indexing of files is essential, and electrical and mechanical devices are used to extract important data from numerous reports and to combine related items.

Stress is laid by the Army on the importance of the production phase of the intelligence effort. Without sound evaluation, collation, integration, and interpretation of information, the most effective collection activities can be wasted. Moreover, the ensuing dissemination of faulty intelligence would seriously handicap the Army's plans and operations.

DISSEMINATION. This is the final

phase of the intelligence process. It involves getting the finished intelligence to the agencies that need it, in time to be useful. There are various means of dissemination, includingIntelligence periodicals, compilations, and written staff estimates, studies, and reports.

Maps and map substitutes.
Informal messages sent by letter,

radio, telephone, or other means. Personal contacts, such as briefing and informal spot reports and confer

ences.

Displays and exhibits, as of captured enemy material.

Until World War II the only Federal intelligence organizations were those of the Army (which included Air Force intelligence) and the Navy. The creation of other major intelligence organizations reduced the volume of political, economic, and sociological intelligence which the Army had formerly had to produce for itself and other government agencies. However, the Army still shoulders a heavy burden for the Federal intelligence community, because of its preeminent intelligence capabilities in the fields of geography, transportation, telecommunications, electronics, radar, nuclear weapons, and guided missiles, as well as topics pertaining solely to ground forces.

COORDINATION WITH OTHER INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES. Army intelligence works closely with the other major Federal intelligence agencies by administrative, coordinating mechanisms which have been developed in Washington, since World War II, for reasons of efficiency and economy, and as one means of guarding against another Pearl Harbor disaster. One of these is the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), consisting of the heads of Army, Navy, and Air Force intelligence and the Deputy Director for Intelligence of the Joint Staff. Another is the Joint Intelligence Group (JIG), a working body staffed by the three Armed Services, from which the group obtains the intelligence needed for the formulation of the plans and policies of the Joint Chiefs

of Staff. Army intelligence participates also in numerous committees and subcommittees, under the coordination of the Director of Central Intelligence (who is responsible by law for the coordination of all Federal intelligence activities). As a result it has constant liaison with the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the intelligence agencies of the Departments of State, Defense, Navy. and Air Force.

CONTROL OF INTELLIGENCE AT DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LEVEL. Army intelligence activities head up to the Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, a member of the Army General Staff reporting direct to the Chief of Staff. He is responsible for the collection, production, and dissemination of intelligence required by the General Staff and the major field commands. He coordinates and supervises the intelligence activities of the technical services; establishes policies and formulates doctrine for intelligence and counterintelligence training and operations throughout the Army; and exercises General Staff supervision over the Army Intelligence Center and the Army Security Agency.

LOWER COMMAND LEVELS. Army doctrine regards intelligence as a function of command, and in the last analysis the commander at any level is himself responsible for the success of

his command's intelligence mission. Under him, intelligence is the function of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G2, a member of his general staff. In commands too small to have a general staff, the corresponding title is S2.

At all levels the organization of intelligence work under G2 is in principle substantially the same as that in the Department of the Army, described above. Ordinarily, the higher the level, the larger and more intricate are the intelligence staffs and the broader their responsibilities. The intelligence requirements of tactical commands are likely to vary greatly, according to their current situation and missions. The Army provides the necessary flexibility by units of combat intelligence specialists in such subjects as order-of-battle and photo-interpretation, which are transferred in and out of G2 offices as needed.

Although, as stated, the G2 at any headquarters is a direct subordinate of his commander, intelligence is regarded as an Army-wide network, under the overall general staff supervision of the A.C. of S., Intelligence, in Washington.

CONTROL OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE. The Counterintelligence Corps is the investigative agency largely charged with executing the Army's counterintelligence mission. In addition there are Department of the Army

and Department of Defense programs for safeguarding classified information, and for checking the background of those persons, both in the Armed Forces and in defense industries, who need to have access to such information. The programs are designed to guard against unauthorized disclosure of any information which might be useful to a potential enemy. They are in force at nearly all command levels.

TRAINING. A major training program for intelligence and counterintelligence is maintained in both the Active Army and the reserve components. The school courses, which last from two weeks to nine months, cover the broad principles and techniques of intelligence and counterintelligence as well as the narrower specializations of both. The Commanding General of the Army Intelligence Center, located at Fort Holabird, Maryland, is responsible for the direction of such schools.

INTELLIGENCE PERSONNEL. Military intelligence is not a service branch in the Active Army, as it is in the Army Reserve. Officers of the various arms and services may be assigned to tours of duty with intelligence or counterintelligence units, in accordance with their backgrounds and the needs of the Army. Regular officers thus assigned, and also MI reserve officers on extended active duty, are carried on the rolls of a basic branch.

act as law members, and procurement of additional judge advocates required to implement the Articles of War.

