網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

to say anything about the offense with which he is charged; and, before any statement is taken from him, he must be reminded of that right and of the fact that any statement given by him can be used against him in a trial by court-martial.

There must a thorough and impartial investigation before any charge is referred to a court-martial for trial. In this investigation the charges are reviewed and the witnesses and evidence on both sides are examined. The accused has the right to be represented by a lawyer at this investigation as well as at his trial. He also has the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses, and to present witnesses and evidence in his own behalf.

REVIEWS OF COURTS-MARTIAL. When a member of the Armed Forces has been convicted of any offense by a court-martial, the machinery for reviewing the decision goes to work automatically. Every conviction is reviewed by a higher authority, a higher court, or both. Some of the questions which the reviewers look into are: Did the trial court act correctly and within the law? Was the accused person denied any rights to which he was entitled? Was the sentence within legal limits? Was it too severe? The review is provided to detect injustices, errors, and irregularities. Reviewing authorities have the power to correct injustices and to reduce or set aside sentences, but in no case may a reviewing authority add to the punishment imposed by a courtmartial.

All summary and special court-martial cases are reviewed by the officer who convened the court, and by the judge advocate, who is usually on the staff of the officer having general courtmartial authority. This officer has supervisory power over all summary and special court-martial cases tried in his command.

The records of all general courtmartial trials, and of any special courtsmartial that impose bad conduct discharges, are reviewed also by the officer who has general court-martial authority over the command. Before he takes action on the case his legal officer goes over it in detail and writes a legal

293

opinion of the trial proceedings, with recommendations as to action that

should be taken. The reviewing officer usually follows the advice of his legal officer. He may (1) approve the findings and sentence; or (2) disapprove them and order a rehearing before another court-martial; or (3) disapprove them and order the charges dismissed.

Where the trial results in the acquittal of the accused, the verdict of the court is final.

The reviewing officer next sends the entire general court-martial record, including his action on it, to The Judge Advocate General of the Army. The Judge Advocate General has established a number of boards of review in his office, each composed of at least three officers or civilians of high legal qualifications. Every case involving a general or flag officer, or an approved sentence of death, dismissal, dishonorable discharge, bad conduct discharge, or confinement for a year or more. must be referred to a board of review. The board has the power to let the sentence stand, to reduce it by any amount it thinks appropriate, to set aside the findings of guilty and the sentence and order a rehearing, or to order the charge dismissed.

An accused whose case is before a board of review may have a military lawyer assigned to represent him before the board.

Above the boards of review, the Uniform Code of Military Justice established a court called the United States Court of Military Appeals, consisting of three civilian judges who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Each case involving a general or flag officer or a death sentence, affirmed by a board of review, must be reviewed by this Court. Every offender whose sentence, approved by the convening authority, includes punitive discharge or confinement for one year or more has a right to petition for hearing before the Court. The Court usually accepts only those cases in which it finds some error that involves substantial prejudice or an important principle of law. Petitions to the Court, and the processing of the case, without cost to the accused.

a

are

Although the boards of review have

the power to weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses and decide questions of fact, as well as to rule upon questions of law, the Court of Military Appeals is limited in its review to questions of law exclusively.

JURISDICTION OVER PERSONS NOT MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES. The Uniform Code of Military Justice provides that a civilian serving with, employed by, or accompanying the Armed Forces outside the continental limits of the United States is subject to court-martial jurisdiction. This was interpreted to include civilian employees of the Army employed in oversea areas, as well as dependents of servicemen accompanying the military member overseas. However, the Supreme Court of the United States, on 10 June 1957, ruled that a general courtmartial conviction of murder, in the case of a wife accompanying her husband overseas, was illegal, because the trial of a civilian dependent located overseas, for a capital case in time of peace, is a violation of the Constitution.

[blocks in formation]

JURISDICTION OVER ENEMY PERSONNEL AND FOREIGN CIVILIAN PERSONNEL IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY

When enemy territory is occupied, the authority of the Legitimate Power passes in fact into the hands of the Occupying Power, and the Occupant assumes a duty to take all measures in its power to restore, and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the occupied country. The criminal laws of the occupied territory remain in force, except that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power where they are a threat to the security of the Occupant, or where the enforcement of the laws would be inconsistent with its duties. The tribunals of the occupied territory continue to function in respect of all offenses covered by the laws of that territory. (These tribunals do not have jurisdiction over personnel of the Occupying Power unless specifically granted such jurisdiction by the Occupant.) The Occupying Power may. however, subject the population of the

occupied territory to laws and regulations which are essential to enable the Occupant to fulfill its obligations and to protect the security and property of the Occupying Power and its personnel. To this end the Occupying Power may establish its own courts for the administration of justice in an occupied territory. In this regard it is noted that Articles 104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, dealing with aiding the enemy and spying, apply to all persons without regard to citizenship or military status.

