DOCSLIB.ORG

Semiannual Report to the Congress

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Semiannual Report to the Congress DoD IG Semiannual Report to the Congress -October 1, 2012 - March 31, 2013 - March 31, to Semiannual Report the 2012 Congress IG -October 1, DoD United States Department of Defense OCTOBERInspector 1, 2012 TO MARCH General 31, 2013 Semiannual Report to the Congress Required by Public Law 95-452 InteGrIty effIcIency accountabIlIty excellence InteGrIty effIcIency accountabIlIty excellence Mission Our mission is to provide independent, relevant, and timely over- sight of the Department that: supports the warfighter; promotes accountability, integrity, and efficiency; advises the Secretary of Defense and Congress; and informs the public. Vision Our vision is to be a model oversight organization in the federal government by leading change, speaking truth, and promoting ex- cellence; a diverse organization, working together as one profes- sional team, recognized as leaders in our field. Fraud, Waste and Abuse HOTLINE 1.800.424.9098 • www.dodig.mil/hotline For more information about whistleblower protection, please see the inside back cover. INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 4800 MARK CENTER DRIVE ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22350-1500 I am pleased to present the Department of Defense Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress for the reporting period October 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013, issued in accordance with the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. This year marks the 30th anniversary of DoD IG. Over the course of 30 years, many groundbreak- ing audits, inspections, and investigations have paved the way for reducing fraud, waste, and abuse across the Department. When you consider the projects we have completed over the past 30 years, the positive impact we have made on the Department is truly remarkable. In this report, we highlight a few of those significant projects completed during the reporting pe- riod to include: • Identifying government property valued at roughly $892.3 million that was not being valued or tracked in the Army accountability systems or on financial statements. • Investigating a prime DoD contractor for falsely claiming to be a service-disabled veteran owned small business. • Evaluating the Air Force Accident Investigation Board Report on the F-22A mishap of November 16, 2010, and identifying five deficiencies. • Assessing U.S. and coalition efforts to improve health care conditions and develop sustainable Afghan National Security Forces medical logistics at the Dawood National Military Hospital in Kabul, Afghanistan. Principal Deputy Inspector General In addition, we highlight the DoD Whistleblower Protection Program including our role in issuing Lynne M. Halbrooks. policy and procedures, and the appointment of a DoD whistleblower protection ombudsman. During this reporting period, we issued 64 reports and identified $1.3 billion in potential monetary benefits. DCIS investigations were the basis for 56 arrests, 102 criminal charges, 98 criminal convic- tions, 98 suspensions, and 95 debarments, as well as $1.6 billion returned to the government. The DoD Hotline fielded 16,615 contacts from the public and members of the DoD community. I would like to thank our counterparts who contributed to this report, including the Army Audit Agency, Naval Audit Service, Air Force Audit Agency, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, and the Defense Contract Audit Agency. In closing, I want to express my appreciation for the accomplishments of all DoD IG employees and the entire defense oversight community. As we continue to address efficiencies in the Department, I would once again like to thank the Department and Congress for their commitment to supporting the work of our office. Lynne M. Halbrooks Principal Deputy STATISTICAL HIGHLIGHTS SUMMARY OF AUDIT ACTIVITIES Reports Issued 50 Monetary Benefits Recommendations Made on Funds Put to Better Use $1 billion Achieved Monetary Benefits (Funds Put to Better Use) $932.8 million SUMMARY OF DEFENSE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE ACTIVITIES Total Returned to the U.S. Government1 $1.6 billion Recovered Government Property $5.2 million Civil Judgments/Settlements $898.6 million Criminal Fines, Penalties, Restitution and Forfeitures $717.8 million Administrative Recoveries2 $72.5 million Investigative Activities Arrests 56 Criminal Charges 102 Criminal Convictions 98 Suspensions 98 Debarments 95 SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS Complaints Received 695 Complaints Closed 534 Senior Official 256 Whistleblower Reprisal 278 SUMMARY OF POLICY AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES Existing and Proposed Regulations Reviewed 139 Evaluation Reports Issued 7 Inspector General Subpoenas Issued 309 Contractor Disclosures Received 86 Potential Monetary Benefits $249 million SUMMARY OF INTELLIGENCE AND SPECIAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS ACTIVITIES Reports Issued 4 SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PLANS AND OPERATIONS ACTIVITIES Assessment Reports Issued 3 SUMMARY OF DEFENSE HOTLINE ACTIVITIES Contacts 16,615 Cases Opened 1,499 Cases Closed 1,050 1 Includes investigations conducted jointly with other law enforcement organizations. 2 Includes contractual agreements and military non-judicial punishment. ii SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO THE CONGRESS CONTENTS 1. OVERVIEW MISSION & ORGANIZATION ..........................................................................................................................................2 MISSION ...............................................................................................................................................................2 ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................................................................3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................4 OVERVIEW ...........................................................................................................................................................4 PRIORITIES ..........................................................................................................................................................4 CORE MISSION AREAS ....................................................................................................................................5 ENABLING MISSION AREAS ........................................................................................................................8 IG HIGHLIGHTS .....................................................................................................................................................................8 WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION PROGRAM: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE .............................8 2. CORE MISSION AREAS AUDITS .................................................................................................................................................................................. 