Full circle in Taiwan?

Will Taiwan be reviving its military courts? This Taipei Times article suggests it may be in the works. Excerpt:

President William Lai’s (賴清德) proposal to reinstate military courts could be a boon to legal efficiency and discipline, a former military judicator said yesterday.

Lawyer Chen Chia-hung (陳佳鴻), formerly an armed forces judicator, said that military tribunals might relieve civilian courts of backlogged cases by swiftly dealing with breaches of military law cases.

That would allow speedy and proper trials for cases that would otherwise undermine the discipline and image of the armed forces, he said.

On winning the battle but (maybe) losing the war

Or, "out of the frying pan and into the fire"? These may be the apt metaphors when considering the recent Kabaziguruka decision of the Supreme Court of Uganda barring the military trial of civilians. In the case of Dr. Kizza Besigye, whose court-martial for "treachery" was pending, it means that he now stands charged with rthe capital offense of treason, to be tried in civilian court. Andrew M. Mwenda writes in The Independent:

This is where Besigye’s lack of strategy becomes evident. If he wants to expose Museveni as a tyrant, the best proof was for Besigye to be tried in a military court martial. This was the more attractive because the Chief of Defense Staff (CDF) who is the head of the military (and therefore oversees the court martial) and is also the son of the president, has already convicted Besigye and sentenced him to death on Twitter (X). This was the golden opportunity to keep the trial in the court martial only to expose the tyranny he claims to be fighting. If the court martial sentenced him to death, exactly what the CDF had already done, his case would have been complete.

Now, for political reasons, it would be most unlikely that Museveni would hang Besigye. In fact, it is very likely that the court martial would have given Besigye a lenient sentence since he was accused of “treachery” – whatever that means. However, Besigye’s best strategy was not to seek proper justice with due process. Doing so defeats his claim that he is in a political struggle against a tyrant who disrespects the rule of law, disregards due process and runs roughshod over the rights of citizens.

A revolutionary in Besigye’s shoes would have turned the court martial into his political rostrum. He would have declared his political aim as liberating Uganda from tyranny. He would have said there is no other way to liberate Uganda except through armed insurrection and political assassination. Then he would conclude by saying he is willing to die in the struggle to liberate the country from the tyranny and incompetence of family rule.

Military justice in Wisconsin

Wisconsin's state code of military justice includes a provision like Article 138, UCMJ. What if the governor decides to take no action on an Art. 138 complaint? Doesn't Gov. Tony Evers have to look into things, decide whether the complaint is meritorious, and provide some kind of explanation, be it ever so brief, of his ultimate decision? Consider this report from Wisconsin Watch.

The Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan has filed a statement in the Military Courts Case. The one-page statement is not available, but Dawn's summary is mealy-mouthed and surprising:

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) stated before the Constitutional Bench (CB) on Thursday that the provisions of the Pakistan Army Act (PAA) 1952 being deliberated upon today had already been upheld by earlier courts which found them to be within the framework of the Constitution and therefore cannot now be termed unconstitutional or illegal.

At the same time, the SCBA in a statement said it believes that civilians should not be subjected to trial before military courts.

The SCBA's website is not currently accessible. (Perhaps it has been hacked or disabled.) The association's position puts it at odds with the Lahore High Court Bar Association.

The court will resume its leisurely proceedings on Monday at 11:30 a.m.

JAGs and the rule of law

JAGs alone can't defend the rule of law, Prof. Dan Maurer argues in this Lawfare post. Excerpt:

To be sure, nothing can undo the damage of summarily relieving the three TJAGs left on the Department of Defense and the service JAG Corps. Like earlier leadership “massacres” (Thursday or Saturday), this too will be fodder for public debate and academic study, and will have negative downstream effects for those remaining—who are still expected to uphold the principles of the “dual profession” of arms and law. To the extent that [Secretary of Defense Pete] Hegseth’s relief of the TJAGs makes that harder, and existing occupational duties limit the provision of key advice to commanders unnerved by legally questionable orders, there is cause for alarm.