Meantime, however, Secretary of Defense Forrestal had appointed (in July 1948) a special committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Edmund Morgan, Jr., of Harvard Law School, to draft a code of military justice for all of the Armed Forces. The committee's seven months' study resulted in H. R. 2498, a bill to provide a uniform code of military justice (“UCMJ”). The code is uniformly applicable to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard. It covers both the substantive and the procedural law governing military justice and its administration in all of the Armed Forces. Insofar as the Army is concerned it supersedes the Articles of War, and is the sole statutory authority for: (1) the imposition of disciplinary penalties for offenses without judicial action; (2) the establishment of pretrial and trial procedure; (3) the creation and contribu

tion of three types of courts-martial, summary, special, and general; (4) the eligibility of members of each of the courts and the qualifications of law officers and counsel; (5) the review of findings and sentence and the constitution of reviewing tribunals; (6) the enumeration and definition of offenses.

On 5 May 1950, the President signed "An Act to unify, consolidate, revise, and codify the Articles of War, the Articles for the Government of the Navy, and the disciplinary laws of the Coast Guard, and to enact and establish a Uniform Code of Military Justice." This code went into effect, generally, on 31 May 1951. On the same date the President prescribed the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, to implement the Code.

Although Congress, in codifying Title 10 of U. S. Code, effected some minor language changes in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, no substantive change has been enacted since 5 May 1950.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice is divided into 11 subchapters containing 140 articles. These subchapters, or basic groups, are: General Provisions, Apprehension and Restraint, Nonjudicial Punishment, Court-Martial Jurisdiction, Composition of Courts-Martial, Pre-trial Procedure, Trial Procedures, Sentences, Review of Courts-Martial, Punitive Articles, and Miscellaneous Provisions.

Of the 140 articles only 58 are punitive articles, that is, provisions which explain in detail the offenses that are punishable by courts-martial. Although these offenses run the gamut from a feigned illness calculated to avoid KP to premeditated murder, they may be generally classified into three groups:

(1) military offenses, such as absence without leave, desertion, willful disobedience of orders, misbehavior before the enemy, and misbehavior of sentinel; (2) crimes common to both civil and military law, such as murder, rape, arson, burglary, larceny, and forgery; and (3) a general group of offenses, not otherwise specifically provided for, which may be described as "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman," "all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces," and "all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces."

To form a trained, effective, ready military unit from a group of individuals banded together by their oath of en

listment requires that the individuals be physically present to perform their duties unless they are properly absented; that they respond quickly and unfailingly to the lawful orders of their superiors; and that they abide by the standards of conduct established for them. These are fundamental duties, willingly assumed by most soldiers, inspired through leadership in others, and instilled through fear of punishment in a few. However, to insure proper performance of military duties in all cases, the military offenses have been incorporated in the Code. For example, the military offenses of fraudulent or unlawful enlistment, appointment or separation, desertion, and absence without leave are designed to guarantee that individuals are at their proper places of duty. The offenses of contempt toward officials, disrespect toward superior officer, assaulting or willfully disobeying officer, insubordinate conduct toward noncommissioned officer, failure to obey regulation, mutiny, sedition, and subordinate compelling surrender are intended to insure the proper functioning of the chain of command, so essential to the successful operation of a military unit. The offenses of cruelty and maltreatment toward subordinates, unlawful detention of another, noncompliance with procedural rules, misbehavior before the enemy, improper use of countersign, forcing a safeguard, misuse of captured or abandoned property, aiding the enemy, misconduct as prisoner, spying, making false official statement, willfully or through neglect losing, damaging, or destroying property of the United States, improper hazarding of vessel, misbehavior of sentinel, and malingering are included in the

Code so as to provide that all soldiers will abide by the standard of conduct established for them.

Article 14 of the Code provides that the Secretary of the Army (in the case of Army personnel) may prescribe regulations providing for the delivery of a member of the Army to the civil authority of a State, upon request, for the trial of an offense which is punishable under the law of that particular State. It is the policy of the Department of the Army that a member of the Army will not be shielded from a just prosecution solely because of his status as a member of the Army. With respect to extradition from one State to another, military personnel are considered to be in the same status as persons not members of the Army.

The general articles (Articles 133 and 134) are the "catch-all" provisions in military law. They are designed to insure that violations of military practice, usage, or custom, and service-discrediting violations of Federal and State law, do not go unpunished even though such acts are not specifically enumerated in one of the other articles. To attempt to list, as specific offenses, all possible human acts that would violate the customs of the service or discredit the Armed Forces would be a burdensome and probably a vain task. Therefore Congress used the vehicle of the general articles to insure the complete coverage of all acts requiring military discipline. Examples of conduct condemned by the general articles are: failing to pay just debts, disloyal statements, drunk and disorderly conduct, unauthorized use of narcotics, use of false pass, breaking restriction, unclean uniform, and straggling.

DISCIPLINE AND NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT. Military justice is based essentially on the premise that the least severe measures which can be effective should be employed to correct a wrong-doer.

The lowest form of punitive measure that may be employed by a commanding officer is that conferred upon him

by Article 15 of UCMJ, nonjudicial punishment. Under the authority of Article 15 any commanding officer may, for minor offenses, without the intervention of a court-martial, impose disciplinary punishments upon officers, warrant officers, and other personnel of his command. Whether an offense is to be considered "minor" depends upon