An Military Try Civilians under Military Rule - Case Study Example

Сan Military Try Civilians under Military Rule? (Specific) If an American citizen who is also closely related to a member of armed forces (in this case, wife), commits a crime against the member (husband of accused), will he/she be considered member of military by default and tried under military rule? (Specific) Can the treaty with other nations overrule the constitution of the land of America and American citizens be tried based on the constitution of foreign government, even if the crimes are committed in foreign land? (Sub issue) do Bill of Rights and other constitutional provisions of American constitution become invalid when crimes are committed abroad and they cannot safeguard the rights of civilians and American citizens? Rule The court martial of Mrs. Covert did not meet Art. III, § 2 or the Fifth and Sixth Amendments which clearly state that all criminal trials must be by jury, irrespective of where the crime is committed. Fifth and Sixth Amendments highlight that ‘no person’ and ‘all criminal prosecutions’ as vital ingredients of trial where civil rights of American citizens in foreign land are in jeopardy. The supremacy of American citizens over treaty with foreign government is held by Article VI that declares that ‘This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; …’. Analysis (Facts and procedural history) In the case, Mrs. Clarice Covert was the Petitioner and Mr. Reid was Respondent in the case number 701 in trial court in 1955-56. Mrs. Clarice Covert had killed her husband, Edward Covert who was at that time serving US Air Force as Sergeant and was stationed in England. She was court martialed in England by The US Air Force under Uniform Code of Military Justice within the broader context of treaty with England, which entailed that crimes committed in foreign land by relatives serving in defense forces would be tried in American court martial and not by foreign government. Mrs. Covert was held guilt of crime of murder by UCMJ and sentenced to life imprisonment. When brought back to West Virginia, she appealed against her verdict and US Court of Military Appeal set aside the conviction due to the technical issue of ‘insanity’ which Mrs. Covert was medically found to be suffering from, when the crime was committed by her. Her counsel petitioned in District Court for her release as her trial by Military violates her constitutional rights as American citizens and a civilian who is not a member of American defense forces. The case was taken up as United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11. The court held that Mrs. Covert’s Court Martial was wrong and as a civilian, she was entitled to civilian trial by jury. The court ordered her release taking into consideration the various legal technicalities vis-à-vis her right as a civilian, her medical condition of insanity and the constituents of Military court martial that had brought Mrs. Covert under its purview. The case is highly relevant primarily due to two main reasons: it establishes that dependents of members of military are civilians and cannot be tried under military court martial; and upheld the supremacy of American constitution over court martial and declares succinctly that treaties with foreign governments cannot supersede American constitution. The Fifth and Sixth Amendment of American constitution is clear in its dictum that Military Trials in foreign land apply only for ‘land and naval forces’ and not for civilians. In Mrs. Covert’s case, she was brought within the purview of Court Martial under Article 2(11) of UCMJ which says: Person are ‘subjected to the provisions of any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, [p4] all persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces without the continental limits of the United States…’ (case). The clause violated the civilians’ Bill of Rights and jury claimed that Power of Congress in trials by American Government in foreign lands can provide for trials only if the procedures established are reasonable and in keeping with due process and agreed to this provision granted under Article 1 of the constitution. The case upheld the constitutional supremacy over treating with foreign governments. It agrees that Article 2(11) of UCMJ is sustainable as legislation to carry out America’s obligations in international affairs. But at the same time, no agreement with foreign nations can empower Congress or military to override the postulates of American constitution. As such, the Bill of rights, fifth and Sixth Amendments become strong clauses that safeguard civilian rights in foreign shores. The military has used provision of Article I, § 8, cl. 14 to bring Mrs. Covert under Court martial procedures. The term, ‘land and naval forces’, broadly described servicemen and not their wives and children or other dependents. The broader implications of case emphatically establish the limitations of Military tribunals and show that extraordinary powers are mainly interpreted within the context of Art. I, § 8. Hence, misuse of the powers by military becomes a major concern for the constitutional experts. The United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 was crucial case that significantly asserts the rights of civilians. Toth was a discharged military person who was charged with murder which was committed during his service period. But he could not be tried under military court martial after his discharge because he had become a civilian and no more an active serviceman. The court decreed that he could be only tried by grand jury or jury trial as constitution provided the civil courts for civilians who were not members of military. If Mrs. Covert’s case is looked from this aspect, her contention is hugely strengthened as she was never a member of military and her rights as civilian remained intact despite being wife of a member of military. Conclusion The case was landmark for ensuring justice to civilians in foreign land who had gone there as dependents of members of military. It also firmly established the supremacy of American constitution over the inflated powers of Congress and Military. More importantly, it showed the biases and misuse of constitutional articles and clauses by American armed forces through deliberate misinterpretations to indict civilians and deprived them of their rights as legitimate citizens of United States of America. I totally agree with the reviewed verdict of Mrs. Covert who was able to gain her freedom after civil trial. Reference Reid v Covert. Retrieved from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html Read More