Looking for a good "Military Tribunal" thriller
June 7, 2010 1:59 PM Subscribe
NOT looking for a great "Courtroom Thriller" but more of a "Military Tribunal Thriller"
I'm looking for a book or movie, fiction or non-fiction that lays out the workings, protocol, sequence of events, philosophy, problems, virtues and vices, vulnerabilities, purpose etc. of a military tribunal.
I'm not looking for John Grisham (full disclosure: I've never read John Grisham so if he's got a novel centered around a military tribunal as opposed to a court of law I'll give it a shot). A good example of what I'm looking for (as well as the breadth of what I'm willing to examine) is Star Trek's Menagerie (starting at 4:30. Technically it's a "courts martial" but the proceedings are similar--three officers presiding, emphasis on finding evidence even after guilty plea is entered etc.). Also, the writings of Major General Alexander Macomb (starting on pg 91, "Courts of Inquiry") seem authoritative but perhaps scant.
If anybody has any good ideas for showing me how a proper military tribunal is conducted, say, during the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican American War, Civil War, or later I'd like to know. I'm not really interested in getting tangled up in the current spaghetti mess of tribunals for Gitmo detainees. I'm looking for something a lot less political and a lot more "clean."
I'm looking for a book or movie, fiction or non-fiction that lays out the workings, protocol, sequence of events, philosophy, problems, virtues and vices, vulnerabilities, purpose etc. of a military tribunal.
I'm not looking for John Grisham (full disclosure: I've never read John Grisham so if he's got a novel centered around a military tribunal as opposed to a court of law I'll give it a shot). A good example of what I'm looking for (as well as the breadth of what I'm willing to examine) is Star Trek's Menagerie (starting at 4:30. Technically it's a "courts martial" but the proceedings are similar--three officers presiding, emphasis on finding evidence even after guilty plea is entered etc.). Also, the writings of Major General Alexander Macomb (starting on pg 91, "Courts of Inquiry") seem authoritative but perhaps scant.
If anybody has any good ideas for showing me how a proper military tribunal is conducted, say, during the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican American War, Civil War, or later I'd like to know. I'm not really interested in getting tangled up in the current spaghetti mess of tribunals for Gitmo detainees. I'm looking for something a lot less political and a lot more "clean."
A Few Good Men
posted by kirkaracha at 2:26 PM on June 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by kirkaracha at 2:26 PM on June 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
The Caine Mutiny
posted by chrchr at 2:29 PM on June 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by chrchr at 2:29 PM on June 7, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: The Andersonville Trial( coincidentally starring William Shatner). For the revolution, you might want to look for the trial of Major Andre.
posted by IndigoJones at 2:32 PM on June 7, 2010
posted by IndigoJones at 2:32 PM on June 7, 2010
Definitely The Caine Mutiny. The book is superbly written, with a light, almost farcical first quarter. The final half is absolutely what you're looking for though.
posted by synaesthetichaze at 2:34 PM on June 7, 2010
posted by synaesthetichaze at 2:34 PM on June 7, 2010
It can get cheesy what with all the human interest stories and frankly ridiculous capers they interweave in it, but the series JAG that ran forever and I think is currently in syndication on USA network is really not bad.
Now, I'm not a lawyer nor a member of the military, so it might very well look like a cartoon to anyone with those qualifications, but the show seemed to me to show several of the peculiarities of courts martial - the same team sometimes working together on behalf of the accused, sometimes members of that team dividing up and working on both sides of the case - the occasional service member who gets a civilian lawyer and how that changes the dynamic, etc.
As with most dramas of that nature, it generally seems more exciting when the accused is innocent, but IIRC sometimes the government was flat wrong in an evil sort of way, sometimes the government was just mistaken, and sometimes the accused is in fact guilty, or deserving of a lesser sentence (a la Few Good Men. They also dealt, as did A Few Good Men, with the dynamic of military officers who have to maintain more decorum than civilian lawyers, who can plant any kind of stinkbomb under the "plaintiff"s chair they like with little fear of recrimination (at least on most TV dramas).
That is apparently a dynamic that occurs in real courts martial, as just about every drama pertaining to same hits that note a time or two - trying to defend your client while keeping the embarrassment to senior officers and the DoD to a minimum.
Second The Caine Mutiny. Book is approximately 1,000 better and more detailed than the movie, and was very well researched by Wouk, who was himself in the Navy in WWII.
Are you trying to do research, or just looking for a good read/something to watch?
posted by randomkeystrike at 2:42 PM on June 7, 2010
Now, I'm not a lawyer nor a member of the military, so it might very well look like a cartoon to anyone with those qualifications, but the show seemed to me to show several of the peculiarities of courts martial - the same team sometimes working together on behalf of the accused, sometimes members of that team dividing up and working on both sides of the case - the occasional service member who gets a civilian lawyer and how that changes the dynamic, etc.
As with most dramas of that nature, it generally seems more exciting when the accused is innocent, but IIRC sometimes the government was flat wrong in an evil sort of way, sometimes the government was just mistaken, and sometimes the accused is in fact guilty, or deserving of a lesser sentence (a la Few Good Men. They also dealt, as did A Few Good Men, with the dynamic of military officers who have to maintain more decorum than civilian lawyers, who can plant any kind of stinkbomb under the "plaintiff"s chair they like with little fear of recrimination (at least on most TV dramas).
That is apparently a dynamic that occurs in real courts martial, as just about every drama pertaining to same hits that note a time or two - trying to defend your client while keeping the embarrassment to senior officers and the DoD to a minimum.
Second The Caine Mutiny. Book is approximately 1,000 better and more detailed than the movie, and was very well researched by Wouk, who was himself in the Navy in WWII.
Are you trying to do research, or just looking for a good read/something to watch?
posted by randomkeystrike at 2:42 PM on June 7, 2010
Response by poster: A Few Good Men is a great "Courts Martial Thriller" but not really a "Military Tribunal Thriller" (I know. I'm beginning to regret giving two examples involving primarily courts martial but I don't know of any examples that hit the nail on the head.)
By "Military Tribunal" I mean a tribunal convened as a result of capturing the enemy on the battlefield (deserving a tribunal) as opposed to friendly officers or soldiers breaking military law (deserving courts martial). Apparently, a big difference between a military tribunal and a (civilian) court of law is a court of law is primarily interested in determining innocence or guilt of the defendent. A tribunal is interested (I think--I don't know much about these things) in extracting information from an enemy prisoner through means other than interrogation or torture. I would imagine a captured spy for instance or a captured high ranking officer guilty of prisoner torture would undergo a military tribunal and certainly not a courts martial. I don't know what the circumstances would be to warrent a tribunal over interrogation or what is the point of a tribunal if guilt is assumed (Is it? I don't know!) and the purpose of the tribunal is to get information to save future friendly casualties.
George Washington, Andrew Jackson and many other generals conducted tribunals for prisoners captured on the battlefield. I'm wondering what is the motivation and the "proper" way of conducting them.
posted by Lord Fancy Pants at 2:46 PM on June 7, 2010
By "Military Tribunal" I mean a tribunal convened as a result of capturing the enemy on the battlefield (deserving a tribunal) as opposed to friendly officers or soldiers breaking military law (deserving courts martial). Apparently, a big difference between a military tribunal and a (civilian) court of law is a court of law is primarily interested in determining innocence or guilt of the defendent. A tribunal is interested (I think--I don't know much about these things) in extracting information from an enemy prisoner through means other than interrogation or torture. I would imagine a captured spy for instance or a captured high ranking officer guilty of prisoner torture would undergo a military tribunal and certainly not a courts martial. I don't know what the circumstances would be to warrent a tribunal over interrogation or what is the point of a tribunal if guilt is assumed (Is it? I don't know!) and the purpose of the tribunal is to get information to save future friendly casualties.
George Washington, Andrew Jackson and many other generals conducted tribunals for prisoners captured on the battlefield. I'm wondering what is the motivation and the "proper" way of conducting them.
posted by Lord Fancy Pants at 2:46 PM on June 7, 2010
The Caine Mutiny ftw.
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 2:56 PM on June 7, 2010
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 2:56 PM on June 7, 2010
Response by poster: @randomkeystrike
I'm doing research for an (amateur) piece I'm writing. The only reason I mention "courts martial" is that according to Alexander Macomb a tribunal is pretty similar but with some key differences--one of the most important being the difference in motivation for proving guilt.
I'm really looking for information on military tribunals (I probably shouldn't have even mentioned courts martial--gummed up my request--so the reader should probably just forget I mentioned them.)
posted by Lord Fancy Pants at 2:56 PM on June 7, 2010
I'm doing research for an (amateur) piece I'm writing. The only reason I mention "courts martial" is that according to Alexander Macomb a tribunal is pretty similar but with some key differences--one of the most important being the difference in motivation for proving guilt.
I'm really looking for information on military tribunals (I probably shouldn't have even mentioned courts martial--gummed up my request--so the reader should probably just forget I mentioned them.)
posted by Lord Fancy Pants at 2:56 PM on June 7, 2010
Not sure I can think of a good example in literature, but isn't a tribunal, at least in relatively modern times, intended to determine if the enemy violated the Law of War?*
For example, at least some captured enemy combatants are pretty much always going to get interrogated. Troop strength, morale, levels of equipment and supplies, etc. Regardless of the level of cooperation, the outcome for the prisoner (at least assuming the other side treats him ethically) is that he's off to POW camp/status.
A tribunal, OTOH, I think of as a procedure to try major officials of a defeated government, in or out of the military, for war crimes. Ex. Nuremburg. If they had been found "innocent," they might have just gone home, provided hostilities were concluded. But having been found guilty of war crimes, they were executed.
There's bound to be a lot of true/biography sorts of books in non-fiction - I don't see this topic handled in literature a lot, and I'm drawn to fiction with a military aspect, so...
*I know, a daft expression, but one in common use in military circles.
posted by randomkeystrike at 2:59 PM on June 7, 2010
For example, at least some captured enemy combatants are pretty much always going to get interrogated. Troop strength, morale, levels of equipment and supplies, etc. Regardless of the level of cooperation, the outcome for the prisoner (at least assuming the other side treats him ethically) is that he's off to POW camp/status.
A tribunal, OTOH, I think of as a procedure to try major officials of a defeated government, in or out of the military, for war crimes. Ex. Nuremburg. If they had been found "innocent," they might have just gone home, provided hostilities were concluded. But having been found guilty of war crimes, they were executed.
There's bound to be a lot of true/biography sorts of books in non-fiction - I don't see this topic handled in literature a lot, and I'm drawn to fiction with a military aspect, so...
*I know, a daft expression, but one in common use in military circles.
posted by randomkeystrike at 2:59 PM on June 7, 2010
And yes, I know inducements and threats are typically offered in interrogations - I'm talking about the long-term outcome. I saw some photos about the Vietnam War the other day in which a US vet casually mentioned that after the SV interrogated the gent in the picture he (the US vet) had taken, the prisoner was most likely shot.
posted by randomkeystrike at 3:01 PM on June 7, 2010
posted by randomkeystrike at 3:01 PM on June 7, 2010
King and Country is a film about the court-martial of a British soldier, Private Hamp, accused of desertion after suffering shell-shock during the First World War. If you are looking for actual sources for the same period, the UK National Archives have put online the court records relating to Eric Poole, who was shot for desertion in similar circumstances.
posted by greycap at 3:07 PM on June 7, 2010
posted by greycap at 3:07 PM on June 7, 2010
Ah and I've just refreshed and read your additional comment above - apologies.
posted by greycap at 3:08 PM on June 7, 2010
posted by greycap at 3:08 PM on June 7, 2010
Best answer: "A tribunal is interested (I think--I don't know much about these things) in extracting information from an enemy prisoner through means other than interrogation or torture."
