Execution

[twistedmic]

His Sergeant wants him killed and creates believable fake evidence.

But the question remains, should he be allowed to be executed?

That's a lot of fuckarsing around when an AD (accidental discharge) during a live fire exercise will do the job.

Or, if the army was at war and in the field, just have the Sergeant send Rust out on patrol with him (the Sergeant) or a couple of co-conspirators and kill him out there, then when they get back to base claim that the enemy got Rust. It's a practice that's called (I believe) fragging, and it was used by the U.S. soldiers during Vietnam to rid themselves of 'undesirable' or ineffective squadmates.

 

[kurupt87]

The US military retains the right to execute, after a court martial, those found guilty of an executionable offence. I don't know what counts as an executionable offence to the US military; but it can, on any foreign soil (which would be illegal in alot of countries, but the US is a law unto itself) or in any of the 51 states (which would be legal), carry out an execution.

 

[geldonyetich]

Hint: going to a forum and asking people is not the same as conducting research.

I put "us army executions" into Google, and bam, you've got your answer:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/us-military-death-penalty

 

[Me55enger]

Don't tell em Pike!

 

[maninahat]

I recommend you read The Dirty Dozen if you want to see a story featuring military trials and executions. It's a good book anyway, and might help you form your work.

 

[manaman]

you shouldn't be able execute anyone who volunteers for military service, if this story had convicts conscripted into the army then yeah, execute him.

Why should you be allowed to execute people you forced to fallow your rule set, vs people of volunteered to follow those rules?

Seems to me that it would be crueler to punish those you forced into service then those who knew full well what they where getting into and volunteered anyway.

The US military retains the right to execute, after a court martial, those found guilty of an executionable offence. I don't know what counts as an executionable offence to the US military; but it can, on any foreign soil (which would be illegal in alot of countries, but the US is a law unto itself) or in any of the 51 states (which would be legal), carry out an execution.

Doy! Let's all bash the US for not adhering to the collective values of every country around the world at the same time. I don't get some people, I have seen people bash the US for anything that does not fall within their culture, then in the same sentence, lecture people about not being sensitive or tolerant of other countries cultures.

First off the executable offenses:

* 94 - Mutiny or sedition
* 99 - Misbehavior before the enemy
* 100 - Subordinate compelling surrender
* 101 - Improper use of countersign
* 102 - Forcing a safeguard
* 104 - Aiding the enemy
* 106a - Espionage
* 110 - Improper hazarding of vessel
* 118 - Murder
* 120 - Rape and carnal knowledge

Four provisions of the UCMJ carry a death sentence only if the crime is committed during times of war:

* 85 - Desertion
* 90 - Assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer
* 106 - Spies
* 113 - Misbehavior of a sentinel or lookout

But let's not mention the fact that there has not been a military execution since 1961.

On to the foreign soil bit. Embassy land, and bases in foreign countries are not on foreign soil, but federal land held or leased by the US goverment, and can be considered US soil. Same with embassies of other countries inside the US.

Last: 51 states? I really hope you where typing the numbers on the number pad and that's a typo. Unless I missed a really big, really recent news story.

 

[swolf]

Um, the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) is quite tricky. I've heard that it is legal to kill someone for committing treason or after a court martial (military court) has sentenced them to death. Other than those two, I don't know for sure. Then again, this doesn't seem like the type of instance that would ever see the inside of a court room. The person would have (likely) been shot by his comrade using an enemy weapon so that the ballistics wouldn't match their weapon. Evidence of the shooter having touched the weapon could easily be explained away by saying that he immediately wrestled the weapon from "the murderer". I hope that makes sense, I guess I didn't explain it well. Let me know if I need to edit it.

 

[swolf]

Military Legal Snip

You deserve a cookie for your research. Also, by the 51 states, he may have been referring to a Puerto Rico which some consider to be a US state (for some reason) even though it's not.