Travis Bishop; ignorant martyr

| August 19, 2009

The Left is trying to make a martyr of SGT Travis Bishop, the soldier who went AWOL on the day his unit deployed to Afghanistan, returned a week later to begin the processing of his application for conscientious objector. Bishop was sentenced to a year in jail last Friday. TSO’s favorite journalist Dahr Jamail who was there writes;

Despite Sgt. Bishop’s commander, Captain Christopher Hall’s admission to the court that he had never provided CO training to Bishop’s unit, the jury, who were all officers of much higher ranks (six to seven ranks higher) than Bishop, therefore, not necessarily a jury of his peers, appeared hostile to Bishop’s plight.

For example, one of the jurors had to be woken up during the trial. Another, a Lt. Col. Atkins, rolled his eyes and shook his head throughout most of the defense’s time of making their case.

So Jamail is trying to push the theory that Bishop’s trial was unconstitutional (because the jury wasn’t a panel of peers – check the court martial regs, Jamail), instead of admitting that James Branum, Bishop’s lawyer is an incompetent boob;

“The war in Afghanistan does not meet the criteria for lawful war under the UN Charter, which says that member nations who joined the UN, as did the US, should give up war forever, aside from two exceptions: that the war is in self defense, and that the use of force was authorized by the UN Security Council,” Branum told Truthout in an earlier interview, “The nation of Afghanistan did not attack the United States. The Taliban may have, but the nation and people of Afghanistan did not. And under US law, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, any treaty enacted by the US is now the ’supreme law of the land.’ So when the United States signed the UN Charter, we made that our law as well.”

Yeah, the Taliban attacked the US not the Afghan people – however, the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time of the attack, weren’t they? Is Branum trying to say that the US is attacking the current government of Afghanistan – truly a freakin’ moron.

Branum told Truthout he is attempting to establish a precedent with the trial, regardless of the outcome. “We want to change the law, and I would argue that when soldiers are informed of their deployment, which is generally two to six months in advance, they should be giving training about CO status. I will argue that if you don’t do the training, you can’t deploy.”

Branum’s argument that Travis didn’t have time to file his application for CO status is boobery, best illustrated by Branum’s other client, Victor Agosto, who was in Bishop’s unit and had plenty of time to inform his unit he was not going to deploy with his unit to Afghanistan. Agosto got thirty days in jail because he didn’t go AWOL on the day his unit deployed, unlike Bishop who was awarded a year in jail at my expense.

At the link above, there’s also a letter from Bishop who continues the stupid defense his lawyer tried – that he’s ignorant, so he shouldn’t be in jail;

All I can say is this: If I had a Soldier that acted on impulse and did something illegal that I, his Sergeant, could have trained him on, there is no doubt in my mind that I would be in the First Sergeant’s office the next morning explaining how I ‘failed’ the Soldier, leaving this Soldier untrained and, ultimately, unprepared.

Yeah, dumbass, except that you hung out with Victor Agosto for months before your unit deployed and you didn’t learn anything from him? Your lawyer is a stupid moron and you’re paying the price for listening to him. Have a nice year, cupcake.

Our friend, Tankerbabe, got a quote from a member of the jury that illustrates just how stupid Branum is and how badly he screwed Bishop with his bass-akward representation, but I’m waiting on his permission to use his quote, I’ll have to report on that later.

Category: Antiwar crowd, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military issues

15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
NHSparky

Of course, the MCM/UCMJ is pretty clear that in a Special or General court martial (he didn’t get a Summary in this case) he could have requested enlisted members on the court, but of course Jamail the Mouthbreather doesn’t know or doesn’t bother to report that little factoid.

Bob

My view is that if the attorney is making wild and fanciful accusations in court, then of course a juror will roll his/her eyes. Those of us with actual courtroom experience can tell you that you have to some degree know your audience and manage your tactics accordingly.

Second, you can’t appeal or complain about the makeup of the panel without objecting to it during the trial. Did he do that?

Third, the regulations are very clear about what needs to be done to get a enlisted member on the panel. Not sure if the lawyer read the regulations, and would argue he may be liable for malpractice if he didn’t.

Fourth, CO procedure also is well defined. Perhaps I’m just not following correctly, but is he arguing that all soldiers should be trained on CO procedure before deployment? One can apply for CO status at any time and then go through the proper procedure. Granted, the vast majority of COs do not meet the criteria, but this again appears to be another case of arguing something after the fact rather than during the time as prescribed in the regulations.