Yeah, a military tribunal that tries enemy combatants is not a military tribunal in the sense of a Court or Board of inquiry, its primary purpose is to restrain or punish enemy combatants.
Here's the Congressional Research Service's history of U.S. military tribunals.
You'll want to check out the references in the footnotes. For instance: Louis Fisher, Nazi Saboteurs on Trial: A Military Tribunal and American Law (2003)
Another CRS report is Military Tribunals: The Quirin Precedent about the Nazi Saboteurs trial.
Here's another one from the citations... Nazi agent Erich Gimpel was sentenced to death by another World War II military tribunal, his sentence was commuted and he was released and deported back to Germany in 1955. He wrote a book, now published in the U.S.: Agent 146: The True Story of a Nazi Spy in America.
The Department of Defense has a page on military tribunals, including the current Military Commissions Manual.
A fictional classic featuring a secret (at least quasi-military tribunal) in Communist East Germany is John le Carre's The Spy Who Came In From the Cold.
posted by Jahaza at 3:14 PM on June 7, 2010
Yeah, a military tribunal that tries enemy combatants is not a military tribunal in the sense of a Court or Board of inquiry, its primary purpose is to restrain or punish enemy combatants.
Here's the Congressional Research Service's history of U.S. military tribunals.
You'll want to check out the references in the footnotes. For instance: Louis Fisher, Nazi Saboteurs on Trial: A Military Tribunal and American Law (2003)
Another CRS report is Military Tribunals: The Quirin Precedent about the Nazi Saboteurs trial.
Here's another one from the citations... Nazi agent Erich Gimpel was sentenced to death by another World War II military tribunal, his sentence was commuted and he was released and deported back to Germany in 1955. He wrote a book, now published in the U.S.: Agent 146: The True Story of a Nazi Spy in America.
The Department of Defense has a page on military tribunals, including the current Military Commissions Manual.
A fictional classic featuring a secret (at least quasi-military tribunal) in Communist East Germany is John le Carre's The Spy Who Came In From the Cold.
posted by Jahaza at 3:14 PM on June 7, 2010
Judgment at Nuremberg. Also contains a very young Shatner. And a Werner Klemperer.
posted by Dr. Zira at 3:16 PM on June 7, 2010
posted by Dr. Zira at 3:16 PM on June 7, 2010
Response by poster: The story behind John Andre is exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for. In fact, I'll probably buy "Traitor and Spy" the story about Benedict Arnold and John Andre by John Thomas Flexner. Arnold was never caught but Andre was. He was given a tribunal and later hung. I'm looking for details on how these tribunals work.
I've read "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold" and that's also the kind of tribunal I'm looking for except with Americans presiding instead of East Germans.
posted by Lord Fancy Pants at 3:22 PM on June 7, 2010
I've read "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold" and that's also the kind of tribunal I'm looking for except with Americans presiding instead of East Germans.
posted by Lord Fancy Pants at 3:22 PM on June 7, 2010
Response by poster: Thank you everyone for your effort! Please keep 'em coming!
@Jahhaza
Wow! That reply is pretty much the 800lb. gorilla! Lotsa good stuff there that I was looking for. Thank you!
posted by Lord Fancy Pants at 4:14 PM on June 7, 2010
@Jahhaza
Wow! That reply is pretty much the 800lb. gorilla! Lotsa good stuff there that I was looking for. Thank you!
posted by Lord Fancy Pants at 4:14 PM on June 7, 2010
I highly recommend In Time of War: Hitler's Terrorist Attack on America by Pierce O'Donnell. It's a great read about the Nazi saboteur military tribunal and the Supreme Court's sanctioning of it in Ex Parte Quirin.
posted by saslett at 4:04 PM on June 9, 2010
posted by saslett at 4:04 PM on June 9, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 2:12 PM on June 7, 2010 [1 favorite]