121
Short Answer
Applicants are required by military regulation to have a percentile score on a standardized test called the ASVAB that is 31 or more, which is roughly comparable to an IQ score on the Stanford-Binet scale of a little bit less than 92, for high school graduates seeking to enter the Army or Navy (other services have more strict requirements and ...
53
Under US Army Regulation 601-210 as of 2016, conscientious objection will normally disqualify someone applying to enlist, but the disqualification can be waived. Under Army Regulation 600-43, if they enlist they’ll typically be assigned to the medical field and will receive modified basic training (as conscientious objectors, they won’t be trained in the use ...
52
2019 Manual for Courts-Martial, Rule 916(h):
(h) Coercion or duress. It is a defense to any offense
except killing an innocent person that the accused’s
participation in the offense was caused by a reasonable
apprehension that the accused or another innocent
person would be immediately killed or would
immediately suffer serious bodily injury if the accused
...
49
Apparently, you cannot do this at any point, unless the law changes at some time in the future:
FOR INDIVIDUALS ASSIGNED MALE AT BIRTH
People who were assigned male at birth are required to register with the Selective Service within thirty days of their eighteenth birthday. This includes those who may have transitioned before or since then. The ...
44
The only real answer is that the US Supreme Court, in interpreting the constitution, and specifically the argument that the 13th Amendment prohibits a draft for compelled military services has totally rejected that argument. For many years now the US has not used a draft, and it is obviously possible for the US to have an enduring and powerful military ...
41
Under 10 USC 843(a), i.e. Article 43 of the UCMJ,
A person charged with absence without leave or missing movement in
time of war, with murder, rape or sexual assault, or rape or sexual
assault of a child, maiming of a child, kidnapping of a child, or with
any other offense punishable by death, may be tried and punished at
any time without limitation.
The ...
34
It is not the case that treason must be tried by a military tribunal. See for example US v. Kawakita, which was an ordinary civilian jury trial. I cannot even imagine why one would think that there is any such requirement. Here is the federal law against treason, and nothing says "offenses must be tried in a military court". Perhaps that misconception was ...
33
Actually, the opposite is true: a military tribunal cannot try a treason case. A military tribunal can only handle cases arising from the Uniform Code of Military Justice or other laws that state that they can be tried by a military tribunal.
The UCMJ doesn't list treason as a crime -- the closest is "aiding the enemy". Treason under Title 18 of the US ...
21
Eddie Slovik was executed by firing squad for desertion during World War II (the only U.S. solider to have the death sentence carried out for desertion during the war). He requested from his commander an assignment behind the front lines, was denied, and took it upon himself to leave his post, walk to the rear and presented a note to a cook there confessing ...
21
In the UK Armed Forces, conscientious objection is grounds for a refusal at the admission stage and has been since the end of conscription in 1963. Where a person develops an objection to military service during their term of service, they have the option to appeal for a discharge.
Interestingly there's no primary legislation to manage this process but there ...
19
There is no statute of limitations on murder
This is true of other serious crimes as well like sexual assault, war crimes, genocide etc.
The person can be charged now, 10 years from now, 100 years from now. Assuming they are still alive, of course, you can’t charge dead people.
As a practical matter, historical crimes are more difficult to prosecute due to ...
18
Technically, there is no such thing as an unconstitutional law. There are laws which have been passed, but whose unconstitutionality has not been discovered yet. But once a law is legally deemed to be unconstitutional, it stops being a law.
The constitution is a recipe for running the government. If Congress enacts legislature which it has no authority to ...
17
By describing the situation with:
This seems like an absolutely horrific and barbaric way to punish soldiers who, for whatever reason, felt compelled to leave their post (in this particular case, apart from suffering from a mental disorder, Bergdahl seemingly wanted to reveal some bad things happening in his unit).
You've demonstrated a misunderstanding of ...
12
There is an Oath of Enlistment for the military where the enlistee vows to
support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the
President of the United States and the orders of the officers
appointed over me, ...