12 ACQUISITION PROCESSES AND CONTRACT MANAGEMENT ......................................................12 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................................21 JOINT WARFIGHTING AND READINESS ...............................................................................................29 INFORMATION ASSURANCE, SECURITY AND PRIVACY .................................................................31 EQUIPPING AND TRAINING IRAQI AND AFGHAN SECURITY FORCES ....................................32 INVESTIGATIONS .............................................................................................................................................................. 35 PROCUREMENT FRAUD ..............................................................................................................................35 PUBLIC CORRUPTION ..................................................................................................................................36 PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION .........................................................................................................................39 HEALTH CARE FRAUD ..................................................................................................................................40 ILLEGAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ........................................................................................................43 CYBER CRIME AND COMPUTER NETWORK INTRUSIONS ............................................................44 INSPECTIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 45 HEALTH AND SAFETY ..................................................................................................................................45 JOINT WARFIGHTING AND READINESS ...............................................................................................46 POLICY AND OVERSIGHT .............................................................................................................................................. 47 AUDIT POLICY AND OVERSIGHT .............................................................................................................47 INVESTIGATIVE POLICY AND OVERSIGHT ...........................................................................................48 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENTS .......................................................................................................................49
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Defense Security Cooperation University Expert Course of Instruction
    Defense Security Cooperation University Expert Course of Instruction Content, Design, Implementation JEFFERSON P. MARQUIS, JENNIFER D. P. MORONEY, PAULINE MOORE, REBECCA HERMAN, JONATHAN WELCH, REID DICKERSON Prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense Approved for public release NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RRA572-1 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2020 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface In its 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the U.S. Con- gress called for the professionalization of the security cooperation (SC) workforce as part of a range of reforms designed to confront perceived deficiencies in Department of Defense (DoD) SC planning, man- agement, execution, and assessment and placed the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) in charge of this effort.
    [Show full text]
  • Dod OIG Semiannual Report to the Congress October 1, 2012 Through
    DoD IG Semiannual Report to the Congress -October 1, 2012 - March 31, 2013 - March 31, to Semiannual Report the 2012 Congress IG -October 1, DoD United States Department of Defense OCTOBERInspector 1, 2012 TO MARCH General 31, 2013 Semiannual Report to the Congress Required by Public Law 95-452 InteGrIty effIcIency accountabIlIty excellence InteGrIty effIcIency accountabIlIty excellence Mission Our mission is to provide independent, relevant, and timely over- sight of the Department that: supports the warfighter; promotes accountability, integrity, and efficiency; advises the Secretary of Defense and Congress; and informs the public. Vision Our vision is to be a model oversight organization in the federal government by leading change, speaking truth, and promoting ex- cellence; a diverse organization, working together as one profes- sional team, recognized as leaders in our field. Fraud, Waste and Abuse HOTLINE 1.800.424.9098 • www.dodig.mil/hotline For more information about whistleblower protection, please see the inside back cover. INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 4800 MARK CENTER DRIVE ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22350-1500 I am pleased to present the Department of Defense Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress for the reporting period October 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013, issued in accordance with the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. This year marks the 30th anniversary of DoD IG. Over the course of 30 years, many groundbreak- ing audits, inspections, and investigations have paved the way for reducing fraud, waste, and abuse across the Department. When you consider the projects we have completed over the past 30 years, the positive impact we have made on the Department is truly remarkable.
