There are a variety of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that aren't crimes in the civilian world. Courts-martial tend to be nasty because of it.
Here's an example: Article 92 of the UCMJ - Failure to obey a lawful order [1]. This is a pretty broad Article, mostly because everyone is ordered to obey the UCMJ and other laws. So you get prosecuted for it in addition to your other crimes.
So, a person who gets arrested for DUI out in town is actually guilty of Article 92 in addition to Article 111 (Drunken or Reckless Driving).
To compound this, you also have Article 134, which specifies,
>>“Though not specifically mentioned in [the UCMJ], all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”
So, this means that anything that can be proven to have a "detrimental effect on good order and discipline" is also punishable by court-martial. And that's a distinct crime from Article 92. So that guy who got a DUI? He's actually charged with three things - Article 111, Article 92, and Article 134. All for the same offense. And yes, he's punished for all three. Even nastier, there's no double jeopardy for 92 and 134 because they have no civilian versions. So, you can be tried under civilian court for DUI and lose your license and then lose your rank and pay under the UCMJ for the exact same crime with two different legal proceedings.
Now look at Bradley Manning's case, and you can pretty easily see that his actions could be punishable under these two Articles alone. And that's what they did. His guilt in these charges isn't even close to being in question.
Just? Personally, I think so, but I'm colored by my own views and experiences. Your opinion might differ. But it's most definitely legal and will beat appeal.
There are a variety of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that aren't crimes in the civilian world. Courts-martial tend to be nasty because of it.
Here's an example: Article 92 of the UCMJ - Failure to obey a lawful order [1]. This is a pretty broad Article, mostly because everyone is ordered to obey the UCMJ and other laws. So you get prosecuted for it in addition to your other crimes.
So, a person who gets arrested for DUI out in town is actually guilty of Article 92 in addition to Article 111 (Drunken or Reckless Driving).
To compound this, you also have Article 134, which specifies,
>>“Though not specifically mentioned in [the UCMJ], all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”
So, this means that anything that can be proven to have a "detrimental effect on good order and discipline" is also punishable by court-martial. And that's a distinct crime from Article 92. So that guy who got a DUI? He's actually charged with three things - Article 111, Article 92, and Article 134. All for the same offense. And yes, he's punished for all three. Even nastier, there's no double jeopardy for 92 and 134 because they have no civilian versions. So, you can be tried under civilian court for DUI and lose your license and then lose your rank and pay under the UCMJ for the exact same crime with two different legal proceedings.
Now look at Bradley Manning's case, and you can pretty easily see that his actions could be punishable under these two Articles alone. And that's what they did. His guilt in these charges isn't even close to being in question.
Just? Personally, I think so, but I'm colored by my own views and experiences. Your opinion might differ. But it's most definitely legal and will beat appeal.
[1]http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm92.htm