Post by capfalcon on Jun 11, 2010 14:38:59 GMT -5
Before we arrive at Acheron Station, I feel that we should review the basic differences between Civil and Military Law and some interrogation techniques. Now, I'm sure that all of you have read the required documents, but it's important to make sure that we are all prepared. We are going into a very delicate situation, and we all know how the Inspector General will look upon a large debacle.
So, first off, even in the military, someone that we are interrogating can invoke their rights against self incrimination under the Article 23 and cease testifying. And before you go jumping off the gun, remember, this is not an admission of guilt. By itself, you can not do anything with this. However, people rarely put themselves in this position unless it is something truly important to them. So, there is a good chance that you are on the right track. The next step is to break out your walking shoes and do some groundwork. Investigate, investigate, investigate.
Now, one important difference between the civil law and military law is that, in general, military cases are not heard before a jury of peers. For important matters, they are military court marshal with three, five, or seven judges. Now, I know we've all bullshitted judges with twisted legal logic before, but that simply won't fly with a tribunal. While they are bound by the law, if it seems like you're trying give them a snow job, they're going to quickly turn against you. Everything where they are allowed discretion will oddly not work out you. So don't mess around. Give facts, evidence, and solid testimony. And then shut your mouth unless something is obviously wrong with the evidence the opposing council presents. If we find anything that is worth an immediate hearing, there's a good chance we're going to be presenting a case against such a tribunal, so be prepared for it.
Oh. On a side note, for minor matters, where the penalty is something like less than a month of brig time, there might be a summary court marshal instead. That's far, far more basic. The soldier's superior officer can order the court marshal and rule as soon as all the evidence is heard. If a soldier has a problem with it, he can request a full court marshal if it is not an emergency situation. Of course, a summery court marshal is generally called when it's pretty damn obvious what happened, so that almost never happens.
However, in a situation where the penalty is going to be much more severe, a summary court marshal won't cut it. So, for murder, grand theft, or something big like that, they have to go before a court marshal. Even in an emergency situation, they have to be detained and held for their tribunal. Don't let one of those officers bully you into thinking that they have all the power here. The military codes may be harsher that the civil codes, but they're not draconian. Only a nut is going to try to execute someone without due process.
Now, are there any questions?
So, first off, even in the military, someone that we are interrogating can invoke their rights against self incrimination under the Article 23 and cease testifying. And before you go jumping off the gun, remember, this is not an admission of guilt. By itself, you can not do anything with this. However, people rarely put themselves in this position unless it is something truly important to them. So, there is a good chance that you are on the right track. The next step is to break out your walking shoes and do some groundwork. Investigate, investigate, investigate.
Now, one important difference between the civil law and military law is that, in general, military cases are not heard before a jury of peers. For important matters, they are military court marshal with three, five, or seven judges. Now, I know we've all bullshitted judges with twisted legal logic before, but that simply won't fly with a tribunal. While they are bound by the law, if it seems like you're trying give them a snow job, they're going to quickly turn against you. Everything where they are allowed discretion will oddly not work out you. So don't mess around. Give facts, evidence, and solid testimony. And then shut your mouth unless something is obviously wrong with the evidence the opposing council presents. If we find anything that is worth an immediate hearing, there's a good chance we're going to be presenting a case against such a tribunal, so be prepared for it.
Oh. On a side note, for minor matters, where the penalty is something like less than a month of brig time, there might be a summary court marshal instead. That's far, far more basic. The soldier's superior officer can order the court marshal and rule as soon as all the evidence is heard. If a soldier has a problem with it, he can request a full court marshal if it is not an emergency situation. Of course, a summery court marshal is generally called when it's pretty damn obvious what happened, so that almost never happens.
However, in a situation where the penalty is going to be much more severe, a summary court marshal won't cut it. So, for murder, grand theft, or something big like that, they have to go before a court marshal. Even in an emergency situation, they have to be detained and held for their tribunal. Don't let one of those officers bully you into thinking that they have all the power here. The military codes may be harsher that the civil codes, but they're not draconian. Only a nut is going to try to execute someone without due process.
Now, are there any questions?