1. In light of this @RonanFarrow story about Larry Rendall Brock, Jr., an Air Force veteran, here's a quick #thread about the complicated, confusing, and evolving state of the law regarding when the military can (and cannot) court-martial retired servicemembers.

2. First, an important distinction: The military can *recall* most retirees to active duty. But that's not the same thing as whether they can be tried by court-martial for offenses committed *while* retired (and before being recalled).

That's where things get complicated.
3. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) authorizes courts-martial for *any* offense committed by those who have retired from a "regular component" and are receiving pay, along with members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve (who are effectively retirees).
4. But the UCMJ authorizes courts-martial for offenses committed by those who have retired from *reserve* components only while "receiving hospitalization from an armed force." And #SCOTUS held in 1955 that the military cannot try those who have *separated* from the armed forces.
5. So whether Brock can be tried by court-martial — under current law, anyway — for his role in Wednesday's attacks depends upon his *exact* status as of Wednesday, i.e., whether he is separated from the Air Force, retired from active duty, or retired from the reserves.

But...
6. This legal framework is being challenged. Whether the *Constitution* allows the military to court-martial *any* retired servicemember for offenses committed while retired is currently at issue in two separate lawsuits (full disclosure: I represent the retiree in both of them).
7. In Larrabee v. Braithwaite, the DC district court ruled in November that the Constitution forbids the court-martial of members of the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve for offenses committed after retiring from active duty:

https://t.co/ZG4X8mKlOu

That ruling may soon be appealed.
8. And in United States v. Begani, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces will hear argument in March or April on both the Larrabee question *and* whether the UCMJ violates equal protection insofar as the distinction between active-duty and reservist retirees is arbitrary.
9. Thus, the existing law rests on complex distinctions *and* there's ongoing litigation that could significantly narrow—if not altogether eliminate—the circumstances in which *any* retired servicemembers can be tried by court-martial for offenses committed *while* retired.

/end

More from Government

Let me take a stab at this after years of reporting on Marine One, HMX-1, Continuity of Government, etc. None of this is definitive, but it could help explain what folks are seeing:

1.) HMX-1, which flies the VH-3D and VH-60N 'White Top' helicopters used to move... 1/X


the President and VP around, those helos being called Marine One or Two when either is onboard, need to train. The urban landing zones, including WH and VP Residence, are not simple to get in and out of. So, crews need some currency training. They are not just tasked with... 2/X

moving POTUS and VP to get them around the region and to Andrews AFB for long-haul flights, they are essential to Continuity of Government operations. This means that if a threat were to emerge, they need to be ready to snatch POTUS and VP in minutes. This is partially... 3/X

why they have a full forward operating location at Naval Support Activity Anacostia, just 3 miles from the WH. As such, practice is important and considering the state of things, it is critical now more than in any recent memory. 4/X

2.) Considering what happened last week, including mobs of Trump supporters screaming in unison to hang the VP for doing what the constitution states, absolutely despicable in every way, security has been tightened just as it has been all over. Using the helicopters instead.. 5/X
Typically excellent piece from @dsquareddigest The exponential insight is especially neat. Think of it a little like fishing...today you can’t export oysters to the EU (because you simply aren’t allowed to), tomorrow you don’t have a fish exporting business (to the EU).


The extremely small minority of people who known anything about this who think that Brexit will be good for the City make a number of arguments which I shall address in turn...

1. They need us more than we need them. This is a variant of the German carmakers argument. And we know how that went...Business will follow the profit opportunity and if that has moved then so will the business...

And what do we mean by us / we. We’re not talking about massed ranks of Euro investing / trading etc blue blooded British institutions.

Au contraire. We’re talking about the London based subs of US, Asian and indeed European capital markets players...As soon as they think the profit opportunity has moved then so will they...it’s a market innit...

You May Also Like