The Military “Injustice” System
Military soldiers are held to much different standards than their civilian counterparts.  This is apparent when people study the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The military and the United States enacted the UCMJ to retain “good order, morale and discipline” in 1950.  Society is constantly evolving. To reflect these changes, civilian laws are enacted or amended. Many organizations, former military leaders and service members and even civilians, are trying to bring about changes that will bring the UCMJ and the services themselves, up to speed with the civilian world.  Why in a society which is governed by a democratic government, and which follows a constitution, not let their own military, made up of their citizens, follow the same constitution?  Why are service members held to higher standards?
Aside from the fact that the UCMJ is outdated, are the startling revelations by many, that the system is corrupt.  Lacking the watchdog system on civilian courts, unethical practices in how juries are chosen, and even judges more worried about superiors reactions are just the tip of the iceberg.  Many cases have been documented, commented on and taken before the U.S. Superior Court.  These cases are either dismissed because of national security issues, or are considered to be the military’s problem.  Something needs to be done to change and enforce the UCMJ.  
According to the group CAMI (Citizens Against Military Injustice), “there are over ten thousand courts martial a year, one third of those are over sentenced, rampant illegal command influence, blatant defense obstructing, rubber stamp appeals process, denial of Civil and Constitutional rights and a blind folded Congress” (America’s Dirty Little Secret).  John Harry Watson of the Edmonds Paper also reveals “The investigations, hearing and court-martial offer a horrifying picture of a ‘justice’ system carefully insulated from public scrutiny which produces a 95% conviction rate in more than ten thousand cases per year; numbers equaled only by the People’s Republic of China” (Watson).  Sources within the military only comment that, these numbers show that the system is working.  This is true, but when a system is rushing for a conviction, mistakes will happen.  When these mistakes happen, the military brushes them under the rug.  Only the biggest cases ever make it to the media, making it virtually impossible for anyone to know what is happening, therefore making changes and inquiries impossible. 
Prior to understanding why change is needed, knowledge of the UCMJ is desirable.  The Judge Advocates Association states,
The Uniform Code of Military Justice was enacted in 1950, largely in response to substantial public and legislative concerns regarding abuses in the operation of the court-martial system during World War II.  The UCMJ replaced the separate systems for the Army and Air Force (Articles of War) and the Naval Service (Articles for the Government of the Navy), and for the first time required a uniform military justice system for all the Armed Forces.  Congress set out to establish a system of military justice, which would operate to enhance military discipline within the services, but would operate fairly and without the appearances of command control and unlawful command influence, which had been so persuasive during World War II. It established protections for the rights of service members, which were at the time unknown in the civilian criminal courts in this country, and it revolutionized military justice by establishing a civilian court as the ‘supreme court’ of the system. (Nelson)
To maintain troop discipline, a system was created that ensured swift and efficient decisions and punishment.  It contrasts the civilian justice system, which is slow and sometimes inefficient and inconsistent.   “In addition to enhancing discipline, order, uniformity, efficiency, and obedience, the UCMJ addresses certain offenses unique to the military, such as desertion, insubordination, or absence without leave.”  (Military Law)  Truly, the system is needed for cases such as these, which are not a part of civilian lives.  The article also states “ the military requires a uniform system that can be administered at the location of the crime to adjudicate offenses committed by service members outside of U.S jurisdiction.” (Military Law)
	There are not too many people or organizations that want to completely get rid of the UCMJ.  Most want only to change the contents and make it fairer across the board.  Additions could be made to make sure a defendant is given his Constitutional rights. According to an article posted on the CAMI  site, the Government Accounting Office in 1978 claimed that: “The military justice system presents obstacles to the impartial delivery of justice… Problems with the defense and trial counsel organizations in the services further contribute to a perception that military justice in uneven, unfair, and of low priority.” (A Look at the System)
	For several years now, many military cases have come to light.  Cases such as Tailhook, drill-sergeant’s sleeping with basic training soldiers, gay soldiers fighting back after being forced out, and others too numerous to list.  Three of the hottest subjects around the military community today are rape, sexual harassment and adultery.  Because of the numbers of women in the forces, the number of sexual harassment cases is increasing.  This is not merely because of more women, but because more women are finally reporting these cases.   There are times that the women are harassed into not reporting these cases, by superiors.  They are told that if they would report the cases, their careers could not withstand the backlashes.  I personally was a victim of rape and sexual harassment.  My supervisor at the time, a lieutenant, was the one who had done it to me.  Upon my reporting it, my colonel told me that not only would my career suffer, but that I would also go to jail for adultery if I pushed it.  I was told that it would be in my best interest to drop the charges.  Headstrong, I went ahead with it.  An Article 32 hearing (the preliminary to a courts-marital) was held.  During the proceedings, it came to light that I wasn’t the only one he had done this to, but there were five others, including a minor.  Since the lieutenant and I were both married at the time, the judge informed me that unless I make a deal with the court to ask for immunity in exchange for my testimony, that I would in fact proceed immediately to jail.  I signed the agreement, and then testified.  Several weeks later, the commander informed me, that the lieutenant resigned his commission to avoid prosecution.   With that, he left the army without any backlash.  My career was over.
