DOCSLIB.ORG

Congressional Floor Debate on the Uniform Code of Military Justice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Congressional Floor Debate on the Uniform Code of Military Justice w\ i' / ( k.5 J&l-.t; fl.i-ii2 i - vr -7Y 2374&,(~ c~dal~~~~on~resiionalgi7625 Floor Debate ,A/I +-;!?7-5 on -- 1 2-" The Uniform Code of Military Justice CONGRESSIONAL FLOOR DEBATE ON UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE United States HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (Cong. Record, Vol. 95, Pt. 3, p. 4120) April 7, 1949 PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under Clause 3 of rule XXII, Public bills and resolutions were introduced and severally referred as follows: By lkr. Brooks: H.R. 4080. A bill to unify, consolidate, revise and codify the Articles of War, the Articles for the Government of the Navy, and the disciplinary laws of the Coast Guard and to enact and establish a Uniform Code of Military Justice; to the Committee on Armed Services. United States HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (Cong. Record, Vol. 95, Pt. 4 p. 5286) April 29, 1949 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS Under Clause 2 of Rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to tneproper calendar, as follows: Mr. Brooks: Committee on Armed Services, H. R. 4080. A bill to unify, consolidate, revise, and codify the Articles of War, the Articles for the Government of the Navy, and the disciplinary laws of the Coast Guard and to enact and establish a Uniform Code of Military Justice; with amend- ments (Rpt. No. 491). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. United States HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (Cong. Record, Vol. 95, Pt. 5, p. 5718) May 5, 1949 UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE Mr. Sabath: Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 201 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution as follows: Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole Rouse on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H. R. 4080) to unify, consolidate, revise, and codify the Articles of War, the Articles for the Government of the Navy, and the disciplinary laws of the Coast Guard and to enact and establish a Uniform Code of Military Jus- tice. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and con- tinue not to exceed 3 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Ser- vices, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit. Mr. Sabath. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order a bill which has been reported from the Committee on Armed Services. It aims to unify, revise, and codify the Articles of War, the Articles for the Government of the Navy, and the disciplinary laws of the Coast Guard, and to enact and estab- lish a Uniform Code of Military Justice. I know that prill be pleasing and acceptable to all of us. The rule provides for 3 hours, general debate, and the bill will then be taken up, as usual, under the 5-minute rule. It is an ex- tremely important bill, but the most important part, to my mind, is the sec- tion providing for a special Coort of Military Appeals, which shall consist of three members to be appointed by the President, two of one party, and the third of the other party, which would have jurisdiction in all matters, instead of, as heretofore. having such matters under the control of the gentlemen of the Army and the Navy. I need not remind you of the many complaints that we have heard, and that the country has heard, relative to the unfair treatment accorded to enlisted men by those gentlemen. The gentlemen to be appointed to this court will be civilians, and will be ap- pointed for life tenure. The salary will be comparable to that of a United States Court of Appeals justice. I think this legislation is a step in the right direction. In view of the fact that the extremely able chairman of the committee is present, as well as the members of his committee, who have heard tihe evidence, I know that they are in a much better position than I am to explain the bill in detail. From what I have read of the bill and the evidence before our committee, I have come to the conclusion that it is a meritorious bili and really deserv- ing of the unanimous support of the Members of the House who believe in justice to those who frequently get themselves in a little trouble, not be- cause of their own fault, but because they disobeyed some of the unfair and arbitrary orders that some of these generals and colonels gave them, orders which they sincerely felt they were not obligated to comply with and which they felt were not germane to their draft status. But be that as it may, in this case those men will get justice in the future which has been denied them in the past. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chelf). Without objection, it is so ordered. 2 There was no objection. Mr. Sabath. Mr. Speaker, I yield 50 minutes to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Arends). ~. Arends. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time on the rule on this ,ide. I yield back my time. Mr. Sabath. Mr. Speaker, if there are no requests for time, I move the question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The Speaker pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the resolution. The resolution was agreed to. Mr. Vinson. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on t,he State of the Union for the consider- ation of the bill (H. R. 4080) to unify, consolidate, revise, and codify the Articles of War, the Articles for the Government of the Navy, and the dis- ciplinary laws of the Coast Guard, and to enact and establish a Uniform Code of Military Justice. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H. R. 4080, with Mr. Lanham in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first reading of the bill was dispensed with. The Chairman. Under the rule, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Vinson) is recognized for 1% hours. Mr. Vinson. Mr. Chairman, after 5 weeks of careful study on the part of the subcommittee, of which the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Brooks) was chairman, that subcommittee reached a unanimous con- clusion, and that was unanimously approved by the full committee. This subcommittee has done an outstanding job. For 5 weeks the com- mittee conducted hearings, oftentimes working 6 days a week. This bill is endorsed and recommended by the Bureau of the Budget. It is approved by the National Military Establishment. It is approved by the administration, and it is unanimously approved, as I have said, by the Armed Services Committee. No member of the committee is better qualified to explain this bill than the distinguished gentleman from I'ouisiana (Mr. Brooks), and the other members of his subcommittee. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am turning this bill over for explanation to the distinguished and learned gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Brooks). I yield the gentleman such time as he desires to use. Mr. Brooks. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the corn- mittee for the kind words he has said on behalf of the subcommittee which handled this bill. In the handling of the bill we always have the full co- opmtion of the chairman of the committee, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Vinson.) A number of times we had to appeal to him for guidance. He was always most cooperative. I feel that the cooperation he gave this subcommittee has gone a long way to make our labors pleasant and effectlve. Mr. Chairman, to every member of the subcommittee, I wish to pay a per- sonal tribute. The hearings by this committee, although extending over weeks, as the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Vinson), has stated, oftentimes running 6 days a week and working late into Saturday afternoons, presented the unusual situation that instead of there being a falling off of attendance as the work went on, the attendance in- creased until during the last week of the hearings it was larger than at any previous time. All members of the committee participated actively in draft- ing this legislation, and it certainly was a most happy situation which presented itself when we finally voted on the bill and found every member of the committee in favor of it as reported, and all parts of it. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the proposed legislation is to establish n uniform code of military justice. In July of 1948, Secretary of Defense Forrestal appointed a special com- mittee to draft a uniform code of military justice, uniform in substance and uniform in interpretation and construction, to be equally applicable to all of the armed forces.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ex Parte Quirin", the Nazi Saboteur Case Andrew Kent
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 66 | Issue 1 Article 3 1-2013 Judicial Review for Enemy Fighters: The ourC t's Fateful Turn in "Ex parte Quirin", the Nazi Saboteur Case Andrew Kent Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Andrew Kent, Judicial Review for Enemy Fighters: The ourC t's Fateful Turn in "Ex parte Quirin", the Nazi Saboteur Case, 66 Vanderbilt Law Review 150 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol66/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Judicial Review for Enemy Fighters: The Court's Fateful Turn in Exparte Quirin, the Nazi Saboteur Case Andrew Kent 66 Vand. L. Rev. 153 (2013) The last decade has seen intense disputes about whether alleged terrorists captured during the nontraditional post- 9/11 conflict with al Qaeda and affiliated groups may use habeas corpus to challenge their military detention or military trials. It is time to take a step back from 9/11 and begin to evaluate the enemy combatant legal regime on a broader, more systemic basis, and to understand its application to future conflicts. A leading precedent ripe for reconsideration is Ex parte Quirin, a World War II-era case in which the Supreme Court held that saboteurs admittedly employed by an enemy nation's military had a right to access civilian courts during wartime to challenge their trial before a military commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Sarily Represent the Views of Either the Judge Advocate General"S School, U
