Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-06-16

deprived Of his liberty without due
process and compelled to submit
illegally to foreign system of JUS
tice. The District court dismissed
the petition and was upheld by the
appeals court.
The court pointed out that al
though the Senate had provided in
its NATO reservation a system for
petitioning for Pvt Keefe's release,
it (the COURT could not command
such a petition be carried out in
order to get jurisdiction of the
soldier.
Even if Pvt. Keefe's commander
decided the CT received unjust legal
treatment and reported this to the
State Department, the court said.
the Secretary Of State could not be
required to intervene. And if the
Secretary did intervene. the treaty
required merely that France give
sympathetic consideration" to the
request.
The next question is whether the
foregoing procedure jibes with ac-
cepted legal and constitutional prin-
ciples.
Any time a man enters the armed
services he foregoes some rights
available to civilians. But there is
a pronounced split between %
those who think servicemen's rights
are subject solely to the laws of
Congress. which is authorized by
the Constitution to make rules for
the regulation Of the armed forces.
and 90 those who insist that such
laws must be entirely consistent
with the Bill Of Rights except for
such limitations as the Supreme
Court may have approved.
Among lawyers. the first view
seems to be the more popular.
The Uniform Code of Military
Justice. enacted by Congress in
1850, now governs the trial pro-
cedure for American servicemen ac-
cused Of crime. This law, accord
ing to the majority view, is due
process" within the meaning of the
Constitution. 1t provides. among
other things. for proper appeal in
criminal cases. for protection against
Standardization. for a ban on
cruel and unusual punishment and
other Bill of Rights safeguards.
But the status of forces agree
ments do not mention these things.
Thus it would appear-even un-
der the view that Servicemens'
rights are determined solely by the
Uniform Code-that the intent of
Congress to protect the rights of
CTS accused Of crime can be
circumvented by the operation of
the status of forces agreements.
Since the local law of most other
countries does not contain the
same safeguards as American law,
it is reasonable to assume that
some such violation of CT rights
may occur from time to time.
If 1t does, are the agreements
open to legal criticism?
Many authorities think they are.
They think so because it has
never been judicially determined
how far the United States can go,
by treaty or executive agreement,
in providing for the trial of over
seas troops by foreign countries.
They think so in view of the
fact that most overseas service
men are not lover there" by choice,
but are compelled to be there.
And they think so because the
agreements themselves are vague
about the conditions under which
military personnel may be tried
in foreign courts. The on-or-off-
duty concept. to them, is too poorly
defined to be legal; in fact. it can
be argued that soldier overseas
is never off duty-a concept spe-
officially written into law by the
1914 congressional enactment of
Veterans Benefits for Injured
Servicemen,