Talk:Courts-martial of the United States

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I've done some further wikification. But the article needs a little more work, I feel. --BillC 17:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't often weigh in, but I think the section about courts-martial not being Article III courts is misstated. I'd be interested in seeing a citation to a case, in my view they are specially constituted federal courts. Also, in the opening sentence of that paragraph, administrative tribunals and review (which is what I think is meant by "Article I" courts) certainly cannot take a person's life.

Good work

This is an exceptional start. I'll assit in editing where I can. Hadrian Penn 02:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It needs some work to reflect current practice in the US military; particularly in the roles of convening authorities and military judges. Posthoc777 07:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article calls out the acronym "JSC" in the fifth paragraph of Section 5. What's it stand for?

"JSC" is the Joint Services Committee. I've made the change to reflect the full name before the acronym is used. In summary, a representative from each service sits on the committee and they review proposed changes to the UCMJ and MCM as well as propose changes prior to sending them to Congress or the President. I'll try to insert a short piece on it. Hadrian Penn 15:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military law on military bases

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the UCMJ used to apply to everyone on military bases -- civilians and servicepeople alike. So, spouses and dependents who found themselves in trouble (say, the son of a Sgt. Smith stole a car and went joy-riding or the wife of a Lt. Jones assaulted her husband) would actually find themselves before a court-martial rather than a civilian legal proceeding. Until there was some kind of legal challenge to this type of jurisdiction, then a civilian legal presence was formed on overseas bases to prevent this sort of problem. I don't remember much else other than that, though. Perhaps this is something worth mentioning, from someone who knows WTF I'm talking about? —Micahbrwn (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added section on courts-martial appeals

The article did not discuss in detail a service members right to appeal and lack of Supreme Court access. The recent controversy of Supreme Court access and the two pending bills in the 111th Congress. I included that in the article with several references. I still believe the article needs much work in that more references need to be added. Over the next month I will continue to work on the article to bring it up to a good article nominee. If others have suggestions please write them on this page.

Regarding military law bases above. No, that is not the case. Civilians can be prosecuted under the UCMJ if they are serving with military units. I will address that situation with references in the article. (Mattwashdc (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Recent controversy over Supreme Court access - NPOV

I have tagged a couple of sentences in this section of the article for POV issues. The wording seems to show a bias towards Supreme Court access unstead of just merely the facts. The quote of Norbert Basil MacLean III in this section is of particular concern. While I am in favor of appelate access to the Supreme Court by service members, I also believe that the statements tagged could be written in a more NPOV manner. I am not the person to do this as I do not know anything more about the subject than this article conveys. Cuprum17 (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courts-Martial and appellate courts as legislative (Article I) courts

This section needs citations, and may also need an NPOV review or a review of its style. It almost reads as a defense of the status of military courts as being outside the normal judicial functions. Definitely reads as being in favor of the arrangement as opposed to neutral. 152.120.255.251 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

State Courts-Martial

The article as I found it covered only Federal courts-martial, and failed to note the continued existence of state courts-martial. State militaries are far less important today than they were in the past, but State courts-martial are still convened from time to time. Work continues... Mikedelsol (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Examples ?

An article in Daily Chronicle November 6, 2012 says 'There have been only two other court-martial cases against Army generals in recent years.' The current is against Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair (began Monday 5. Nov. at Fort Bragg, home to the 82nd Airborne Division: [1]. Does someone know who the other two were ? Should they be mentioned in the article ? --Neun-x (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courts-martial in the United States → Courts-martial of the United States – See arguments presented at Talk:Courts-martial of Canada#Requested move 24 June 2018. Jak525 (talk) 23:38, Thursday, July 5, 2018 (UTC) 23:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support, although I notice that the RM to which you refer closed as no consensus. This article covers courts-martial held by the US military in any part of the world, and would not cover a court-martial held by another military on US territory (hypothetical as that may seem). The current article title does not reflect this, the proposed one does. Andrewa (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.