    PRETRIAL RESTRAINTi A COMPARATIVE HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF AMERICAN, BRITISH, AND CANADIAN MILITARY LAW A Thesis Presented to The Judge Advocate General's School, U. S. Army The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the individual student author and do not neces- sarily represent the views of either The Judge Advocate General"s School, U. S. Army, or any other governmental agency. References to this study should include the foregoing statement. by Major Robert W. Letendre, OF102527 April, 1969 SCOPE A comparative historical study of American, British, and Canadian military law with respect to pretrial restraint or imprisonment, with particular emphasis accorded to the historical precedents of the imposition of time limitations for the serving of charges and the bringing to trial of an accused in confinement. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION I II. EVOLUTION OF MILITARY LAW PRIOR TO THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 3 A. Historical Development of Articles o f war 3 B. Limitation on Courts-Martial Juris diction . ■. •• • 6 C. British Articles of War 1689-1749... 12 D. Limitation on Military Pretrial Con finement , 16 III. AMERICAN ARTICLES OF WAR FROM 1775 TO 1875 18 A. American Articles of War 1775-1861. 19 B . Civil War Enactments 30 C. Articles of War 1874 37 IV. AMERICAN MILITARY LAW IN THE 20ch CENTURY.37 A. Articles of War 1916 - 1920 37 B. Articles of War 1921 - 1969 51 V. BRITISH MILITARY LAW 54 A. Military Law of England 1774 - 1969.. 54 B. Military Law of Canada 1867 - 1969... 62 VI. CONCLUSIONS 69 TABLE OF CASES AND STATUTES 76 BIBLIOGRAPHY 79 I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Common Law of War
    Cornell University Law School Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository Cornell Law Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 11-2016 The ommonC Law of War Jens D. Ohlin Cornell Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Jens David Ohlin, "The ommonC Law of War," 58 William & Mary Law Review (2016) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE COMMON LAW OF WAR JENS DAVID OHLIN* ABSTRACT In recent litigation before U.S. federal courts, the government has argued that military commissions have jurisdiction to prosecute offenses against the "common law of war," which the government defines as a body of domestic offenses, such as inchoate conspiracy, that violate the American law of war. This Article challenges that definition by arguing that stray references to the term "common law of war"in historicalmaterials meant something completely different. By examining the Lieber Code, the writings of early natural law theorists, and early American judicial decisions, this Article con- cludes that the "common law of war" referred to a branch of the law of nations that applied during internalarmed conflicts, such as civil wars with non-state actors. This body of law was called "common," not because it was extended or elaboratedby the common law method of judge-applied law, but rather because it was "common" to all mankind by virtue of naturallaw, and thus even applied to internal actors, such as rebel forces, who were not otherwise bound by in- ternational law as formal states were.
    [Show full text]
  • Stacking the Deck Against Suspected Terrorists
    Stacking the Deck against Suspected Terrorists: The Dwindling Procedural Limits on the Government's Power to Indefinitely Detain United States Citizens as Enemy Combatants Nickolas A. Kacprowski* I. INTRODUCTION Jose Padilla is an American citizen.' The United States govern- ment took Padilla into custody on American soil in May 2002, and it has classified him as an enemy combatant, asserting that it can detain him indefinitely without charging him with any crime.2 Yaser Hamdi is also an American citizen who has been detained since Fall 2001, has been classified as an enemy combatant, and has yet to be charged with a crime.3 In Padilla v. Bush4, the District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of New York, like the Hamdi court, decided that because of the present war on terrorism, the government had the authority to classify citizens as enemy combatants. However, unlike the Hamdi court, the Padilla court ruled that, despite the government's classification of Padilla as an enemy combatant, he should be given access to an attor- ney in the prosecution of his habeas corpus petition and that the court would then review the charges and evidence and decide whether the government properly classified Padilla as an enemy combatant.5 Both the Padilla6 and the Hamdi7 courts applied a Supreme Court case from J.D. Candidate 2004, Northwestern University; B.A. Northwestern University, 2001. The author would like to thank his parents, Greg and Diane Kacprowski for a lifetime of love and support. The author recognizes two colleagues and friends at Northwestern, Len Conapinski and David Johanson, for their help with this Note.