Prisoners of war are subject to the laws, regulations, and orders in force in the armed forces of the nation detaining them. They can, however, be tried and punished only by a tribunal which offers them the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality generally recognized and which accords them certain specific rights set forth in the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

FOREIGN CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER PERSONNEL OF OUR ARMED FORCES

another contracting party, shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction where the offense is solely against the property or security of the sending nation; where the offense is solely against the person or property of a member of the visiting force, or a member of the civilian component of that force, or a dependent of either; or where the offense arises out of an act or omission done in the performance of official duty. The host country has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction in all other cases involving offenses against the laws of both countries.

During World War II, criminal juris- that force, when in the territory of diction over American troops serving in friendly foreign countries was, almost without exception, exercised exclusively by United States courts-martial. This exclusive jurisdiction was granted to the United States because of wartime conditions. When the war ended, however, the conditions which had previously justified the grant of complete immunity ceased to exist, and the governments of the countries concerned were reluctant to continue that immunity. Rather than permit the foreign countries concerned to exercise within their territory exclusive jurisdiction over United States forces personnel, as they could do in the absence of an agreement, United States authorities considered that the interests of the United States could best be served by negotiating agreements specifically defining the status of its forces when in the territory of foreign countries.

Status of forces agreements, of one type or another, have been negotiated with most countries in which United States forces personnel are present on duty. They represent the maximum extent to which the host countries were willing to refrain from exercising criminal jurisdiction over American forces personnel within their territory, and they vary substantially from country to country depending on the local situation. The best known of these is the NATO Status of Forces Agreement, which defines the status of certain American personnel when stationed in those NATO countries that are parties to the Agreement, and (being reciprocal) defines at the same time the status of certain personnel from those countries when stationed in the United States. That agreement recognizes the basic right of both the local government and the military authorities of a visiting force to try personnel of that force stationed in the countries covered by the agreement. It further provides that the military authorities of

In addition to defining the right of each country to exercise jurisdiction over visiting forces personnel, the NATO Status of Forces Agreement also provides certain safeguards for an accused who is tried by a foreign court. Under the terms of the Agreement, an accused is entitled to a prompt and speedy trial, to be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge against him, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses, to have legal representation of his own choice, to have the services of a competent interpreter, to communicate with a representative of his own nation, and, when the rules of the court permit, to have a representative of his nation present at the trial.

The interests of the accused are further protected by a domestic law authorizing the Armed Services to provide legal counsel, at the expense of the United States Government, to any person subject to United States military law who is to be tried in a foreign court for a serious offense. They also provide a trial observer for every case -a lawyer in all except minor caseswho observes the foreign proceedings and renders a report concerning the fairness of the trial. If the proceedings are considered unfair, appropriate remedial action is taken by the United States authorities.

Chapter 18

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE ARMY

The outstanding characteristic of modern war is the adaptation to military use of all the resources of twentieth century science. Research and development therefore form a vital aspect of our national defense. Their objective, to quote an official text, is "to apply the results of scientific research to the development of the most advanced materiel, techniques, and countermeasures, in the execution of the military policy of the United States."

This is not a "once-for-all" activity but a continuing one. It has in fact been going on, though at a steadily accelerated rate, throughout our history; the commonplaces of today's armament and equipment are founded on the studies of past generations. The present chap

NEW EQUIPMENT

The most striking of these are in the fields of missiles; increased mobility by land, air, and water; small arms and artillery; surveillance techniques; the adaptation of the resources of nuclear physics to military ends; and certain others.

FREE AND GUIDED MISSILES. The Army (Ordnance Corps) had entered this field of research and development in 1944, before Germany launched her first V-2. After the German surrender we captured a quantity of V-2 equipment. This was dovetailed into our own program, which has been pursued ever since and, at the present time, is being pushed intensively.

