A reply to the report of the commission on the 50th anniversary of the Uniform Code of Military Justice : "the Cox Commission" - May 2001 - 50th anniversary of the Uniform Code of Justice

Air Force Law Review, Wntr, 2002 by Theodore Essex, Leslea Tate Pickle

V. GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS AND "PERCEPTION"

The next reach is found where the Cox Commission Report notes that there is a "ground swell" of grassroots organizations devoted to dismantling the current system:

As a result of the perceived [italics added] inability of military law to deal fairly with the alleged crimes of servicemembers, a cottage industry of grassroots organizations devoted to dismantling the current court-martial system has appeared, aided by the reach of the worldwide web and driven by the passions of frustrated servicemembers, their families, and their counsel. (49)

The report references several groups that maintain websites devoted to various military related causes. The Commission appears to reference these groups to bolster its conclusion that there is a need for reform.

A review of the sites, however, shows that these groups are not primarily concerned with reforming the military justice system. Instead, in general, they are opposed to the result in a particular case. As such, although the Commission uses these groups to bolster their case, none of the proposed CCR reforms would likely convince these individuals that the military justice system gives military members a fair trial.

For example, the report cites Citizens Against Military Justice (the group actually calls itself Citizens against Military Injustice, or CAMI) (50) as a group concerned with military justice reform. CAMI's site contains a mixed bag of complaints. The group is chaired by a mother who is upset because her son, a US soldier, was convicted of murder at a court-martial and is currently in confinement. The appellate process, including the then Court of Military Appeals (COMA--now renamed the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, or CAAF, with Judge Walter Cox himself sitting as a member) upheld the conviction and sentence. The soldier's appellate rights were exhausted when the Supreme Court declined to review the case. For most of the other groups, military justice is not their primary cause. However, they come up on a web search because they are linked with the CAMI site. Thus, the commission attempts to bolster its conclusion that reform is needed by citing groups that either do not directly address the issue s or ones that have an obvious bias.

The CCR does not cite one actual instance of injustice, unlawful command influence, reprisal or any other threat to justice under the current system. Instead, it sees perceptions and potential perceptions of injustice as a "threat to morale and a public relations disaster." (51) The CCR relied on the existence of these groups to bolster their argument because the conclusions are based on mere perceptions--commission members' perceptions, supported only by the statements of witnesses devoted enough to pay their own way and testify before them. The commission finds in their report eight possible negative perceptions of justice, six bad impressions, two perceived injustices and one image problem.

There are numerous reasons not to act based on perception alone; two bear mentioning. First, there will always be those who have a bias against the military justice system because of a result with which they disagree. No matter how fair the system, these people will not be deterred, and reforms should not be based on an attempt to please them. The goal of groups like CAMI is not fundamental fairness, but rather to obtain a particular result in a particular case. To follow such a course is to put justice at the mercy of the best publicist or the most dedicated partisan.