Talk:Courts-martial of the United States

message: I've done some further wikification. But the article needs a little more work, I feel. --BillC 17:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This is an exceptional start.  I'll assit in editing where I can.  Hadrian Penn 02:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good work 

message: I seem to remember reading somewhere that the UCMJ used to apply to everyone on military bases -- civilians and servicepeople alike.  So, spouses and dependents who found themselves in trouble (say, the son of a Sgt. Smith stole a car and went joy-riding or the wife of a Lt. Jones assaulted her husband) would actually find themselves before a court-martial rather than a civilian legal proceeding.  Until there was some kind of legal challenge to this type of jurisdiction, then a civilian legal presence was formed on overseas bases to prevent this sort of problem.  I don't remember much else other than that, though.  Perhaps this is something worth mentioning, from someone who knows WTF I'm talking about? —Micahbrwn (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military law on military bases 

message: The article did not discuss in detail a service members right to appeal and lack of Supreme Court access.  The recent controversy of Supreme Court access and the two pending bills in the 111th Congress. I included that in the article with several references.  I still believe the article needs much work in that more references need to be added.  Over the next month I will continue to work on the article to bring it up to a good article nominee.  If others have suggestions please write them on this page.  
Regarding military law bases above.  No, that is not the case.  Civilians can be prosecuted under the UCMJ if they are serving with military units.  I will address that situation with references in the article.  (Mattwashdc (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added section on courts-martial appeals 

message: I have tagged a couple of sentences in this section of the article for POV issues. The wording seems to show a bias towards Supreme Court access unstead of just merely the facts.  The quote of Norbert Basil MacLean III in this section is of particular concern.  While I am in favor of appelate access to the Supreme Court by service members, I also believe that the statements tagged could be written in a more NPOV manner. I am not the person to do this as I do not know anything more about the subject than this article conveys. Cuprum17 (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent controversy over Supreme Court access - NPOV

message: This section needs citations, and may also need an NPOV review or a review of its style.  It almost reads as a defense of the status of military courts as being outside the normal judicial functions.  Definitely reads as being in favor of the arrangement as opposed to neutral. 152.120.255.251 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Courts-Martial and appellate courts as legislative (Article I) courts 

message: The article as I found it covered only Federal courts-martial, and failed to note the continued existence of state courts-martial.  State militaries are far less important today than they were in the past, but State courts-martial are still convened from time to time.  Work continues... Mikedelsol (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Courts-Martial 

message: An article in Daily Chronicle November 6, 2012 says 'There have been only two other court-martial cases against Army generals in recent years.' The current is against Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair (began Monday 5. Nov. at Fort Bragg, home to the 82nd Airborne Division: . Does someone know who the other two were ? Should they be mentioned in the article ? --Neun-x (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples ?