2007-01-06 07:29:59 · 7 answers · asked by Parris Island 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Yes, it is still a viable leagal option for commanders in the field. It hasn't happened probably since World War II. One particular case I know of was of a soldier in an all-blacks tank destroyer battalion (this is not any kind of racial slur, but there was segregation in the military at the time, and all black units such as the Tuskeege airmen, the Triple Nickle (555th Parachute Battalion) and the Seven Oh Six (706th Tank destroyer battalion), and this was one of them). He was accused of raping and maiming (with a razor) a young French girl. He was tried by hi commanding officer and found guilty, and was executed by firing squad.
It is still a commander's right to perform a wartime execution, but with the political situation being how it is today, battlefield trials are limited to minor offences and punishments. Deserters and those accused of heinous crimes (murder, rape, treason, etc.) will appear before a Judge Advocate General (JAG, just like the TV show) and receive a full Court Martial. (Court Martial does not mean that he will be found guilty, it is the name applied to the Military's court system and process).
2007-01-07 01:48:07 · answer #1 · answered by The_moondog 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When you get time, look up the UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice. The battlefield court martial, while still legal, hasn't been done in a long time. It is too easy to arrest someone and detain them in a military facility back in the US. Besides, the average soldier or sailor or marine is smarter than they used to be. (No offense intended) but the are more aware of their own rights and they know that they are entitled to legal representation and therefore, a court martial would more than likely be done on US soil rather than a battlefield in a foreign country. Now the execution. If a crime has been comitted, as has been done by US servicemen in Iraq, they will be tried on US soil. This is mainly to protect them from foreign governments trying to take jurisdiction. It will also afford them the opportunity to get legal aide. Any execution would take place on US soil.
2007-01-06 07:44:16 · answer #2 · answered by David L 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
each soldier both enlisted and officer takes an oath to safeguard his usa and stick with the orders of the Commander in chief. In taking this oath and abiding by it, we get rid of the component of non-public decision or good to go back to a decision our battles. even as he took that oath he change into not coerced or tricked into the service. If this officer has an challenge with the warfare, there are a approach of techniques to change right into a conscientious objector and go away the service. He can renounce his fee and be reassigned as an enlisted human being to a non-combatant pastime to serve out the time period of his settlement with the military. he's grand status and is a discredit to the Officer Corps of the U. S. military. he will be courtroom martialed and could be punished for breaking his settlement.
2016-12-01 22:23:42 · answer #3 · answered by cottom 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes
2007-01-06 07:32:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
yeah, but not in modern times (post WWII)
2007-01-06 07:33:27 · answer #5 · answered by pinoydj619 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes it is
2007-01-06 09:01:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
very rare ,but legal
2007-01-06 09:18:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