Just my thoughts…

Bob

I am the consimate (sp?) defense attorney, but the more I think about this, the more botched this case sounds. Facts remain that once one files for CO status, they will not be deployed until the CO application is rejected. I’m not sure if he was being advised by a barracks lawyer, but you can’t break the law (going AWOL) and then apply for something AFTER you broke that law. It doesn’t work that way… It’s like stealing Oxicotin from a pharmacy, going to the doctor a week later for a prescription, and arguing that all should be good.

StopandSmelltheRoses

I’ve been told by people who are familiar with Bishop that Bishop knew better than to ask for enlisted – that the CSMs would have been much less easy on him.

I live fairly close to the Fort Hood area and follow these losers. Apparently Bishop’s stellar defense witnesses included an 8 year E1, and a crazy former E6 (Chuck Luther) who forms new soldiers’ rights organizations weekly (this time he was a lay minister) among a couple of other witnesses.

I’ve also learned through various places that during the testimony the defense attorney and some witnesses compared Bishop to Jesus, Martin Luther King and Ghandi. Are you kidding me?

Must have been complete insanity on the part of the defense in that room.

StopandSmelltheRoses

The comment by “anonymous” above is from me – “Stop and Smell the Roses”. I’m not sure why it posted as “anonymous”.

OldTrooper

Bob said: “I’m not sure if he was being advised by a barracks lawyer,”

That’s exactly what it is. All the latrine lawyers at scumofthehood, I mean Underthehood, have been filling these people with bs. They provide a place to hide/congregate and the infinite wisdom of those that won’t be serving the sentence, but are full of all sorts of advice.

The reason this pussie didn’t want senior NCO’s on the jury is because 3/4 of them would have wanted to take his chicken ass out back and tune him up. A little wall to wall counseling session.

How this punk ever made E-5 I’ll never know, and he had to have a weak mind in order to be “inspired” by Agosto in the first place.

sporkmaster

Also I wonder what it will take to put ‘Under the Hood” on the off limits lists that it is apparent that their only goal is to get soldiers to desert.

OldTrooper

Good point Sporkmaster. We had several “off limits” areas when I was in, so it would probably be in the interest of the Command to add it.

Bob

Sporkmaster,

That’s a fine line you would be walking, but I understand your point. As you know, most of the off-limits establishments relate to illicit activities or documented fleecing of Joe. My question then becomes when do mere words and encouragement of non-violent “resistance” aka life/career/future job prospects-altering decisions fall into that category?

I would not be in favor of banning soldiers from there on that basis. Besides, you would be inviting the media to invoke sympathy for this place and how their First Amendment rights are being trampled.

Bob

Absolutely… The UCMJ is codified in the U.S. Code which means that all this information is easily accessable in the manual for courts-martials. Every lawyer that practices military law has that red manual for courts-martials which includes all this information. It’s even on CD if he doesn’t want to actually look at the book.

olga

I have never practiced Military law but even I knew about make up of a court martial jury… that little thing called “curiosity,” you know…
From what I could see, Branum was pursuing his own political agenda at the trial instead of zealously representing his client that resulted in the worst outcome possible for his client – a possible suspension/disbarrment offense…

Claymore

What I want to know is where is Oily Taint on this?

tankerbabe

My “source” isn’t comfortable with being quoted. Can’t blame her/him since they are active duty and you never know how some people might react. They WANT to comment but…not at this time.

Susan

This attorney should be disbarred for failure to provide competent services. These guys signed up for the Army, not the ACLU. He can argue all he wants that you have to give CO “training” but he is not going to get anywhere. The Army only has to give training on needs (ready, aim, fire, etc.) and rights. It does not have to give training on ways to shirk duty or “wants.” Making the argument is, in my opinion, grounds for Rule 11 sanctions (if such apply under the UCMJ) and disbarment. Also, Mr. Barnum, we are not at war with Afghanistan. We are at war in Afghanistan with the Taliban. Thus, that argument does not hold water either.

Mr. Banum should figure out he does not know what he is doing and that he should associate himself in a junior position with someone who has a clue, else he is walking malpractice. He is arguing his beliefs, not the law and that, quite simply, is not what lawyers are paid to do.