Tag Archives: Uniform Code of Military Justice

Symposium on Military Justice | October 2021

National Institute of Military Justice logo

Hosted by National Institute of Military Justice (in honor of NIMJ’s 30th anniversary)

The following pieces are from the “30 Years of Military Justice” symposium held on Oct. 28, 2021, with keynote speaker Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and in partnership with Georgetown University Law Center’s Center on National Security and the Law, the Journal of National Security Law & Policy, and the Georgetown National Security Law and Military Law Societies.

Keynote Address | Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand

Military Retiree Court-Martial Jurisdiction: Trials and Tribulations | Philip D. Cave & Kevin M. Hagey

The Good Officer? Evaluating General Milley’s Constitutional Dilemma | John C. Dehn

Tort Remedies in Military Prisons and Brigs | Brenner M. Fissell & Max Jesse Goldberg

Reassessing the Ahistorical Judicial Use of William Winthrop
and Frederick Bernays Wiener
| Joshua Kastenberg

Preliminary Hearings in the United States Military | Franklin D. Rosenblatt

No Place in the Military: The Judiciary’s Failure to Compensate Victims of Military Sexual Assault & a Suggested Path Forward Using Lessons from the Prison Context

Patrie conducts a careful and detailed examination of sexual assault in the military with a review of several recent high-profile cases. She proposes a framework to enforce judicial noninterference in sensitive military affairs while also ensuring that the military does not violate servicemembers’ constitutional rights.

Should Lawyers Participate in Rigged Systems? – The Case of the Military Commissions

Lawyers often represent clients in criminal cases when the odds are long or a catastrophe likely. The facts might be harmful, the evidence overwhelming, or the law clearly on the side of the prosecution. Still, we do the best we can. But what if the system is rigged? What if the system has the trappings of a fair fight but is, in fact, skewed to one side and, by design, the lawyer cannot fully defend the client? What if the lawyer can only lend legitimacy to a process that at its core is biased, slanted in favor of the other side, or fundamentally unfair? Indeed, what if the system is rigged so as to prevent the lawyer from zealously representing the client, or if it compromises the lawyer’s undivided loyalty to the client? Should lawyers refuse to participate in such systems, or should they – should we – still do the best we can?