to victim rape shield laws, but that particular element, where evidence can be hidden from public inspection, is not limited to sex crimes. The way it is implemented, anything can be swept under the rug.

The fraternization rules have been on the books for years, they came into place post-Tailhook. But evidence in fraternization courts martials has never been sealed before.

The way this change transmittal is written, they can hide anything for any reason, so long as it is entered into evidence, and THEY are the only ones who can decide if it can be unsealed. The fox, in essence, is watching the henhouse, and there is no civilian authority that can intervene in cases where a valid public interest is asserted.

It is the BECAUSE I SAID SO rule.

[cynatnite]

145. The prostitution falls under a different rule...

Don't get confused because it's on the same page as the others at the sight.

As I've said before...THIS IS NOTHING NEW. The military has been suppressing, hiding and doing whatever they want with evidence for years. Whether it's actually national security related or not.

[MADem]

152. No, the prostitution is part and parcel of the annual UCMJ change

that was sent to Congress a few months back. All of these changes, dealing with rape shield, victim privacy, prostitution, and sealing of documents, are part of the annual review and are contained within that document that was forwarded to the HASC and SASC. Congress OKed the thing as a PACKAGE, and the EO was issued based on the approval of the entire package.

[cynatnite]

166. No it is not...

If you read what was stated on the web page it jumped from paragraph 16 to 35. Also, these are NOT a part of what we've been discussing.

R.C.M. stands for Rules of Court Martials and that's what the sealing of evidence is referring to.

It then moves on to General Articles of the UCMJ which is what the rest in regards to alcohol and prostitution is referring to.

[MADem]

186. What I meant was the prostitution was part of the ANNUAL REVIEW

Please examine the PDF document I provided. That is the entire body of changes recommended to the Congress, it is thirty pages long, and it is all one document.

[BeHereNow]

83. Oh no. not at all....

Another poster on this thread ASSURES us
that DUers actually comprehend this EO perfectly.
Ha-ha-hah-ho...
Nothing to see here folks, so move along folks and
resume discussion on things that MATTER.
NoFuryLike-
Don't waste you breath on fools.
You know, I know and a few others know.
End of story.
BHN

[cynatnite]

84. Who are you calling fools? n/t

[BeHereNow]

87. Any and all who read this EO

and do not comprehend what the future holds.
BHN

[greyl]

93. Trying to infect wise DUers with a baseless malady

is futile.

[cynatnite]

95. I don't need to read something like this to know what the future holds...

No one knows.

And the sky is not falling, either.

[beam me up scottie]

91. Apparently the same people he calls brain dead.

I was wondering where you all were.

[BeHereNow]

98. WTF? Why does everyone think "She" be a "He?"

For the record, I am a woman.
BHN

[greyl]

99. I won't ask for evidence to prove that. :)

Now back to your cause...

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

122. Why do you care ?

What does gender have to do with this discussion?
Do you think you'll be treated better if people know you're female?

[BeHereNow]

126. You crack me up!

GOOD NIGHT!
I need my BEAUTY sleep now, so
people will TREAT ME BETTER,
Yeah, that's it!
LOL!!!
BHN

[MADem]

148. And you are being rude

By denigrating the people who are asking legitimate questions about this issue, and failing to respond to them coherently, as I attempted to do upthread, all you are doing is pissing people off.

You failed to properly title the thread, and then you made snarky remarks about the failure of posters to get excited about it when you did not explain what the issue was in your title. And you might have done sensible things like linking to the Congressional markup and discussing the issue in context.

No one likes to be insulted. It is unkind. And you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar...

[greyl]

162. :) To be fair, texpatriot2004 started the thread.

Not bhm.
But you never would have guessed it by the tone of their posts, eh?

[beam me up scottie]

172. Good, you're back.

Is there a difference between who is allowed to view sealed documents then and now?

This is what was in the analysis:

2005 Amendment: The 1998 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial introduced the requirement to seal M.R.E. 412 (rape shield) motions, related papers, and the records of the hearings, to “fully protect an alleged victim of against invasion of privacy and potential embarrassment.” MCM Appendix 22, p. 36. As current Rule 412(c)(2) reads, it is unclear whether appellate courts are bound by orders sealing Rule 412 information issued by the military judge

[beam me up scottie]

179. I think MADem is referring to that poster's

thread in GD which also insulted the intelligence of DUers.

Very nice coming from someone who can't even explain what the changes ARE, let alone what they mean.

