Military or ex- military only please?

i am doing my term paper on determinism in the military
i am also having to talk about the ethics and morals between civil and military law (ie if civil attorney tries to defend a military personel) if any one could be of help please let me know.
thanks so much

There are some misunderstandings extant about the Military Law, The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ.) Those actions which would violate civil law are ipso facto violations of the UCMJ. The Code for the military adds special rules and regulations which codify the legal and illegal actions of any serving G.I.

Special circumstances apply to military persons. They are reuired to adhere to the standards set for them by their commanders every day. The rules are very involved and can be (in the way of government speak) quite incomprehensible. Simply put, the rules are that any G.I. must obey any legal order given him by any authorized superior. Most military justice questions, those heard in a general court martial, revolve around this very question.
Ethical choices are almost never considered as an option for serving military personell. It is assumed by command that all orders are ethical within the construct of the chain of command. If a soldier believes that a command crosses an ethical, rather than a legal, line he is compelled, at his peril, to obey first, complain later. A failure to obey a legal order because it (the order) violates your personal ethical sense, is cause for a court martial.

The soldier accused of failing to obey a legal order has no defense in civil or personnal ethics. He can defend himself only by showing that the order itself, or the manner of the order coming through the chain of command was in violation of the UCMJ.

Most military defendents in major court martial proceedings (a general court martial) will choose to have both a military and a civilian defense attorney. The role of the civilian attorney is limited by the UCMJ and his/her presence is sometimes viewed by the officers who constitute the court as a liability rather than an asset. The military culture is unique and difficult for those who have never experienced it to comprehend properly.

Ethical and moral comparisons between military and non-military standards are difficult to make. It surely would be ethically and morally wrong to kill another in the civil sector. In the military sector, it is required On the other hand the military ethic requires all combatants to avoid, if at all possible, killing a non-combatant, or intentionally placing a non-combatant in peril if circumstances allow one to avoid that peril. This is the place in which most G.I.'s encounter difficulty from an ethhical or moral view.

I don't know if this is helpful to you. It is difficult to provide a primer on military justice. If you wish to email me your term paper, I'll be happy to comment on it for you. I make that offer because of my uncertainty and a slightly guilty feeling that my response is at all helpful.

Best of luck in your writing.

Your question is rather vague, but I seem to have noticed that military personnel who are in serious trouble usually seek civilian council.

This is probably due to the fact that any defense attorney assigned by the military will be under orders from the prosecutor. (JAG, etc.)

If you do not learn from past mistakes, you are destine to relive. I think that this is true, think about lessons in your own life that you can relate to this fact. In the animal kingdom, if an animal doesn't learn from past experience, it could cost them their live. Military law is a board of officers that hear your case or a commanding officer. I would put my faith in a civilian court any day, than some officers who may not give you a fair hearing. I have little faith in military courts, ( guilty until proven innocent)