By the numbers

It's a quiet morning here in the glass-enclosed newsroom high above Global Military Justice Reform Plaza. What better time to run the numbers?

Posts, 7423

Comments, 1080

Hits, 1,843,032

Jurisdictions, 195

Town Halls, 26

Contributors, 26

Co-Editors, 2

Many thanks to all concerned.

Should Taiwan's military justice system be restored?

Here is an op-ed by a professor who thinks it should be. Excerpt:

The establishment and application of a country’s military strength hinges on the government’s national security strategy and war preparedness. The power of the military is determined by balance in war preparedness, capable soldiers and a sound court martial system.

Only when there is a military court system in place that operates properly during peacetime can military strength be maintained during wartime. If members of the armed forces desert, disobey orders or do anything that infringes on military discipline, the survival of the nation is jeopardized. This cannot be tolerated or the military’s morale and cohesion would be undermined and it would not be able to stand and fight.

If that is the case, what is the point of having a military at all?

At this critical time, with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army imposing military pressure in the Taiwan Strait, military personnel who are well-versed in the culture and military affairs surely know how to make proper arrangements regarding investigating, detaining and sentencing military offenders.

Maintenance of military discipline must be emphasized to cater to the needs of individual regiments.

The restoration of the court martial system must be considered, especially the restoration of military prosecutors.

"A republic, if you can keep it"

Happy Fourth of July

A positive change in Algeria?

Nadia Tahanout has written this article on Judicial jurisdiction in crimes endangering national security between military courts and ordinary courts, 4 J. Knowledge & Sci. Horizons No. 1 (2024). Abstract:

Military justice is specialized in examining all military crimes as defined by its laws, including those affecting national security, in addition to offenses stipulated by criminal law committed by civilians. This study aims to delineate the jurisdiction of military courts within the framework of these serious crimes, especially after the Algerian legislature changed its stance and amended the military judiciary law under law 18-14, revoking the third paragraph of article 25, which expanded the jurisdiction of military courts in trying civilians committing crimes endangering national security. Post-amendment, this jurisdiction is now within the purview of regular criminal courts, affirming the litigants' right to a fair trial.

Amnesty International report on Lebanon's military court

Sahar Mandour writes here about what it's like in Lebanon's military court. Excerpt:

Sahar Mandour is Amnesty International’s Researcher on Lebanon and has been attending a historic torture trial at the country’s Military Court examining the death in custody of Syrian refugee Bashar Abed Saud, following claims of torture at the hands of State Security Agency members. The fifth session and expected verdict is scheduled for 5 July. She’s determined to seek justice, truth and reparation for Bashar’s family. Here, she recounts her insights into a trial process dominated by the Military.

As I stood in front of the Military Court on 16 December 2022, I felt a mixture of bravery and fear. I felt brave, because I had made a formal request to the Military to attend this court session, and fearful, as I didn’t receive approval but decided to show up anyway and request it in person. Although court sessions are supposed to be open to the public, in practice, showing up without prior approval could be viewed as defiant and put me on their radar. . . .

By the fourth session, all the defendants had been released from detention, including the “angry officer” accused of carrying out the beating.

The judge informed the prosecution that Bashar’s family had dropped charges against the officers. There have been whispers that Bashar’s family had been intimidated into dropping the charges. Who could blame them?

As we await the verdict on 5 July, one thing is patently clear: this trial is not about justice for Bashar and his family, but more an internal disciplinary process for the military to protect and punish, differentiate between “honest mistakes” and shameful behaviour, and reaffirm that military discipline is above critique.

There is never any justification for torture. Suspected perpetrators of torture must be held accountable in independent and impartial proceedings that meet international fair trial standards. The Military Court does not meet these requirements and its jurisdiction over criminal cases, like the jurisdiction of any military court or commission, should always be limited to trials of military personnel for breaches of military discipline. For Lebanese authorities to be serious about eliminating torture in detention facilities, they must refer such cases to ordinary civilian courts, regardless of the accusations against victims of torture, whether terrorism, arm smuggling, drug use, or simple agitation in an interrogation room.

Retroactive promotions

The Trinidad & Tobago Defence Force has been ordered to afford retroactive promotion to two officers. Details here. The court's opinion is not yet available on the judiciary website. Excerpt from T&T Newsday:

Both officers are also to receive their accrued salaries and benefits and were also awarded vindicatory damages for the breach of their rights.

In both cases, the judge said the award of vindicatory damages was ordered to act as a deterrence. In Rudder.Fisher’s case, she added, “There must be some sense of outrage about the insensitive and laissez-faire approach the relevant authorities took in failing to treat the claimant’s complaint which he had been actively pursuing for years.

“Further, it is important that the court signals to the defendants that a breach of the claimant’s rights under sections 4(b) and (d)of the Constitution is significant and therefore it should serve to act as a deterrence from further breaches.”

She added, “In my opinion, the declarations which the claimant has sought are not sufficient to vindicate the clear breach of his constitutional rights as the defendants’ actions caused him to lose seniority without justification.

“I was satisfied that there was significant distress caused to the claimant in the instant case as his loss of seniority was significant.

NIMJ pop-up @ 12:30 p.m. today

CAAFlog, our sister affiliate at the National Institute of Military Justice, is hosting a pop-up discussion about the recent general court-martial of Major General Phillip A. Stewart of the U.S. Air Force. Details here. See you there.

Time: Jul 1, 2024 12:30 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Zoom

https://villanova.zoom.us/j/7841656237?omn=99036743966

Meeting ID: 784 165 6237