Bulletin No. 15 October, 1953 The Judge Advocate Published By JUDGE AD,'OCATES ASSOCIATION An affiliated organization of the American Bar Association, composed of lawyers of all components of the A1·my, Navy, and Air Force 312 Denrike Building W ashiugton 5 , D. C. J UDGE ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION Officer s :for 1953-1954 JOSEPH F . 0 'CONNELL, Massachusetts President GORDON SIMPSON, Texas 1st Vice Preside1J.t ROBERT E. QurxN, Rhode Island 2nd Vice President THOMAS H. Krnn, District of Columbia .. Secretar'lj EowARD B. BEALE, Maryland . Treasurer JOHN RITCHIE, III, Wisconsin . Delegate to .A. B. A. Direc tors Nicholas E. Allen, Md.; Louis F. Alyea, Ill.; Joseph A. Avery, Va.; George W. Bains, Ala.; Oliver P. B<'nnett, Iowa; Ralph G. Boyd, Mass.; E . M. Brannon, D. C. ; Paul W. Brosman, La.; Robert G. Burke, N. Y.; Charles L. Decker, Va.; Reginald Field, Va. ; Osmer C. Fitts, Vt.; Edward F . Gallagher, D. C.; George H. Hafer, Pa.; Reginald C. Harmon, D. C.; Edward F. Huber, X. Y.; William J. Hughes, D. C.; Arthur Levitt, N . Y.; Ira H. Nunn, D. C.; Alexander Pirnie, N. Y.; Allen W. Rigsby, Nebr.; Fred Wade, Tenn.; Frederick Bernays Wiener, D. C.; S. B. D. Wood, Hawaii; Milton Zacharias, Kans. Executive Secretary and Editor RICHARD H . LOVE Washington, D. C. Bulletin No. 15 October, 1953 Publication Notice The views expressed in 1nticles printed herein are not to be regarded as those of the Judge Advocates Association or its officers and directors or of the editor unless e:xp.ressly so stated. TABLE OF CONTENTS P AGE Safeguarding the Rights of American Servicemen Abr oad 1 The Annual :Meeting 8 The Teaching of Military Law in a University Law School.. 15 Picture of Seventh Annual Dinner 18 Military Law Publications 26 What the Members Are Doing 29 Supplement to Directory of :Members, .July, 1953 32 Published by the Judge Advocates As~ociation, an affiliated organization of the American Bar Association, composed of lawyers of all components of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. 31~ Denrike Builrling, Wasl1ington fi, D. C. - ST<:rling 3-5858 SAFEGUARDING THE RIGHTS OF AMERICAN SERVICE~IEN ABROAD STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOUN W. BRICKER Before the Jud~e Advocates Association­ Boston, Massachusetts, August 25th, 1953 It is a real pleasure for me to address As a result, it will be difficult, if not the Judge Advocates Association. Many impossible, to protect the fundamental of you bear direct and daily responsi­ rights of American servicemen abroad. bility for administering fairly our system Many of them are no longer assured a of military justice. mtimate responsi­ trial by their fellow Americans in ac­ bility is vested by the Constitution in the cordance with our concepts of legal due Congress. Our mutual problem is simply process. Nevertheless, we must do the this-to assure every American service· best we can to protect them. That i11 man a standard of justice comparable the problem I want to explore with you to that enjoyed by his civilian brother. tonight. The rights of American servicemen First, let us consider the forces abroad 8tationed in the United States are well over which American service courts are protected. You and I can point with exercising exclusive criminal jurisdiction. pride to their protection. Congress has That is the situation in Korea and in provided them with the world's best code some other countries even though no of military justice--a code that guaran­ binding status of forces agreement tees the accused far more rights than exists. The jurisdiction of our service civilians possess in most other countries. courts is recognized by generally ac­ From judge advocates of the Armed cepted principles of international law. Forces and from the Court of Military In the Schooner Exchange decided in Appeals, American servicemen have re­ 1812, Chief Justice John Marshall gave ceived enlightened and sympathetic in­ the traditional rule of international law terpretation of the Code. Inevitably, its most authoritative expression. Fifty any system of justice, civil or military, years later, the Supreme Court was able develops faults and inequities. As these to say: develop, however, you and the Congress can take immediate corrective action. "It is well settled that a foreign army permitted to march through a friendly Thousands of American servicemen country, or to be stationed in it, by per­ stationed abroad are not so fortunate. mission of its government or sovereign, On July 15th of this year, the Senate is exempt from the civil and criminal approved the NATO Status of Forces jurisdiction of the place . '' (Cole­ Treaty. The treaty surrenders to the man v. Tennesse~, 97 U. S. 509, 515). local courts of NATO countries and Col. Archibald King, who has served Japan criminal jurisdiction over non­ for many years with distinction in the military offenses