0
Can a civilian factory where military parts are fabricated be subject to attack?
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
It is acceptable to attack military civilian targets. All sides did it in World War II, Vietnam, etc.
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Wiki User
∙ 12y agoTrue
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What did the dissenting justices think about the power of military authorities?
There are no dissenting judges as to the power of the American military. From the president being the commander-in-Chief to the Congress controlling the budget and funding, the military is subject to civilian control.
Is the president subject to military code of justice?
The president is not a member of the military. It might seem strange to hear that since he is Commander In Chief. This is a very important point. The US military is ultimately under civilian control. Think about how important that is. What could happen if military authority in the US were independent of civilian authority.
When does civilian law supersede military law?
Civilian law is typically always in place. Military law is only invoked in extreme emergencies. However, military personnel are always subject to military law. The Adjutant General will negotiate with the civilian authorities if there is any situation where it is not definite as to which takes precedence. Actually, in the United States, no military person (or, for that matter, anyone other than the Judical Branch) can arbitrarily decide to enforce military law in a place where it is not currently in place. Not even the President can decide to apply military law in a place where civil law is currently in force (indeed, this is one of the major contentious issues around the classification of terrorists as "enemy combatants", and the legality of this move is still being subject to litigation). The misnowmer "martial law" does not actually apply Military Law, but rather enforce a certain subsection of civilian law. For instance, let's say that there is major rioting in a city, and the National Guard is called in to restore order, and "martial law" is declared by the city's major (or perhaps, the state governor). Members of the National Guard are subject to Military law, and any infractions they commit will naturally be covered by military trial. HOWEVER, should a National Guardsman capture a looter (or other criminal), they are then prosecuted under CIVILIAN LAW, even though "martial law" was declared. Martial law in this case is a specific subsection of civilian law, which criminalizes certain activities which are normally permissible under ordinary civilian law. Back to the original question: as Congress is the creator of both military and civilian law, it can decide whether civilian or military law applies in a situation where the military normally has first jurisdiction. There are a myriad number of places this can occur, so naming them all is not possible. In addition, the Constitution is still the highest law of the land, and is supreme over both military and civilian law. Do note that many crimes are not covered by military law, but only civilian law, so it is entirely possible for a person normally subject to military jurisdiction to be prosecuted by civilian authorities without military acquiecence. For example, Insider Trading is a civilian crime, with no military equivalent, so it would be entirely possible to charge a military serviceperson on a military base with this civilian crime.
What is different between Martial Law and Military law?
Martial law is law enforcement by the military on a civilian population at times of emergency. Military law is a special kind of law code which military personnel become subject to when they enlist in the military. It would normally be enforced by the military police and courts Marshal. Military law does not normally apply to non enlisted personnel.
Why did the founding fathers make the President the commander-in-chief of the military?
That was to insure that a military coup was virtually impossible. Washington had been the head of the army, and it made sense to allow him to carry on with that position, and, in the time of crisis a singular voice would be able to act in the national interest. Along the same lines, it insured that the Civilian Government was the legitimate superior of the military. That is, that the military was legally subservient to the civilian government. This is an important (if often overlooked) design feature of the American government form, whereas the military is discouraged from influencing governmental decisions.
A civilian factory where military aircraft parts are fabricated may be subject to attack.?
True
Can a civilian factory where military aircraft parts are fabricated be subject to attack?
It is acceptable to attack military civilian targets. All sides did it in World War II, Vietnam, etc.
A civilian factory where military aircraft parts are refurbished can be subject to attack?
true
What has the author Janet I Farley written?
Janet I. Farley has written: 'Military-to-civilian career transition guide' 'Military-to-civilian career transition guide' -- subject(s): Employment, Retired military personnel, Job hunting, Veterans, Career changes 'Jobs and the Military Spouse'
What did the dissenting justices think about the power of military authorities?
There are no dissenting judges as to the power of the American military. From the president being the commander-in-Chief to the Congress controlling the budget and funding, the military is subject to civilian control.
Is the president subject to military code of justice?
The president is not a member of the military. It might seem strange to hear that since he is Commander In Chief. This is a very important point. The US military is ultimately under civilian control. Think about how important that is. What could happen if military authority in the US were independent of civilian authority.
When does civilian law supersede military law?
Civilian law is typically always in place. Military law is only invoked in extreme emergencies. However, military personnel are always subject to military law. The Adjutant General will negotiate with the civilian authorities if there is any situation where it is not definite as to which takes precedence. Actually, in the United States, no military person (or, for that matter, anyone other than the Judical Branch) can arbitrarily decide to enforce military law in a place where it is not currently in place. Not even the President can decide to apply military law in a place where civil law is currently in force (indeed, this is one of the major contentious issues around the classification of terrorists as "enemy combatants", and the legality of this move is still being subject to litigation). The misnowmer "martial law" does not actually apply Military Law, but rather enforce a certain subsection of civilian law. For instance, let's say that there is major rioting in a city, and the National Guard is called in to restore order, and "martial law" is declared by the city's major (or perhaps, the state governor). Members of the National Guard are subject to Military law, and any infractions they commit will naturally be covered by military trial. HOWEVER, should a National Guardsman capture a looter (or other criminal), they are then prosecuted under CIVILIAN LAW, even though "martial law" was declared. Martial law in this case is a specific subsection of civilian law, which criminalizes certain activities which are normally permissible under ordinary civilian law. Back to the original question: as Congress is the creator of both military and civilian law, it can decide whether civilian or military law applies in a situation where the military normally has first jurisdiction. There are a myriad number of places this can occur, so naming them all is not possible. In addition, the Constitution is still the highest law of the land, and is supreme over both military and civilian law. Do note that many crimes are not covered by military law, but only civilian law, so it is entirely possible for a person normally subject to military jurisdiction to be prosecuted by civilian authorities without military acquiecence. For example, Insider Trading is a civilian crime, with no military equivalent, so it would be entirely possible to charge a military serviceperson on a military base with this civilian crime.
What did the dissenting justices think about the power of the military authorities?
There are no dissenting judges as to the power of the American military. From the president being the commander-in-Chief to the Congress controlling the budget and funding, the military is subject to civilian control.
What has the author Claude Emerson Welch written?
Claude Emerson Welch has written: 'Civilian control of the military' -- subject(s): Civil supremacy over the military, Politics and government 'Soldier and state in Africa: a comparative analysis of military intervention and political change' -- subject(s): Political activity, Armed Forces 'Civilian control of the military' -- subject(s): Politics and government, Civil supremacy over the military 'Military rule and the imperatives of democracy' -- subject(s): Politics and government, Civil supremacy over the military 'Civilizan control of the military' -- subject(s): Civil supremacy over the military 'Anatomy of rebellion' -- subject(s): Case studies, Violence, Revolutions, Peasant uprisings 'Political modernization' -- subject(s): Political science, Social change, Addresses, essays, lectures
What is the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces?
(cases involving people subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice)
What has the author Robert Previdi written?
Robert Previdi has written: 'Civilian control versus military rule' -- subject(s): Civil supremacy over the military, Civil-military relations, Reorganization, United States, United States. Dept. of Defense
Can you get charged for a crime committed as a civilian and then charged for the same crime under the ucmj?
Yes - members of the military are subject to BOTH systems of justice. It is NOT double jeapordy. One is a violation of civil law the other is a violation of military law.