	The UCMJ, in Article 134, states the elements of rape: “(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person; (2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and (3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the forces” (Article 134).  The article also goes on to say that: “Adultery is not a lesser included offense of rape.” (Article 134) The US Code, Title 10, Section 920, Article 120, expains rape as: “Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct” (Sec. 920). In everyday English, this translate that they only mention of rape in this law, is that a person accused of rape, can also be charged with adultery if either person was married at the time.  There is no stipulation included for victims of rape.  Depending on the command, charges can be filed against the victim!  This is the reason that many women, who have been raped, do not come forward.
	In an interview with retired Air Force commander Dorothy Mackey, she explained that she had also been raped twice, assaulted dozens of times, threatened with psychological imprisonment, and threatened with retaliation.  Moreover, her life was threatened. Since retirement, she has become a researcher, public and international speaker, expert and advocate against military abuse.  She has recently filed a brief in the US Supreme Court, based on her assaults while a commander by her two supervisors.  She informed me that, “There are five laws on US books, which give immunity from prosecution to military members who commit rape, murder, etc against other military or wives and civilians.  These laws are: Feres Doctrine, Bivens Doctrine, Title VII (Civil Rights Bill), Intra-military Immunity, and US Code 552a” (Mackey).  On a side note she also added “the Justice Department (prosecutor) are representing my perps against me.  They note that to bring such a suite - is against ‘good order, morale and discipline’, and that it also jeopardizes national security” (Mackey).    She also stated that at present, the United States refuses to sign the treaty with makes rape a war crime.  The School of the America’s at Fort Benning, Georgia uses documentation and films to train the students in how to minimize people by using rape, murder, maiming and extortion. 
	Mackey was asked to take part in writing a section on military women for the “Violence Against Women Act”. She jumped at the opportunity.  She explains what happened “as the act was moving for passage, the protections suggested for military were taken out in their entirety due to a threat that the bill would not pass.  This leaves virtually no protection for spouses of military members.  They are seen as property, therefore, not even court ordered restrictions (protective orders) are ignored by US military police, command, etc.” (Mackey).
	These issues are not publicized due to national security issues.  The civilian world has no clue that this is happening around them.  To speak out against the military carries a heavy price.  For people still in the military that price could be their freedom, their career or their life.  For civilians who are married to a service member, if the civilian speaks out, the service member is punished.  The right to free speech is given up when a person enters the military or marries into the system.   This is why such bills and protections never pass.  The general population, ignorant to these facts, does not speak out in favor of passing such bills. 
	In a New York Daily News Online Column, Michael Daly brings up the parallels between the well-known Clinton-Lewinsky affair and a story of an Air Force Lt. Colonel named Karen Tew.  People worldwide know of the happenings of the Clinton scandal.  Not much is known about Karen, even though her scandal occurred only just prior to that of Clinton.  Karen had an affair in 1994 with an enlisted man. At the court-martial, she told the court that she was sorry for what she had done and that she has deeply hurt those she loved the most (Daly).  In response to he admission, prosecutor Capt. Kirk Obear stated, “ Lt. Col. Tew traded integrity of the military professional for sexual desire.  She traded the honor of wearing the military uniform for lust, and she traded her ability to act as an effective leader in a position of authority for sexual intercourse” (Daly).  Most even partially coherent people at this point would notice the parallel here.  Clinton, the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military, not only committed adultery, but he out right lied about it.  He perjured himself numerous times on television and in front of committees trying to establish any wrongdoing on his part.  Then we have Karen, who admitted to the adultery and who was being stripped of her position of authority.  Shouldn't Clinton have been stripped of his position of authority also?  I emailed the President to ask if the president is liable under the UCMJ (after all, he IS the head of the military), or if he is liable under the Constitution, state or local laws.  I only received a “no comment in the interest of national security” response.
	There is a sad twist to Karen’s story.  Five days after her trail had ended, and only days before her sentence would be carried out, her parents returned from church to find that she had shot herself.  In an interview with Karen’s mother, reporter John Lawson of Dateline reveals,
Ever the accountant, Karen Tew did some research and discovered that if she died before her sentence of dismissal was carried out, all her benefits would be preserved.  Her daughters would keep their medical coverage.  Her pension and insurance would finance their college years.  She even left her husband signed tax forms so he would have an easier time filing.  And in an unbelievable irony, the Air Force ruled that Lieutenant Colonel Tew died in the line of duty of a mental illness.  The institution that stripped her of all she valued in life, gave her, in death, an honor guard and a 21-gun salute.” (Phillips)
	Only days after their daughter’s death, Clinton emerged from the White House with the family he swears he cherishes above all else.  Karen’s family was part of the television viewers watching this.  Daly concludes “Clinton gave a Marine snappy salute as befits a commander-in-chief whose most diligent and dedicated troops once included a lieutenant who had a private life just like a president and whose suicide note contained a line the now bears repeating. ‘Let the healing begin’ Tew wrote.” (Daly)
	There are many cases, which bear mentioning when the topic of why change is needed is brought up. One that stands out is the case of US Marine Corps Lance Corporal Kevin Holt.  On May 17, 1992 Holt’s whole world changed.  At home on leave, Holt was on his way to a barbeque when police surrounded his car.  When arrested, he was charged with the brutal slaying of a fellow marine at Camp Pendleton.  In an article by John Harry Watson, a reporter for the local newspaper in Holt’s hometown reveals the horrifying account of what happened.
The government contended that the murder took place in a 44-minute window on a Friday evening before Kevin was to return home on leave.  No less than eleven Marines, who knew the victim but did not know Kevin personally, testified that they had seen the victim (one even had breakfast with him) on the following Saturday and Sunday, when Kevin’s whereabouts were fully accounted for. The government dismissed all eleven out of hand as ‘Elvis sightings.’ Immediately after Holt’s arrest police seized 42 items from his mother’s home, including his car and the pair of jeans he allegedly wore at the murder scene.  After careful forensic analysis, the jeans were found to be devoid of any blood or fiber evidence by both the San Diego Sheriff’s department and the U.S. Army’s own high-tech crime lab. Faced with this setback, the government paid $25,000 to a civilian ‘blood splatter expert’ who ‘found’ bloodstains.  At the time of the investigation, this same ‘expert’ was under investigation by a Grand Jury for allegedly tampering with evidence and accepting bribes in an unrelated civilian case. (Watson)
Even though many other discrepancies occurred, Kevin was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. His mother, Glenda Ewing has started the group CAMI, in response to nine year of her being intimidated by the military.  She hopes her group will bring to light, the outrageous stories like her sons.  According to Kevin Holt, “the movie ‘A Few Good Men’ just scratched the surface of ‘America’s dirty little secret.” (Watson)
On March 13, 2001, the Commission on the 50th Anniversary of the Uniform Code of Military Justice will convene.  Judge Walter T. Cox III will chair the Commission of five other members.  These members are mostly retired military judge advocate corp. members and a professor of law.  Over the past few months, the Commission received submissions of topics from more than 250 people.  Major items include, the need for congressional review (of the UCMJ and justice system), jurisdiction, military judges, trial and defense counsel, crimes and offenses, sentencing and punishment and appeals (Cox). The findings of the commission will then be submitted to the necessary agencies for consideration.  
Nobody within the system, or retired from the system, actually believe any of the findings will see formal hearings before the people who could make or press for changes. So for the mean time, military judges will continue to serve indefinitely, juries will still be chosen by the commanding officer in charge of the accused, public affairs offices will still hide facts about the system from the media and the public, many more soldiers will have charges against them dropped in the interest of “National Security” or are against “good order, morale and discipline” and many more soldiers will go though the military “injustice” system.   Now is the time that the United States should give the same freedoms, safeguards and laws, to the very people who volunteered to defend the right’s of the people, before the military forces lose all the great hero’s to be!