Site Presented By
Monday, Nov 9, 2009
Trying to prove that you're being railroaded by officers trying to cover up for their own poor leadership, or to punish you for speaking out, is particularly difficult because superior officers have so much power. They control your salary, food and clothing, movement and freedom; they decide if your hair is too long. They hold the keys to your career, and they can chuck them in the gutter at any time.
Superior officers also get to choose your punishment. They decide if you will face a trial by jury or a laundry list of "nonjudicial" penalties, including reduction of rank, loss of pay, and house arrest. They also appoint the investigators who will look into your case.
The Army will provide you with a military defense attorney, or you can hire a civilian attorney at great expense. A civilian lawyer might be a good idea -- military lawyers are notoriously overworked, and some have the reputation of not trying overly hard on their clients' behalf. Should a defense bankrupt you, too bad: You can't sue the military to reimburse your attorney fees.
That Goodrum's innocence was determined by one general, as opposed to a jury (which would be called for a court-martial), is significant. Superior officers can decide whether a soldier should be tried by a jury or face other, usually lesser, disciplinary action decided by one officer.
That quirk of military justice, critics say, can also be abused to prevent damaging information from becoming public during discovery and cross-examination in a trial by jury. If one general can decide what evidence to look into, he can also decide what not to look into. Information that is damaging to the chain of command can simply remain secret.
Some experts have called for an overhaul of the incestuous military justice system, pointing out that it can easily be manipulated to protect and insulate the Army brass at the expense of lower-ranking soldiers. Which is just what many believe happened in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, in which the Army has ignored almost all the high-level officers involved and punished grunts. "The whole system is inherently conflicted. They circle the wagons," said Kevin J. Barry, a former Coast Guard judge and a founder of the National Institute of Military Justice, which helps defend GIs.
After the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in April 2004, Barry wrote an opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune. "In the United States, almost every commander is also a court-martial convening authority, the equivalent of a district attorney," Barry wrote. "The commander is empowered and required to investigate serious crimes and to make prosecution decisions such as whom to charge and for what crimes. This role can present a conflict of interest." Barry added that "these are precisely the circumstances ... found in Abu Ghraib."
After an officer hands down a ruling, in most cases the accused military personnel do have the option of demanding a court-martial, a proceeding over which the military has less control. Goodrum says that the Army tried to cut a deal with him that would rule out a court-martial. He says that he would have insisted on a court-martial proceeding if he had had the money to pay the legal bills.
I told Barry that Goodrum's command had decided against a court-martial and handled Goodrum's case in a nonjudicial fashion through one general. "They are scared of something," Barry said.