A free rocket, like the shell of a

ter does not attempt to review the research programs of the Army's entire history, but confines itself to strictly contemporary devices or developments, which have been accepted as standard quite recently or are just emerging from the experimental stage; and to the means which the Army uses to attain its ends in this field.

Three aspects of the topic are to be considered

Current developments in equipment and techniques.

Current developments in organization and training.

Agencies responsible for the program. They are summarized below, as far as security considerations permit.

AND TECHNIQUES

·

gun, is beyond further control once it has been aimed and fired. A guided missile, on the other hand, can be directed to its target after launching, by one or another means. With its present guided missiles, and the rockets which supplement them, our Army possesses the finest arsenal of short and medium range missiles in the world. Their power, with crews at the ready in widely-dispersed sites, is a vital deterrent to war.

Army missiles fall into two categories: surface-to-surface missiles, which supplement and may largely supplant artillery for use against ground targets. and surface-to-air (antiair) missiles, which supplement and may largely sup

1 In military literature the phrase "Research and is often abbreviated to "R & D." In view of the criticisms of needless secrecy which are sometimes leveled against the Department of the Army, the writer would like to say that in assembling the material for this chapter he found no disposition whatever to withhold information about new devices and experimental programs. except in certain special fields where it would be obvious to anyone that publicity would for the moment be contrary to the interests of national defense.

Development." especially when used as part of a title.

[blocks in formation]

The influence of some of these on national defense and the international situation has been profound. The NikeHercules antiair missile, with its ability to destroy with one burst a large group of fast high-flying planes, has put our AA defenses markedly ahead of any potential enemy's aircraft. The Jupiter development program, in addition to providing a weapon which is in itself an awe-inspiring deterrent to aggression, has been invaluable in other ways. The semiannual report of the Secretary of the Army, for the period ending 30 June 1957, states that experience thus gained "has contributed heavily to the framework of all missile engineering in the United States. It has enabled the Army to bring out a variety of other missiles, and it accorded the Army rather unique qualifications for the Jupiter program, wherein all the Army's available resources in scientific manpower and funds are being applied with critical urgency."

FIRST EARTH SATELLITE. The first U. S. scientific earth satellite, the Explorer, was launched by the Army from Cape Canaveral, Florida, at 10:48 PM on 31 January 1958. The launching (first stage) was powered by Jupiter C, a modified version of the Redstone missile mentioned above. Observations made after launching showed that the satellite's orbit had an apogee (maximum distance from the earth) of 1,587 miles and a perigee of 219 miles, and that its mean velocity was 18,470 miles per hour.

The mission of launching Explorer had been assigned to the Army on 8 November 1957. According to published accounts, Maj. Gen. John Medaris, Chief

of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency, told Secretary of Defense McElroy that the satellite could be put into orbit within 90 days after the Army was given the go-ahead. It actually took 85 days. The launching was a joint undertaking of the Ballistic Missile Agency and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the California Institute of Technology.

Explorer provided basic scientific data of great value in man's effort to understand the earth and the regions of space immediately surrounding it. The satellite carried two miniaturized radio transmitters, which telemetered information to ground stations located around the world. The first transmitter sent data on skin temperature of the rear area of the satellite, internal temperature, micrometeorite impact, and cosmic ray counts. The second sent data on the skin temperature of the satellite forward area, the nose cone temperature, micrometeorite impact, and cosmic ray counts. In addition, ground observations of the satellite furnished data on the ionosphere, geomagnetic field intensity, and atmospheric density. (Heretofore information of this sort could be arrived at only by calculations based on indirect evidence.)

Accurate optical and radio observation of changes in satellite orbits may provide basic information as to gravitational anomalies in the earth. The exact amount by which the earth's shape deviates from an ideal sphere can be determined from such observations. It may also be possible to check the belief of some geologists that continents drift a few feet a year. Up to now there has been no means of proving or disproving this theory, since intercontinental distances were not accurately known. Calculations based on simultaneous observations of Explorer and its successors may lead to a precise calculation of such distances.

Explorers III and IV were also placed in orbit in 1958. In December 1958 the Army launched the "moonprobe" Pioneer III. Due to a slight deficiency in speed it fell back after rising over 66,000 miles. However, it and the Explorers have provided valuable data on the belt of radiation that surrounds the earth.

« 上一頁繼續 »