Question: The movie says that the senator who helped the colonel cannot be charged because the crime was committed outside the United States. Is that realistic? If not then why?
BaconIsMyBFF
14th Sep 2017
Shooter (2007)
14th Sep 2017
Shooter (2007)
Question: In the movie they state the colonel cannot be charged because the crime was committed outside of the United States. All active members of the US military like the colonel are subject to the uniformed military code of justice no matter where the crime was committed, so how did the colonel prevent the military justice system from being able to charge him?
Answer: You are completely correct. This is a clear mistake, the colonel could (and would) most certainly be charged for his crimes.
Though unlike the movie, it's not up the attorney to decide if a military member gets charged, it's up to the judge advocate general.
Actually it's not a mistake. The colonel is not a member on active duty in the service. He's ex military. He's the one running the contractor group that carries out the senator's dirty deeds.
Answer: Receiving retirement pay and being in the IRR confers jurisdiction, even over retired military personnel.
Answer: "The colonel" was not active duty military, BUT as a retiree he is still subject to the UCMJ.
How are retirees subject to the UCMJ?
They're not, generally. Some service members who've served for more than 20 years but less than 30 are or were subject to the UCMJ. There was a recent legal opinion overruling this though. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/08/09/new-bombshell-legal-opinion-says-military-retirees-cant-be-court-martialed.html.
Answer: This is not realistic. The Senator would be charged with conspiracy regardless of where the actual crime took place. Simply being overseas does not give an American citizen immunity.
BaconIsMyBFF
Not even being in a nation without an extradition treaty gives an American citizen immunity?
No, they'd still be charged, but the logistics become harder. Regardless, that's a legal question best suited for another site, not one about movies.
Jon Sandys ★
I'm sorry. I was just asking if the idea that senator cannot be charged for his crimes because the crime was committed outside the United States is realistic. I'm not trying to be rude or offensive. If I am I apologize.
Not rude or offensive, it's just that this is a topic with endless articles available elsewhere on the internet, and I try not to let things get *too* off topic around here, otherwise some entries would have pages and pages of unrelated back and forth debates, cluttering up the site somewhat.
Jon Sandys ★
Thank you for understanding. I really appreciate it.
I wouldn't know where to look for that says committing in a nation without an extradition treaty doesn't an American citizen immunity.