Not military justice, but . . .

The Hill has just posted a column by Major General (ret) Steven J. Lepper, LTC (ret) Dan Maurer, and the Editor, titled Plan B for Trump’s election intimidation: An iron fist in a velvet glove. Excerpt: "[I]f resistance fails and the president and his Office of Legal Counsel concoct legal and factual justifications for deploying troops to polling sites, military commanders and their judge advocates can mitigate the impacts of these actions by exercising good judgment."

Is live-streaming a military execution legal?

Prof. Dan Maurer examines rhe question here. Bottom line: probably not. He "concludes that there is a viable Eighth Amendment argument that these deviations from established rules and practices constitute 'cruel and unusual punishment.'”

What do you think? Comments are welcome (real names, please; no pseudonyms.)

Major Hasan's case

All eyes have been on Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the U.S. Army psychiatrist sentenced to death for multiple murders at Fort Hood. President Donald J. Trump has approved the death sentence and the Army has indicated that it intends to livestream video of the execution by firing squad. The New York Times has this report. 

Will Mr. Trump veto the livestreaming? Will Dr. Hasan seek habeas corpus? Stay tuned.

Australian DF Personnel Can Apply To Have Historical Homosexual Convictions Expunged

The Star Observer (AU) reports that current and former Australian Defense Force (ADF) personnel can now apply to have historical convictions for consensual same-sex activity extinguished from their service records, following changes to military discipline law.

Until 1992, consensual homosexual activity could be prosecuted as a service offence. Decades after those activities were decriminalised, affected personnel have continued to carry convictions on their official records.

Amendments to the Defense Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth) now allow eligible convictions to be formally extinguished, meaning they are treated as though they never happened.

ROK JA fights city hall -- and wins

SBS News has this interesting tale of a South Korean judge advocate whose promotion was unfairly withheld. Excerpt:

A military judge advocate whose promotion was put on hold under the allegation of involvement in drafting the so-called Ministry of National Defense "suspicious document" surrounding the death of the late Corporal Chae Su-geun has won an appeal lawsuit.

The Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 10 (Presiding Judge Jung Eun-young) recently ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by military judge advocate A against the Minister of National Defense, seeking to cancel the withholding of his promotion appointment.

* * *

A filed an administrative lawsuit, arguing, "Because the Minister of National Defense requested disciplinary deliberation for unjust purposes at the demand of lawmakers, the promotion withholding decision based on this is illegal."

The court sided with A, ruling that the Ministry's measure was illegal both procedurally and substantively.

The tribunal pointed out, "Before taking the measure, the defendant did not notify the plaintiff of the facts causing the measure, the details of the measure, and the legal basis, nor did the defendant provide an opportunity to submit opinions," adding, "It restricted the party's rights and interests without going through prior notification or opinion-hearing procedures."

It also noted that A's actions did not constitute grounds for major disciplinary action.

The tribunal judged, "The grounds for requesting disciplinary deliberation merely state that A agreed to use the material he drafted as an external briefing document, and that content alone is not enough to conclusively determine that the degree of wrongdoing was severe and intentional."