of American armed Judge Advocate General's o:tfice of the · forcee personnel, civilian components and Army, traced the development of this their dependents. rule of international law in two articles 1 2 The Judge Advocate Journal published in the American Journal of agreement, an express agreement is de­ International Law. He proved that prior sirable. If circumstances permit, the to 1946, with rare exceptions, no mem­ agreement should be made before the ber of an American armed force was force is stationed abroad. Then there ever tried by a foreign court. Col. King can be no misunderstanding. An express also proved beyond any reasonable doubt agreement is alslJ helpful in stating the that most other nations of the world de­ conditions under which local authorities manded and received exclusive jurisdic­ agree to assist our service courts. tion over offenses committed by mem­ I do not regard this suggestion as con­ bers of their armed forces abroad. trary to United States foreign policy. Recognizing this traditional rule of In approving the NATO Status of Forces international law, Congress made the Treaty, the Senate did so with the under­ Uniform Code of Military Justice ap­ standing that it was not to be regarded plicable to the armed forces wherever as a precedent. they might be stationed. As late as 1951 There is no reason to mince words we :find in the U. S. Courts-Martial about a treaty of such grave import. To Manual a restatement of the rule of in­ put it bluntly, the American GI was ternational law declared by John Mar­ sacrificed on the altar of international shall more than a century ago. cooperation. There were mitigating cir­ Where the jurisdiction of our service cumstances, to be sure. The previous courts has not been surrendered by treaty, Administration had made secret illegal we must work to preserve it. The job executive agreements under which Ameri­ is not an easy one. Erroneous argu­ can servicemen were already being turned ments used by the Administration to win over for trial in local foreign courts. approval of the NATO Status of Forces The treaty was said to be an improve­ Agreement will return to haunt us. For ment on the existing practice. Had it example, it was claimed that under in­ not been confronted with an illegally ternational law, and in the absence of accomplished fact, the new Administra­ any agreement, the host country may tion might not have urged approval of exercise exclusive jurisdiction over of­ the treaty. fenses of friendly foreign forces, includ­ Secondly, you can help maintain the ing offenses of a purely military nature. jurisdiction of your service courts by I certainly need not spell out for this maintaining the jurisdiction of friendly audience the crippling effect of such a foreign service courts. One argument rule on military operations and dis­ for the Status of Forces Treaty was that cipline. Federal and State courts would acquire What can you do to help f First, you jurisdiction over foreign forces in the can recommend that a status of forces United States. That is pure chauvinism. agreement be made with every country Those forces are the symbol of their where American troops are stationed sovereign. If we trust those forces to recognizing the exclusive criminal juris­ the extent of inviting them into the diction of our service courts. Even United States, then we should trust them though such jurisdiction is recognized by to punish violators of our laws. Inter­ international law in the absence of any national cooperation is a two-way street. The Judge Advocate Joumal 3 We cannot with good grace assert juris· cedure is similar to our own. American diction over foreign forces here without servicemen will receive a fair trial in surrendering control over our troops their courts. abroad. First, judge advocates have a duty to Third, judge advocates of the armed see that the terms of the NATO Status forces have an important public rela· pf Forces Treaty are scrupulously ob· tions job abroad. As Kipling pointed served. The treaty provides that the ac· out, barracks do not make men plaster cused shall have certain rights such as a saints. Offenses will be committed. No prompt and speedy trial. Should any of decent person wants the American sol­ you hear of any treaty violation, I hope dier abroad to violate local laws with you will not hesitate to bring it to Con· impunity. The Communists have had gress' attention. some success in convincing the local Secondly, you should bring to the at· population that the American soldier can tention of Congress any information in­ violate local law and escape punishment. dicating, by our standards, a denial of That erroneous impression could be dis· due process of law. Many rights recog· solved by publicizing widely the verdict nized in the Uniform Code of Military of courts-martial involving non-military Justice are not guaranteed by the treaty.