11
By default every male Finnish Citizen is liable for military service.
The relevant law for Finland has a whole Chapter 6 about unarmed service.
Basically, the person who asserts that a serious reason of conscience prevents him from handling weapons is relieved of that part of service. However, the minimal service time is increased from 6 months to 9 months.
(...
10
united-states
Under US law, any citizen may hold a person caught in the process of committing a felony (which kidnapping surely is) for the police. A soldier has no special authority. Indeed under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military has more restricted authority in such matters than citizens in general. However note that the book doesn't say the soldier ...
9
The use of the active duty military in a law enforcement role is not unconstitutional but it is prohibited by the posse comitatus act. 18 U.S.C. § 1385 (adopted 1878).
The text of the relevant legislation is as follows:
18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized
...
9
Under the Geneva Convention a prisoner-of-war may lawfully resume fighting once they have successfully escaped. Under Article 91:
The escape of a prisoner of war shall be deemed to have succeeded when:
He has joined the armed forces of the Power on which he depends, or those of an allied Power;
He has left the territory under the control of the Detaining ...
8
What Is Treason?
Treason is the only crime defined in the U.S. Constitution, at Article III, Section 3 which says:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war
against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the
testimony of two witnesses to the ...
8
The US Marshals (now the US Marshals Service) was -- as described in the Wikipedia article -- created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 during the first term of the US Congress (and also during the first term of office of George Washington as President of the United States). See also this page from the US Marshals Service web site.
The Marshals have never been ...
7
It's probably not a good idea to take action movies as authoritative sources on the law. The law that you're referring to is presumably the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) which says
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized
by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the
Army or the Air Force as a ...
7
The Commander-in-chief powers are quite broad. The War Powers Resolution limits his ability to engage unilaterally in military action, by requiring him to report to Congress within 48 hours, and if Congress disapproves, troops must be removed after 60 days. However, this law pertains to armed forces, and would not apply to remotely-launched missiles. ...
7
There is no such law. The US Constitution provides that:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; (Article II section 2)
The congress shall have the power (Article I section 8)
...
To declare War, ...
7
In Europe (as defined above) it does not appear that any country allows an asylum claim based solely on the fact of being subject to obligatory military service. However, asylum claims can be made based on obligatory military service plus something surrounding the circumstances of military service. For example, during the Vietnam war, Sweden granted asylum ...
6
The documents do not belong to you or your granddad: they belong to his former employer. Contact them and ask what they want them do with them.
6
It is not true for a few reasons. First, the number is 81, sort of. 10 USC 520 specifies a minimum 31st percentile on the Armed Forces Qualification Test; see this Q&A for an analysis of the relationship between IQ and AFQT. The law is not stated in terms of IQ, it's based on a different test.
However, this addresses enlistment, not civilian employment ...
6
From a purely technical interpretation of the law does the oath cover laws that are unconstitutional?
Of course not. Unconstitutional laws are effectively null and void. The oath covers the constitution and laws collectively, not individually. Supporting and defending them collectively includes supporting and defending court rulings, including those ...
6
england-and-wales
Can military necessity override POW rights?
NO. The Geneva Conventions Act 1957 provides prisoners of war with certain fundamental guarantees for humane treatment at Article 4 of Part 2 of Schedule 6:
1 All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted,...
6
uk
As I understand it, in the UK, there is no specific defence of 'duress' under law against the charge of Assisting the Enemy (e.g. in contravention of the Armed Forces Act 2006).
Assisting an enemy
(1) A person subject to service law commits an offence if, without lawful excuse,
he intentionally
...
(b) gives an enemy information that would or might be ...
5
It is a vanishingly small possibility.
First, someone would need to bring a case that an appropriation for the Air Force was unconstitutional.
A Federal court is unlikely to find that it is because:
The constitution would be interpreted broadly where the thing being considered did not exist when it was ratified. That is, the court would consider if, had ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible