John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
DJA wrote:
John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
DJA wrote:
Or if you are in the military (where you have no Constitutional rights).
Have you ever been in the military?
Does twenty-seven months in the Brown Water Navy count? There and then
you couldn't even reliably count on being covered by the UCMJ.
Yes, it does count. Apparently, you either forgot some key facts are are
choosing to ignore them for benefit of rhetoric.
Not really. I've just been exposed to how military justice can be
implemented (You might remember CCC prisoners in boot camp?).
Military personnel get to fully enjoy all of their constitutional
rights. It so happens that military personnel also fall under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice.
For the most part, the UCMJ trumps the Constitution. It's the one
court-backed exception to the "Everyone has rights under the
Constitution" rule"[1].
It's pretty tough to maintain a standing army when you can't summarily
execute someone without a bunch of paperwork.
Heh. There is a bunch of paperwork for such things. There is a bunch of
paperwork to remove a part of someone's pay for a couple of months. And
you don't get to be executed by NJP. You get to go through a bona fide
court martial. Different beast.
When bullets are flying, you merely need to aim. Being in a brig run by
Marines is /not/ the same as being in a jail run by the Sheriff. Ever
hear a sailor Mirandized by the Military Police?
The military implements its justice system according to circumstances
and expediency. It's often situational, and dependent on factors such as
location, CO policy, and political climate. And except in extreme or
highly publicized cases, not accountable to authority outside the
military, most often not even outside the instant command.
This is also why a lot of seeming infractions that would be enjoy full
Constitutional Protection fall under NJP, or Non-Judicial Punishment.
Non Judicial means outside of the (American) legal system.
Yep. Either you enjoy the rights - or you don't.
You do. You forgot what NJP is, apparently. Non-Judicial. Not via the
judicial system. There is no innocent. There is no guilty. There is no
double jeopardy, because there is no jeopardy in the first place with
NJP.
A rose by any other name... It really doesn't matter what we call it.
Either a person has rights or they don't. If they one right under one
system, but not under another, then they /effectively/ don't have that
right if they can't be prosecuted under the system in which they /don't/
have that right.
The UCMJ is a system of justice that straddles the justice system
established by the Constitutional. The Military is partly inside and
partly outside the civilian government framework.
The Military works much more like a prison system than an employer. The
first thing you learn in the military is that you do what you're told.
The consequences of ignoring that prime directive are not that you'll
get fired. But that you'll get punished, and /then maybe/ fired.
Of course the today's military is a lot different than when I was in. It
doesn't want malcontents, it wants quality and unwavering loyalty. It
can get that with an all-volunteer army. But one of the consequences is
that it is also less tolerant of deviance and proportionally more
inclined to make examples of wave makers.
The combined influences of the current emphasis on National Security,
legislation based on fear, pro-law enforcement policies, moral and
religious intolerance, profiling, the War de Jour, voter apathy, blind
patriotism, etc., etc., the military is becoming more of a cult of
unaccountable self-righteousness.
When most of us were in the military because we were drafted (or coerced
into joining by the threat of induction) we were much more tolerant of
our fellow comrades-in-arms and their differences. The military today is
much more a monoculture that it was when I was in over thirty years ago.
This is also why an active duty military person can be ``tried'' twice
for the same crime, notably under-age drinking or DUI.
Yes, despite that pesky part in the Constitution about double jeopardy.
Say you are driving along in your company car and exceeding the speed
limit. You get a ticket, and you go to court, and you are found guilty
so you end up going to driving school.
Your company punishes you for breaking the law be removing your right
too drive their cars. Is that double jeopardy? No. Not at all. This is
akin to what NJP is. However, the military can do more than just that
within the confines of the UCMJ.
Your employer doesn't get to unilaterally /force/ you to do extra duty,
demeaning duty, reduce your rate or rank and pay, fine you, change your
job description, re-assign you, or jail you - along with a final outcome
of optionally firing you. Neither does your employer get to decide
whether or not you can quit.
I know it seems to civilians that military personnel have waived or
suspended their Constitutional rights, but this is a fallacy.
Lot's of civilians have also waived one or more Constitutional rights,
especially their Fourth Amendment rights.
If you had said second amendment, WRT felons, I would say they did not
so much give it up as had it taken from them by an action of the courts.
But by definition, a right is something that can neither be granted nor
taken away. A *privilege* can be taken away as easily as it was granted.
The courts have said that you can be searched without warrant during a
traffic stop because driving is a privilege.
You said fourth, having to do with search and seizure. I am not sure
what you are talking about, except maybe this war on drugs and war on
terror that are more appropriately called the two-front war on civil
rights.
Next time you meet up with someone who's been convicted of say,
possession of a controlled substance, ask them about it. It's pretty
much the rule for at least the last twenty-five years as part of probation.
Unfortunately, while the electorate has been sleeping on election day,
much of the Constitution's old school ideas of liberty have been
eliminated, or replaced with something more malleable.
Yep. Slightly different beast than the going to the police station, and
signing a document saying ``I give up right A, B and C.''
Again, if you can give up a right, then it's not really a right is it.
Legal and philosophical theory says rights can't be waived. That's why
they're called rights. The work-around is easy: "Except for you"[2].
[2] That's pretty much the definition of "Person of Interest" and
"Detainee".
Most (most) are foreign nationals not being held on US soil. Not all.
This is still not the ``take a job. relinquish your rights'' type thing.
-john
I was wise enough not to confuse military duty with having a job. I saw
plenty of people who understand the difference. The consequences were
usually not very job-like.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