[nofurylike]

101. thank you, BeHereNow. i feel the anguish... and the rage.

i hear you, what is closing on us, fast.
we grinding teeth tonight.


please keep on.

you have much to teach!


in solidarity

[cynatnite]

106. Oh, please...

This is the same thing that's been done since...well, for years...long before bushco.

National security has been the mantra whenever the government wants to keep it's dirty laundry secret and even keep secret the information that should be kept away from the general public.

Get your head out of your so-called righteous indignation and look at this with some logic.

The government has never needed to use the UCMJ or anything else to keep it's secrets. All that it has suppressed in the past should be a clear enough indication of that.

[beam me up scottie]

125. No kidding.

These people are looking for reasons to panic, like there aren't enough legitimate ones already.

What a spectacle.

[BeHereNow]

107. You know what NFL?

Feck it-
I know what I read.
I know what it means.
Nighty- night and sweet dreams my sweet DU friend.
What a waste of time this has been for so many of us.
Not to fret over good time spent pissing in the wind.
Forget it.
Those who recognize it will be prepared.
Those who don't, won't.
It can never be said we didn't try.
BHN:loveya:

[nofurylike]

119. kind that you write me that, BHN. it would be good to rest.

you too, rest some now?

"It can never be said we didn't try."
yes yes

:cry:


i am off now to dream, thank you so!

goodnight, my friend


:hug:

:loveya:


solidarity!

[BeHereNow]

123. Me too! See you in Dreamtown

Can I recommend Hoagy singing "Stardust" as your
inspiration for dream time?
Works everytime for me.
I have it on a 78 record with just him and and the piano.
Heaven, it's audio heaven.
I forget that that world has gone mad
within the first eight notes...
BHN

[nofurylike]

128. mmmmh... perfect.... g'night

[greyl]

136. What a sad fireworks show.

Kinda like Charlie Brown's christmas tree.

nighty night.

[beam me up scottie]

144. Kind of makes you "feel"

like you're smashing your head against a wall, you know?

Like this: :banghead:

[beam me up scottie]

124. You "feel" ?

Oh brother...

How about producing some evidence or facts for what's behind your "feelings" ?

[beam me up scottie]

108. What was it originally?

And how are we supposed to decide if this is freak-worthy without that knowledge?

[charlie]

109. It wasn't

This is an addendum, not an amendment.

[beam me up scottie]

116. So, what has changed?

And why am I supposed to panic?

[BeHereNow]

118. Nothing, absolutely nothing- not to worry.

People get the government they deserve.
All is as it should be for you.
Forget this thread and carry on.
BHN

[beam me up scottie]

120. I didn't ask you.

And you can see why.

On edit: I don't think that you know.

You have called DUers names, accused them of being too stupid to understand and yet every time someone has asked you to explain the reason for your hysteria, you couldn't.

You just keep telling everyone to read it, we have and we obviously aren't finding a reason to panic, so why not enlighten us?

I believe it's not because you won't, but because you can't.

[BeHereNow]

129. LOL!

BHN
Good night!
You are too funny...
Thanks for giving me a GREAT BIG GRIN to
sail my boat to dreamland in!
BHN:loveya:

[beam me up scottie]

132. I'll take that as a no,

you cannot explain the difference.

I thought as much.

Maybe a someone who is not "braindead" can explain it.

[MADem]

140. Go upthread, I tried to get a handle on it

The thread is poorly titled, and there is way too much drama scattered throughout, without sufficient discussion of the many nuances of this change transmittal.

But this is a troubling issue, because what they have done is taken a change made for good reasons (victim privacy) and made it far too general so that it can apply to any case where the military might be embarassed, or they want to HIDE something.

Basically, they can use this little loophole to hide anything they do not want people to see, and only they can decide if you can see it; there is no way to appeal their decision to a civilian court.

It ain't right.

[beam me up scottie]

142. Thanks, I tried to open your link,

but it's not working.

[MADem]

150. It is a PDF document, and very long

If you have adobe, you can open it, but even with DSL, it does not load immediately. If you are on dial up, open it, and let it load, and come back to it.

[beam me up scottie]

161. So were the public allowed to view sealed records before ?

I'm not clear on whether they had that right.

[cynatnite]

168. No, it's just a new way of saying the same old thing...

The military's hid and suppressed evidence and other secrets for reason of national security for ages.