    [Show full text]
  • THE NAVAL SERVICE.Tif
    CHAPTER TWELVE THE NAVAL SERVICE Ninety percent of the world's commerce travels by sea; the vast majority of the world's population lives within a few hundred miles of the oceans; nearly three quarters of the planet is covered by water. Seapower protects the American way of life. -A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower Every danger of a military character to which the United States is exposed can be met best outside her own territory-at sea. -Rear Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan n 2007 the U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Navy issued A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower, representing the first time the three services I jointly crafted a maritime strategy. The document stresses the naval services' mutual commitment to protecting the homeland and winning and preventing wars. Proliferation of weapons and information technology to transnational threats and rogue states poses an increasing range of threats to U.S. security interests. In addition to threats from kinetic weapons, hybrid warfare threats (e.g., financial, cyber) pose new challenges for the sea services, demanding a coordinated strategy and response. To better understand how responsibility for security in the maritime domain is shared among the sea services, this chapter describes organization, mis­ sion, and capabilities of each. 157 158 Naval Officer's Guide The Department of the Navy The Department of the Navy (DON) is to "be organized, trained, and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained combat incident to operations at sea'' (Navy Regulations art. 0202). The National Security Act of i947, as amended in i949, gov­ erns the role of the Navy in national defense.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report Submissions by Military Service Law Enforcement Organizations
    Report No. DODIG-2018-035 U.S. Department of Defense InspectorDECEMBER 4, 2017 General Evaluation of Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report Submissions by Military Service Law Enforcement Organizations INTEGRITY EFFICIENCY ACCOUNTABILITY EXCELLENCE INTEGRITY EFFICIENCY ACCOUNTABILITY EXCELLENCE Mission Our mission is to provide independent, relevant, and timely oversight of the Department of Defense that supports the warfighter; promotes accountability, integrity, and efficiency; advises the Secretary of Defense and Congress; and informs the public. Vision Our vision is to be a model oversight organization in the Federal Government by leading change, speaking truth, and promoting excellence—a diverse organization, working together as one professional team, recognized as leaders in our field. Fraud, Waste, & Abuse HOTLINE Department of Defense dodig.mil/hotline|800.424.9098 For more information about whistleblower protection, please see the inside back cover. Evaluation of Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report ResultsSubmissions by in Military Brief Service Law Enforcement Organizations December 4, 2017 Findings (cont’d) Objective The FBI NGI database is a national computerized system for storing, comparing, and exchanging fingerprint data and The objective of our evaluation was to criminal history information for law enforcement purposes. determine whether all Military Services Law Enforcement Organizations (LEOs) The FBI NGI’s primary function is to provide the FBI a fully had submitted fingerprint cards and final automated fingerprint identification and criminal history disposition reports for Military Service reporting system. The failure to populate the NGI with all the members convicted by court-martial of required fingerprint records can allow someone to purchase qualifying offenses, as required by DoD a weapon who should not, hinder criminal investigations, instruction.
