Originally posted by Rictor
OK, this is bound to kick up the same old stuff, so might as well start it off.
I for one, would like to know why he was court martialed when his only crime was complying with the Constitution and his own morals. From what I understand, he was caught smuglling out a lists of prisoners and some basic info on them, such as how long they were held, age and so forth. This is in accordance with every due process law in existance.
First off, you're misunderstanding his position. As a chaplain, due process is not his province. Period. He may have been adhering to his own morals, but he was NOT adhering to the Constitution.
Second, prisoners held by the military are, unfortunately, in a dubious position, especially the non-US citizens. Whether the Constitution applies to them in the first place is a sticky question. Further, the US Federal Government has made the case that due process and speedy trials only applys to people accused of a crime. These people are not being held as criminals, and thus have not been charged with anything. They've been held on the pretext that they are or may be material witnesses.
Third, taking lists of prisoners and any information about them, period, is a violation of operational security requirements, his duty as a military officer--and have no doubt, the uniform comes before the crescent faith badge on it--and the standing orders of his entire chain of command.
In short: the guy got court-martialed on acceptable grounds with the rules and regulation laid out in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I suggest, before you question the legality of the proceedings, you give the UCMJ and the judicial regs of the US Army and the Department of Defense a careful reading.
Generally, courts-martial proceedings are not given to the general public, unless the defendent chooses to make them public. Even then, if there are national security concerns, they will not be made public. However, there is a concern that the defendent might insist on a civilian lawyer (which is his right), which would then require the lawyer to be someone who has or can obtain a security clearance.
The Department of Defense has maintained that any information that might come from these 'material witnesses' could jeapardize national security concerns and has used that as a means to deny them access to non-military legal personnel. That would possibly apply in this case as well, to the chaplain.
And before anyone goes off half cocked--I am not stating my own opinions here. I'm giving you the straight dope on how the military sees and justifies a situation like this.