[beam me up scottie]

171. That's my take on it.

Am I looking at the same documents as everyone else?

[cynatnite]

173. I think it's mostly a knee-jerk reaction...

I have to watch myself before I leap onto things like this.

I also think many have forgotten the past where government coverups and military squashing of evidence happened was commonplace...well, still is.

Actually, this reg will make it harder to surpress with all the evidence has to go through from what I'm reading.

[beam me up scottie]

176. It does seem to add more

procedures for handling evidence, doesn't it?

More of a paper trail.

[Usrename]

156. It's pretty simple. Don't mind at all.

The torture has been much worse than what has been released to the public. Only enough details and pictures have been released to stir intense hatred from most of the fundamentalist Islamics in the world.

I don't pretend to understand Shiite think, but I think I understand that, to them, beheading doesn't even come close to the depravity of the naked human pyramids.

Meanwhile, in our culture, Rush and others pass off the whole torture thing as a college hazing type prank. "What's the big deal?", they say.

The ACLU has just won a ruling that would force the govt. to turn over all the unpublished pictures and videos of torture. This stuff is supposed to be more horrific than most Americans can imagine.

Now, Friday, Dubya signs an Executive Order that says this stuff can't be released to the public. As Commander In Chief, he SHALL control ALL the propaganda for this occupation.

We will never know the truth or anything even close to it. He can continue to do despicable things to make them hate us, while preaching to his faithful that he is all about freedom.

This pisses some folks off. It scares the hell out of me. I hate these people.

(not a lawyer or military type, but I can read the EO and the writing on the wall)

[beam me up scottie]

159. That's a nice explanation of other things but

I'm looking for evidence and a fact based explanation.

Thanks.

[Usrename]

165. From the PDF in post 36

I think it is the last sentence that gets everyones panties in a knot.

Section–By–Sectional Analysis
"Rule 1103A.
2005 Amendment: The 1998 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial introduced the requirement to seal M.R.E. 412 (rape shield) motions, related papers, and the records of the hearings, to “fully protect an alleged victim of against invasion of privacy and potential embarrassment.” MCM Appendix 22, p. 36. As current Rule 412(c)(2) reads, it is unclear whether appellate courts are bound by orders sealing Rule 412 information issued by the military judge.
The effect and scope of a military judge’s order to seal exhibits, proceedings, or materials is similarly unclear. Certain aspects of the military justice system, particularly during appellate review, seemingly mandate access to sealed materials. For example, appellate defense counsel have a need to examine an entire record of trial to advocate thoroughly and knowingly on behalf of a client. Yet there is some uncertainty about appellate defense counsel’s authority to examine sealed materials in the absence of a court order. This authority applies to both military and civilian appellate defense counsel.
The rule is designed to respect the privacy and other interests that justified sealing the material in the first place, while at the same time recognizing the need for certain military justice functionaries to review that same information. The rule favors an approach relying on the integrity and professional responsibility of those functionaries, and assumes that they can review sealed materials and at the same time protect the interests that justified sealing the material in the first place. Should disclosure become necessary, then the party seeking disclosure is directed to an appropriate judicial or quasi-judicial official or tribunal to obtain a disclosure order."

[beam me up scottie]

170. But this is the part I'm not clear about:

This authority applies to both military and civilian appellate defense counsel

Was the public allowed to view sealed documents in rape shield cases before?

[Usrename]

174. Don't know who had standing before this EO.

But it looks like now only the folks listed can get a peek. I'd love to be very wrong about this.

[beam me up scottie]

177. That's what I mean.

If the list of those who have access to the records hasn't changed, only the fact that they definitely had to get a court order before viewing sealed documents, then this isn't really anything new.

Gak.

Is it any wonder people hate the effing endless paperwork in the military?

You never know what the hell you're signing.

[Usrename]

180. Well, I'm not sure that's the case.

It would seem logical (to me anyhow) that others than just lawyers and judges (defendants/plaintiffs for example) would have access if they made it through all the hoops.

[beam me up scottie]

181. I would like to read the 1998 amendment

to find out if they listed the same parties.

But I will have to look for that later.
Right now, my bed is calling me.

Let me know if you find out more, it's going to bug me until I find out the facts.

G'night, er, I mean, Good Morning.

[cynatnite]

169. Read a little closer...

There is a whole slew of judges and lawyers stuff like this has to go through. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

Keep in mind, the government and the military have surpressed and hid stuff for years. What's in here is nothing new.