    [Show full text]
  • The Civilianization of Military Law
    THE CIVILIANIZATION OF MILITARY LAW Edward F. Sherman* PART I I. INTRODUCTION Military law in the United States has always functioned as a system of jurisprudence independent of the civilian judiciary. It has its own body of substantive laws and procedures which has a different historical deri- vation than the civilian criminal law. The first American Articles of War, enacted by the Continental Congress in 1775,1 copied the British Arti- cles, a body of law which had evolved from the 17th century rules adopted by Gustavus Adolphus for the discipline of his army, rather than from the English common law.2 Despite subsequent alterations by Con- gress, the American military justice code still retains certain substantive and procedural aspects of the 18th century British code. Dissimilarity between military and civilian criminal law has been further encouraged by the isolation of the court-martial system. The federal courts have always been reluctant to interfere with the court-martial system, as ex- plained by the Supreme Court in 1953 in Burns v. Wilson:3 "Military law, like state law, is a jurisprudence which exists separate and apart from the law which governs in our federal judicial establishment. This Court has played no role in its development; we have exerted no super- visory power over the courts which enforce it .... As a result, the court-martial system still differs from the civilian court system in such aspects as terminology and structure, as well as procedural and sub- stantive law. The military has jealously guarded the distinctive aspects of its system of justice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Ex-Parte Quirin and Courts
    Copyright 2008 by Northwestern University School of Law Vol. 103 Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy THE INFLUENCE OF EX PARTE QUIRIN AND COURTS-MARTIAL ON MILITARY COMMISSIONS Morris D. Davis* Professor Greg McNeal was an academic consultant to the prosecution during my tenure as the Chief Prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. We had similar perspectives on many issues, and we still confer on detainee matters. I concur with the views expressed in his essay.1 I write to address two issues Professor McNeal identified and com- ment on how they affect the military commissions. First, I examine the case of the Nazi saboteurs—captured, tried, and executed in the span of seven weeks in 1942—and its influence on the decision in 2001 to resurrect military commissions. Second, I assess the conflicting statutory provisions in the Military Commissions Act and the impact on full, fair, and open tri- als. I. ATTEMPTING TO REPEAT HISTORY Professor McNeal argues that the administration chose military com- missions to protect information collected for intelligence (intel) purposes from disclosure. Safeguarding intel, particularly the sources and methods used to acquire information, was a key factor, but I believe the decision had a broader basis heavily influenced by a precedent-setting trial in 1942 that became the template for the President‘s Military Order of November 13, 2001.2 Shortly after midnight the morning of June 13, 1942, four men left a German submarine and came ashore at Amagansett Beach, New York.3 * Morris D. Davis served as Chief Prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, from September 2005 to October 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuing Civilianization of the Military Criminal Legal System Fredric I
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2017 From Rome to the Military Justice Acts of 2016 and beyond: Continuing Civilianization of the Military Criminal Legal System Fredric I. Lederer William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Lederer, Fredric I., "From Rome to the Military Justice Acts of 2016 and beyond: Continuing Civilianization of the Military Criminal Legal System" (2017). Faculty Publications. 1943. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1943 Copyright c 2017 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs 512 MILITARY LAw REVIEW [Vol. 225 FROM ROME TO THE MILITARY JUSTICE ACTS OF 2016 AND BEYOND: CONTINUING CIVILIANIZATION OF THE MILITARY CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM FREDRIC I. LEDERER* I. Introduction The recent, but unenacted, proposed Military Justice Act of 2016,' the very different and less ambitious, but enacted, Military Justice Act of 2016,2 and congressional actions and proposals to sharply modify the military criminal legal system to combat sexual assault and harassment3 provide both opportunity and necessity to reevaluate the fundamental need for and nature of the military criminal legal system. With the exception of the 1962 amendment to Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to enhance the commander's punishment authority,' the modem history of military criminal law largely is defined by its increasing civilianization. My thesis is that we are close to the point at which that process will no longer meet the disciplinary needs of the modem armed forces, if, indeed, it does today.
    [Show full text]
  • SENATE JANUARY 25 Manufactured from Agricultural Or Forest by Mr
    328 CONGRESSIONAL -RECORD-SENATE JANUARY 25 manufactured from agricultural or forest By Mr. WALTER: ing of the evening let Thy peace be upon products; to the Committee on Agriculture. H R.1467. A bill to record the lawful ad­ our hearts. Amen. By Mr. CASE: mission to the United States for permanent H. R. 1453. A bill to provide that veterans residence of Rev. Julius Paal; to the Com- . THE JOURNAL of the present war suffering with tuberculous mittee on Immigration and Naturalization. On request of Mr. THOMAS of Utah, and or neuropsychiatric ailments shall receive the H. R. 1468. A bill for the relief of Mr. and same domiciliary or hospital care as veterans Mrs. Samuel Azer; to the Committee on by unanimous consent, the reading of the of the World War; to the Committee on Claims. Journal of the proceedings of Thursday, World War Veterans' Legislation. By Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin: January 21, 1943, was dispensed with, and By Mr. DOUGHTON: H. R. 1469. A bill for the relief of Robert the Journal was approved. H. R.1454 (by request). A bill to amend the Beckwith, Julius Buettner, and Emma M. CALL OF THE ROLL Bituminous Coal Act of 1937, as amended, Buettner; to the Committee on Claims. a11d for other purposes; to the Committee on Mr. THOMAS of Utah. I suggest the Ways and Means. absence of a quorum. By Mr. FULMER: PETITIONS, ETC. The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk H. R. 1455. A bill to amend the Agricul­ 1 XXII, tural Adjustment Act of 1938 so as to provide Under clause of rule petitions will call the roll.
    [Show full text]
  • Trial of Unlawful Enemy Belligerents Charles F
    Cornell Law Review Volume 29 Article 7 Issue 1 September 1943 Trial of Unlawful Enemy Belligerents Charles F. Barber Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Charles F. Barber, Trial of Unlawful Enemy Belligerents, 29 Cornell L. Rev. 53 (1943) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol29/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TRIAL OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY BELLIGERENTS CHARLES F. BARBER The Supreme Court introduced a new test of military jurisdiction when it decided in Ex parte Quinn.' that because the Nazi saboteurs were "unlaw- ful enemy belligerents" they were subject to trial by military commission. For a full understanding of the proper place of this newly discovered juris- dictional principle in our military and constitutional law, it will be necessary to examine the Articles of War to determine whether any or all of them are applicable to the trial by military commission of "unlawful enemy bel- ligerents," and if so to decide whether such Articles effect a valid congres- sional limitation upon the power of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. Since these problems involve "unlawful enemy belligerents," it will be appropriate first to examine the meaning of the term.2 I. THE RULES OF WAR When civilized peoples exult at the news that their bombers have devas- tated a great city, one wonders what has become of the "laws of humanity and the dictates of the public conscience," which not so long ago sought to mitigate the severity of war by confining it, so far as possible, to the destruc- tion of the armed forces of the enemy.3 One wonders if the so-called "rules of war" are more than philosophers' revel-ies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oldest North American Military Articles – the Circumstances Surrounding Their Enactment and Their Characteristics1
    CZASOPISMO PRAWNO-HISTORYCZNE Tom LXXII — 2020 — Zeszyt 1 Karol Łopatecki (Białystok) The oldest North American military articles – the circumstances surrounding their enactment and their characteristics1 INTRODUCTION The 16th century and the beginning of the 17th century are the golden age of the development of military articles in Europe. This was the time when this type of normative acts was very frequently published, modified, and it was also a time of their dynamic development. There were attempts to implement the majority of ideas in this area of military affairs by introducing them into military articles. It is worth mentioning that among the innovations, which appeared at the time, were the appearance of norms pertaining to rules of obedience which were patterned on ancient Rome, the introduction of shooting drills as well as of general military drills, and creating proper rules of behaviour in battle, enforcing hygiene rules, etc. The role of all of the aforementioned norms amounted to the following: organization of camp life (garrison); establishing the rules of military engagement; regulating the relations between soldiers and civilian population; shaping the issue of obedience, chain of command, and regulating the significance of an order; the introduction 1 K. Łopatecki, Najstarsze północnoamerykańskie artykuły wojskowe, “Czasopismo Prawno- Historyczne” [Journal of Law and History] [CPH] 2013, t. LXV, issue 1, pp. 175–201. The current version of the article has been prepared as a part of the SONATA research project of Narodowe
