Gunmen attack Fort Hood, Texas

[jmm99]

of Tony Waller (of our own) and Daniel Greysolon, sieur du Lhut (of the French Colonial Marines, in the late 1600s in my own UP of Michigan). The latter, in truth (my opinion thereof), did a better job of it than did Waller in a very similar situation. Perhaps, because du Lhut was not burdened with lawyers at all.

In neither case did the "separation of the convening authority and the court-martial" exist - and the commander was solely responsible for whatever decision was reached (even if, as in du Lhut's case, he elected to bring the prosecution before separate military and civilian panels). Brief note:

The last of these nations [JMM: Chippewa, Ojibwe] was especially difficult to manage as was demonstrated in 1684 when four of its warriors murdered two French traders. When one of the culprits appeared at the Jesuit mission of Sault Ste Marie the staff of 12 on duty there did not dare to arrest him, fearing the reprisals of his tribe. Dulhut, as soon as he learned of the incident, hurried to the mission, rounded up the suspects, including the chief Achinaga and his two sons, and put them on trial. Achinaga was acquitted and his younger son pardoned, but the two others who had been found guilty were executed before 400 Indians.

However, we don't live in 1902 or 1684 - even if some of us wouldn't mind returning to some aspects of those eras.

So, in the event(s) today, you as a smart bear (and convening authority) would consult all of the pitfalls of "Undue Command Influence" - attached as pdf - and wouldn't contact judge, counsel or anyone else involved in courts-martial in your command sphere.

THE 10 COMMANDMENTS OF UNLAWFUL COMMAND INFLUENCE

COMMANDMENT 1: THE COMMANDER MAY NOT ORDER A SUBORDINATE TO DISPOSE OF A CASE IN A CERTAIN WAY.

COMMANDMENT 2: THE COMMANDER MUST NOT HAVE AN INFLEXIBLE POLICY ON DISPOSITION OR PUNISHMENT.

COMMANDMENT 3: THE COMMANDER, IF ACCUSER, MAY NOT REFER THE CASE.

COMMANDMENT 4: THE COMMANDER MAY NEITHER SELECT NOR REMOVE COURT MEMBERS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A PARTICULAR RESULT IN A PARTICULAR TRIAL.

COMMANDMENT 5: NO OUTSIDE PRESSURES MAY BE PLACED ON THE JUDGE OR COURT MEMBERS TO ARRIVE AT A PARTICULAR DECISION.

COMMANDMENT 6: WITNESSES MAY NOT BE INTIMIDATED OR DISCOURAGED FROM TESTIFYING.

COMMANDMENT 7: THE COURT DECIDES PUNISHMENT. AN ACCUSED MAY NOT BE PUNISHED BEFORE TRIAL.

COMMANDMENT 8: COMMANDERS MUST ENSURE THAT SUBORDINATES AND STAFF DO NOT “COMMIT” COMMAND INFLUENCE” ON THEIR BEHALF.

COMMANDMENT 9: THE COMMANDER MUST NOT HAVE AN INFLEXIBLE ATTITUDE TOWARDS CLEMENCY.

COMMANDMENT 10: IF A MISTAKE IS MADE, RAISE THE ISSUE IMMEDIATELY.

BTW: What was your last post - a test of my ability to do basic seamanship on UCI, or what ?



Regards

Mike