    [Show full text]
  • Response of the Turkish Government to the Report of the European
    CPT/Inf (2007) 8 Response of the Turkish Government to the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Turkey from 16 to 28 October 1994 The Turkish Government has authorised the publication of this response. The report of the CPT on its October 1994 visit to Turkey is set out in document CPT/Inf (2007) 7. Strasbourg, 11 January 2007 Note: In accordance with Article 11, paragraph 3, of the Convention, certain names have been deleted. - 3 - Response of the Turkish Government to the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Turkey from 16 to 28 October 1994 INTRODUCTION 1. Turkey has been a Party to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment since 1 February 1989 and has therefore been subject, since that date, to supervision by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT). Under the terms of the Convention the CPT has visited Turkey on the following dates: 9 - 21 September 1990 Ad hoc visit 29 September - 7 October 1991 Ad hoc visit 22 - 25 September 1992 Talks with officials 22 November - 3 December 1992 Periodic visit 7-9 December 1993 Top-level talks 16-28 October 1994 Periodic visit 2. At the close of the above-mentioned ad hoc and periodic visits the CPT drew up reports. On 21 December 1992, in accordance with Article 10, paragraph 2 of the Convention, it also issued a "Public Statement" on Turkey.
    [Show full text]
  • Informational Materials
    Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 06/06/2019 7:41:37 PM V. TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS DEPUTY PRIME MINISTRY AND MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS 3 October 2018 Excellency. I have the honour to bring to your kind attention the recent attempts by the Greek Cypriot administration of Southern Cyprus to perpetuate the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot people in ail fields of life, which is poisoning the atmosphere between the two peoples on the island, particularly at a time when Your Excellency and the UN Security Council are calling upon the sides to proceed with Confidence Building Measures (CBMs). In this regard, the Greek Cypriot side has been aggressively pursuing a policy of defamation and misinformation regarding the Turkish Cypriot side. To provide a recent example, a series of letters have been sent to the maritime authorities of various countries in order to prevent any maritime interaction/trade between these countries and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). The Greek Cypriot side has gone so far as to unilaterally deem our sea ports as “illegal”, and has been encouraging the said countries to issue penalties against their own shipping companies for cooperating in any way with or travelling to ports in North Cyprus. As known, the ports in the TRNC have not been deemed as illegal according to international law by any country or international organization, including the European Union. In this connection, 1 would like to refer to a statement by Mr. Olli Rehn, the then European Commissioner responsible for Enlargement, dated 17 October 2007 (E-4901/2007), which reads: "The Commission is aware that in 1974, the "government of the Republic of Cyprus ” has declared the sea ports in the northern part of Cyprus (Famagusta, Kyrenia, Karavostassi) prohibited and closed for all vessels.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Choices for a New Administration
    CHARTING A COURSE Strategic Choices for a New Administration a New for Choices Strategic Strategic Choices for a New Administration Edited by R.D. Hooker, Jr. Edited by R.D. Hooker, Jr. Strategic Choices for a New Administration Edited by R.D. Hooker, Jr. National Defense University Press Washington, D.C. December 2016 Published in the United States by National Defense University Press. Portions of this book may be quoted or reprinted without permission, provided that a standard source credit line is included. NDU Press would appreciate a courtesy copy of reprints or reviews. Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily rep- resent the views of the Department of State, Department of Defense, or any other agency of the Federal Government. Cleared for public release; distribution unlimited. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record of this publication may be found at the Library of Congress. National Defense University Press 260 Fifth Avenue (Building 64) Suite 2500 Fort Lesley J. McNair Washington, DC 20319 NDU Press publications are sold by the U.S. Government Printing Office. For ordering information, call (202) 512-1800 or write to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash- ington, DC, 20402. For GPO publications online, access its Web site at: http://bookstore.gpo.gov. Book design by Marco Marchegiani, U.S. Government Printing Office Cover photo: Unarmed Minuteman III ICBM accelerates toward test range near Guam after launching from Vandenberg Air Force Base, March 27, 2015 (DOD) • iv • Contents Foreword .