    [Show full text]
  • HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES Senate May 6, 1960: in the Regular Air Force in the Grades Indi­ Cated, Under Section 8284 of Title 10, United FRIDAY, MAY 6, 1960 U.S
    1960 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- HOUSE · 9729 plished this week. When I say "com­ PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE · To be captains, USAF (Dental) . mend the Senate," I include both Re­ The following candidates for personnel ac­ Loy L. Julius, A0689060. publicans and Democrats. tion in the regular corps of the Public Lucius L. Robinson, A02239975. We have passed to date something Health Service subject to qual11lcations Eugene J. Stoebenau, A03076478. on the order of six or seven appropria­ therefor as provided by law and regulations: To be captain, USAF (Veterinary) tion bills. We recently passed the bank I. FOR APPOINTMENT Farrel R. Robinson, A02239021. merger bill and the area -redevelopment To be senior surgeon To be captains, USAF (nurse) bill. We passed this week 57 bills on Henry H. Kyle Alvira L. Clemetson, AN2214429. the call of the calendar. We disposed Mary A. Flenner, AN2241978. of two conference reports, in connection To be senior assistant dental surgeons with the appropriation bills for the Robert J. Lucas Samuel J. Wycoff To be first lieutenants, USAF (Medical) Commerce Department and the Depart­ Joe T. Hillsman Francis 0. Webb James D. Deacon, A03089053. ment of the Interior. We have also To be assistant dental surgeons Thomas 0. English, Jr., A03089278. Charles C. Swoope, Jr. Richard K. Fred Dale C. Metheny, A03089279. passed a mutual security bill, and will Harry A. Schwamm, A01852529. have the conference report before us Gerald W. Gaston David A. Dutton William E. Dorrlll Franz P. Helm RobertS. White, A03091126. before too long. We also passed a space Frank W. Zimmerman, Jr., A03089110.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Review Staff Colonel Melanie R
    Headquarters, Department of the Army Prepared by Lieutenant General U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Volume LXXXIII — March-April 2003, No. 2 James C. Riley www.cgsc.army.mil/MilRev Commandant, USACGSC [email protected] Professional Bulletin 100-03-3/4 Brigadier General CONTENTS James T. Hirai Deputy Commandant, USACGSC 2 Force Projection Military Review Staff Colonel Melanie R. Reeder 3 Reach: Leveraging Time and Distance Editor in Chief Brigadier General John M. Custer, U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel George F. Chandler, Jr. Managing Editor 12 Putting Knowledge Reachback into Practice Scott W. Lackey, Ph.D., © 2003 Major Richard D. Procell Editor, Latin American Editions 24 Winning War a World Away Vaughn Neeld Colonel Jerry Johnson, U.S. Army, and G. Roger Corey Lieutenant Colonel James O. Kievit, U.S. Army, Retired Editors Nancy Mazzia Books and Features Editor 32 Civilian and Military Cooperation in D. M. Giangreco Complex Humanitarian Operations Design Editor Sarah E. Archer, DrPH, RN Charles A. Martinson III Art and Design Winona E. Stroble 42 Military Commissions, Past and Future Webmaster Lieutenant Colonel Jody Prescott, U.S. Army, and Patricia L. Wilson Major Joanne Eldridge, U.S. Army Secretary Consulting Editors 52 The Palestinian-Israeli Cyberwar Colonel Osmario Zan Colonel Patrick D. Allen, U.S. Army Reserve, and Brazilian Army, Brazilian Edition Lieutenant Colonel Chris Demchak, U.S. Army Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Ruben Palomeque Argentine Army, Hispano-American Edition Lieutenant Colonel Alejandro Arancibia Chilean Army, Hispano-American Edition 60 Officership By Order of the Secretary of the Army: Eric K. Shinseki 61 Understanding Professional Expertise General, United States Army Chief of Staff and Jurisdiction Lieutenant Colonel Richard A.
    [Show full text]