It’s easy to see where Ellyn Peterson falls on the issue of military justice. In her article on March 11, she questioned the ruling in the Capt. Ashby murder case.

She seems to think that the military justice system we use in the armed forces isn’t fair because of one ruling she happens to disagree with.

The military courts system is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ gives prosecutors far greater powers than in civilian courts.

The accused have a larger burden to prove their innocence, rather than the prosecutor proving “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a civilian court. Civilian prosecutors wish they had these rules.

The judges are senior military officers in the legal corps, not elected by the public or appointed by a politician.

These judges do not have agendas nor do their political viewpoints affect their rulings.

They will not allow some of the legal foot-dragging we see in civilian courts.

While we may raise an eyebrow over this decision that many find questionable, do we really know what went on? Were we there?

No, we couldn’t see what went on because cameras, just like in federal trials, are not allowed in military courts.

The Johnnie Cochrans of the world can’t grandstand for the cameras nor can they play on the sympathies of the public.

Capt. Ashby’s jury was made up of Navy and Marine Corps officers, not his beer buddies as Ms. Peterson infers.

These officers have little patience for those who would smear the name of their services.

This was not the O.J. Simpson jury. Civilian juries look for the slightest inconsistency (reasonable doubt), while military juries look at the evidence as a whole.

These jurors are not affected by political, social, or economic sympathies; their decision affects only the accused.

Ms. Peterson has a problem with the fact that Capt. Ashby was acquitted by a jury of fellow officers.

Isn’t this the “jury of our peers” that we are entitled to by the Constitution?

She seems to think that he should be tried in a kangaroo foreign court where the jury will be impartial.

Surely she can’t admit that any jury in Europe would be impartial to Capt. Ashby! These officers might have been the only impartial jury he could have had.

The fact remains that while many question the jury’s ruling in this case, most do not understand the military justice system and how it really works.

Ms. Peterson demands that Capt. Ashby face an “impartial” civilian trial, and that only exposes her ignorance on this issue. It also serves as another example of how civilian meddling would only compromise the legal integrity of the military justice system.

---

Robert Zeis

Alumnus

Ames