    [Show full text]
  • European Bureau for Conscientious Objection to Military Service
    European Bureau for Conscientious Objection 35 Van Elewyck street, 1050 Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32 2 648 5220, Fax: +32 2 648 6988 [email protected] / www.ebco-beoc.org Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Palais des Nations CH-1211 Geneva 10 Reference: OHCHR study on youth and human rights 11 January 2018 Dear Ms Imma Guerras-Delgado, On behalf of the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (EBCO), I am pleased to send you the following contribution to the study on the implementation of human rights with regard to young people. First of all, the right to conscientious objection to military service is a human right that concerns young people, more than other groups. Indeed, the age that young women and men receive the first call up for the compulsory military service is around 18 years old. Despite this, only the Ibero-American Youth Convention recognises explicitly the right to conscientious objection as a youth right. Its article 12 states as follows: “1. Youth have the right to make conscientious objection towards obligatory military service. 2. The States Parties undertake to promote the pertinent legal measures to guarantee the exercise of this right and advance in the progressive elimination of the obligatory military service. 3. The States Parties undertake to assure youth under 18 years of age that they shall not be called up or involved, in any way, in military hostilities.” At UN level, the right to conscientious objection to military service is based on article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief.
    [Show full text]
  • Report No. DODIG-2019-044 for OFFICIAL USE ONLY
    Report No. DODIG-2019-044 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY U.S. Department of Defense InspectorJANUARY 9, 2019 General Summary of Reports Issued Regarding Department of Defense Cybersecurity From July 1, 2017, Through June 30, 2018 INTEGRITY INDEPENDENCE EXCELLENCE The document contains information that may be exempt from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Summary of Reports Issued Regarding Department of Defense ResultsCybersecurity in From Brief July 1, 2017, Through June 30, 2018 January 9, 2019 Background Objective On February 12, 2013, the President issued Executive Order 13636, “Improving Critical Infrastructure Our objective was to (1) summarize Cybersecurity.” Executive Order 13636 calls for the unclassified and classified reports development of a voluntary cybersecurity framework issued and testimonies made from for Federal and non-Federal entities that provides a the DoD oversight community and the prioritized, flexible, repeatable, performance-based, and Government Accountability Office (GAO) cost effective approach to help owners and operators between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2018, of critical infrastructure identify, assess, and manage that included DoD cybersecurity issues; cyber risk. The resulting NIST Cybersecurity Framework (2) identify cybersecurity risk areas for was established through collaboration between the DoD management to address based on the Government and private sector entities. The framework five functions of the National Institute has five functions, representing high-level cybersecurity of Standards and Technology (NIST), activities that provide a strategic view of the risk management “Framework for Improving Critical lifecycle—Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover.
    [Show full text]
  • Oversight of Intelligence Activities with the Department of the Navy
    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 1000 NAVY PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC 20350-1000 SECNAVINST 3820.3E NAVINSGEN-N2 21 Sep 2005 SECNAV INSTRUCTION 3820.3E From: Secretary of the Navy Subj: OVERSIGHT OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY (DON) Ref: (a) Executive Order 12333 (b) DOD Directive 5240.1 of 25 Apr 88 (c) DOD Regulation 5240.1-R of Dec 82 (d) SECNAVINST 5000.34B (e) DOD Directive 5148.11 (f) SECNAVINST 5510.30A (g) US Navy Regulations, 1990 (h) SECNAVINST 5215.1D Encl: (1) Naval Inspector General Intelligence Oversight Inspection Checklist (2) Naval Inspector General Intelligence Oversight Report Format and Content (3) Memorandum of Understanding: Reporting of Information Concerning Federal Crimes, August 1995 1. Purpose. To implement policies, procedures, and governing regulations regarding the conduct of intelligence activities, and a system of program reviews, inspections, and reporting requirements of those activities. This instruction has been substantially revised and should be reviewed in its entirety. Highlights of significant changes from previous instruction are as follows: a. Updated definition of DON intelligence components, to include new and reorganized DON intelligence organizations and describe revised responsibilities under this instruction, b. Further definition of the term “Questionable intelligence activity” and resultant reporting requirements (i.e. Procedure 15 reporting), c. Inclusion of a sample Intelligence Oversight inspection checklist, which may be used by components or elements as a guideline for administering an effective Intelligence Oversight program, (enclosure (1)), and d. Inclusion of a standard format for quarterly reports from DON intelligence components to the Office of the Naval SECNAVINST 3820.3E 21 Sep 2005 Inspector General (NAVINSGEN) (enclosure (2)).
    [Show full text]
  • Tracking Conflict Worldwide
    CRISISWATCH Tracking Conflict Worldwide CrisisWatch is our global conict tracker, a tool designed to help decision-makers prevent deadly violence by keeping them up-to-date with developments in over 70 conicts and crises, identifying trends and alerting them to risks of escalation and opportunities to advance peace. Learn more about CrisisWatch July 2021 Global Overview JULY 2021 Trends for Last Month July 2021 Outlook for This Month DETERIORATED SITUATIONS August 2021 Ethiopia, South Africa, Zambia, CONFLICT RISK ALERTS Afghanistan, Bosnia And Herzegovina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Ethiopia, Zambia, Armenia, Azerbaijan Cuba, Haiti, Syria, Tunisia RESOLUTION OPPORTUNITIES IMPROVED SITUATIONS None Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire CrisisWatch warns of three conict risks in August. Ethiopia’s spreading Tigray war is spiraling into a dangerous new phase, which will likely lead to more deadly violence and far greater instability countrywide. Fighting along the state border between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the deadliest since the Autumn 2020 war, could escalate further. More violence could surge in Zambia as tensions between ruling party and opposition supporters are running high ahead of the 12 August general elections. Our monthly conict tracker highlights deteriorations in thirteen countries in July. The Taliban continued its major offensive in Afghanistan, seizing more international border crossings and launching its rst assault on Kandahar city since 2001. South Africa faced its most violent unrest since apartheid ended in 1991, leaving over 300 dead. The killing of President Jovenel Moïse in murky circumstances plunged Haiti into political turmoil. Tunisia’s months-long political crisis escalated when President Kaïs Saïed dismissed Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi and suspended parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Law Review
    Volume 139 Winter 1993 MILITARY LAW REVIEW 0 ? P JAG SCHOOL w W ARTICLES AUG 1 1993 MILITARY DEPARTMENT GENERAL 7 COUNSEL AS “CHIEF LEGAL OFFICERS”: IMPACT ON LIBRARY DELIVERY OF IMPARTIAL LEGAL ADVICE AT HEADQUARTERS AND IN THE FIELD.. ..............Lieutenant Commander Kurt A. Johnson REASON, RETALIATION, AND RHETORIC: JEFFERSON AND THE QUEST FOR HUMANIW IN WAR.. .........Burrus M. Carnahan JURY NULLIFICATION: A CALL FOR JUSTICE OR AN INVITATION TO ANARCHY? .............................. Lieutenant Commander Robert E. Korroch Major Michael J. Davidson THE TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY sU 2 OF MY LAI: A TIME TO E INCULCATE THE LESSONS. ................Major Jeffrey F. Addicott M Major William A. Hudson, Jr. P w W BOOK REVIEWS Charlottesville, Virginia Pamphlet HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NO. 27-100-139 Washington, D. C., Winter 1993 MILITARY LAW REVIEW-VOLUME 139 The Military Law Review has been published quarterly at The Judge Advocate General's School, U.S. Army, Charlottesville, Virginia, since 1958. The Review provides a forum for those interested in military law to share the products of their experiences and research and is designed for use by military attorneys in connection with their official duties. Writings offered for publica- tion should be of direct concern and import in this area of scholarship, and preference will be given to writings that have lasting value as reference materials for the military lawyer. The Review encourages frank discussion of relevant legislative, admin- istrative, and judicial developments. EDITORIAL STAFF MAJOR DANIEL P. SHAVER, Editor MS. EVA F. SKINNER, Editorial Assistant SUBSCRIPTIONS: Private subscriptions may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]