I do not agree with or support National Service
but I could agree with that. Not could -- Do agree. Good idea.
Where do I sign?
Either that or because the UCMJ is so totally
stacked to protect the rights of the accused...
Little of both, I suspect. Military lawyers are like Privates and Generals or like military doctors or even like civilian lawyers. Some are better than others; a few are great, a few are pathetic and most are average.
Whoa, guys, on the UCMJ and military lawyers.
The Ehren Watada case is not a good precedent on which to base general conclusions. Besides being a high-profile case, it is a complex case from the standpoint of military, constitutional and international law. Besides all those issues (in the original court martial), the case involves some complex habeas corpus issues (in the Federal District Court case following the original court martial).
This is an interesting case (to me; since similar cases came up during the Vietnam War), but I will spare you a blow by blow analysis. For those who might be interested in more, here are some links.
A long Wiki discussion, which seems well sourced (60+ links), is here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada
You will find the webpage in support of the 1/LT (started by his mother according to the Wiki, sourced to a Seattle Intelligencer article) here.
http://www.thankyoult.org/
Ken and others here will love the list of the 1/LT's supporters - it will increase your blood circulation and lung capacity, thereby prolonging life.
The filings in the habeas proceeding before Judge Benjamin Settle are here (links to .pdf files).
http://www.thankyoult.org/content/view/2/77/
The Seattle Times article on Judge Settle's 21 Oct 2008 ruling that double jeopardy barred 3 of 5 counts - because of the military judge's improper handling of the stipulation between the government and Watada - is here.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ruling22m.html
You will have to take this on faith in my opinion - which is, that perhaps 1 in 100 (more likely 1 in 1000) lawyers would be competent to handle this case on either side of the brief.
That brings me to a point that fits (IMO) very generally into the theme of this thread.
---------------------------------------
Quote:
from Ken
... civilian lawyers. Some are better than others; a few are great, a few are pathetic and most are average.
My first impression was "that's logically correct" - "right on Ken !" But, then I got to thinking a bit deeper. Now, the "most are average" statement is logically and statistically correct, if the population follows a standard bell curve. In the case of civilian lawyers, I don't believe that is the type of curve (based on experience and a lot of MSBA statistics, which would make boring reading here).
What I come up with (even looking at all lawyers generally) is a double-humped curve - a smaller group of above-average lawyers and a larger group of below-average lawyers. The "average lawyer" lies between the two humps. That becomes more apparent when we realize that not all lawyers are fungible.
There are many areas of the law in which I am totally incompetent - the last time I saw them (if at all) was in cramming for the NY and MI bar exams nearly 40 years ago. The lack of competence shows up even in areas that are related to areas one knows well.
Recently, I had a matter where I completed about 95% of the work for a "nice guy" client. We hit a couple of remaining areas (related) where I simply didn't know the law; but more importantly, I did not know what the operational realities were - how the law is actually applied.
Could have faked it (and collected some ill-gotten $) - or spent many non-billable hours learning a skill set I would never use again. The correct choice was to refer to a lawyer, who happened to be a specialist in the areas making up the remaining 5% of the matter.
So, when one looks to specific legal skill sets, the curve would be very double-humped - a small group of real pros and a much larger group of rank amateurs as to that particular skill set. That should be no surprise to folks here, where the military obviously has its own specific skill sets.
Now, tis true that some specialities are quite generalized. For example, a good trial lawyer, with both civil and criminal trial experience, should be able to handle most litigation.
But, even there, there are areas where one shouldn't go. I would not try a divorce case because I have never been counsel of record in one (have advised divorce lawyers on non-divorce areas relevant to the cases). The military seems similar (based on what I have gleaned from reading the military posts here).
-----------------------------------
I have stated elsewhere that the military has to deal with more difficult problems than do lawyers (who primarily deal with micro, as opposed to macro, situuations - the micros are usually less "messy"). Thus, this civilian concludes that civilians should tread carefully in attempting to "rebuild the Army, Marines, etc."
And, just in this civilian's opinion, I don't think the "Army needs rebuilding". I do think that the Army needs some serious decompression time for personnel - and some serious refitting efforts for equipment.
I also agree with many of the other comments above that point to the need to "rebuild" our society as a greater need.
We shall see what President Obama will do about that, with solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. The voters will have a chance to review that in 2 years and 4 years.
I have whoa'd. Hoist by my own pet...
Should've spelled it out, pet-ard. Sigh.
First, I was not commenting on the Watada case; I agree with you -- it was a monstrosity. Every time anyone in DoD decides to "make an example" of someone, they pretty well screw it up. The Army should've just nailed the guy for an Article 134 violation; Field Grade Article 15 and assigned him to Tooele. Too many inexperienced JAG Officers (or their Commanders...) will try to stack charges and that's usually not very smart. Then, IMO, the Military Judge copped out. I'd also suggest that the case, even though I was not referring to it does in a sense bear out my comment about extensive protection for the rights of the accused. Regardless, Watada is yet another case of plenty of egg for many faces...
In the event, my comment on the UCMJ was purely generic and not case specific. As was my comment on several categories of others and not just Lawyers intended to be generic. I am hoist by my own pet--whatever that thing is -- because I went quick and lazy with a generalization. I'd have gotten away with it had I not included the word Lawyers... ;)
Let me remind you that as I have pointed out before, I am not member of the Bar and thus am supposed to be allowed a certain laxness in speech. I am also old and feeble and should warn you that your continued persecution of the geritric set is probably being noted by Prez Elect Obama's minions.. :D
That said, I bow to your impeccable logic:
Quote:
"...What I come up with (even looking at all lawyers generally) is a double-humped curve - a smaller group of above-average lawyers and a larger group of below-average lawyers. The "average lawyer" lies between the two humps."
I would further submit that your Bactrian curve applies not only to the counselors at Law but to all the categories I cited, including Private and Generals and to most of the world in most things. Scary, huh? :wry:
I Wonder What We Will Get
First of all let me thank everyone who responded to my question about possibly bringing back the draft. I got a great deal from the responses (facts and perspectives that had not occurred to me).
Secondly, one of the reason I asked the question is not only the need to rebuild the Army, but also that President Elect Obama has said that "national service" will be a big part of his administration. See below to a link to his position on the issue:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Natio...nFactSheet.pdf
I realize that what a politician says and does are two very different things. However, the "brain trust" behind his campaign has been talking about "national service" for years. Many of the people who have been talking about national service frankly mean it as a form of social engineering (see a book titled "Bowling Alone" for some background on it).
The official position is much more realistic, and along the lines of what was discussed - You provide "X" amount of service tro the country and receive educational benfits for it. I have no problem with this, but having worked for the Federal Government for 25 years I can attest to the fact that federal programs are like Frankenstein's Monster - they get out of hand fast and do a lot of harm.
I do not know what we will get but I am hoping for some that adds real value to the country.
Thirdly, in the area of education my father was a public school teacher for 47-years (cancer and heart disease forced him to retire). He always said that two things caused all of the problems with the eductaional systems:
1. The schools were given too many things to do. Along with education they were suppose to be social workers, therapists.... All of this diluted the real mission of school and education lost out.
2. The parents usually could not have cared less. He coached the high school football team all those years and at the end of the season you would not believe how many parents did NOT bother to come to "Awards Night". My fathers comment was always - "What else do those losers have to do that's more important." That's my Dad.
Thanks again