Say POTUS doesn’t like something a U.S. military commander did - can he, as Commander in Chief, order a court-martial of that person?
It would have to be an illegal act, not merely something he “doesn’t like”. But yes, the POTUS can order a court-martial.
From Article 22 of the UCMJ:
Ok, thanks.
Suppose it wasn’t for something illegal - then who would inform POTUS that “your order for a court martial has been declined/rejected?”
That’s for the court to decide. A court-martial would be for a specific act under the UCMJ, and the court decides if the person was guilty of a crime. I don’t believe you can convene a court-martial without a charge.
I don’t know if a properly convened court-martial can simply be dismissed, although possibly by a superior officer. Since there is no one above the President, that wouldn’t happen.
Could a President order a court martial for the express purpose of vindicating someone?
I don’t understand-please give an example.
I think you have a misunderstanding of what a court martial is. A court martial is the process where someone is accused of a crime and tried in military court. It isn’t a punishment for something anymore than civilian court is a punishment. Civilian court determines if you are guilty of an alleged crime and then determines a punishment through sentencing. If there is no alleged crime, there is no arrest and no court.
Similarly, a president needs to charge someone with an actual crime to request a court martial. There cant be a court martial without a crime.
If the president ordered a court martial for 3rd degree hurt feelings, the Judge Advocate General would simply inform him that no such crime exists. The order is not declined or rejected. Its invalid.
Vindicating? No. Pardoning? Sure.
If he actually thinks the person is innocent, he orders an investigation, not a court martial.
There are some very important differences but in general principles military courts are analogous to civilian courts. In civilian court in order for there to be an indictment it has to pass through a grand jury. In the military in order for there to be a court martial it has to go through an article 32 hearing. The mechanisms are different but it amounts to the same thing. If there is no probable cause for a charge then it will not go forward to a trial.
I think there’s some confusion- the movies and TV talk about “court-martialing” someone as if it’s a punishment in its own right, or some kind of punitive procedure.
It’s not. It’s just a court… martial. Or in modern terms, a military court. “A Few Good Men” took place during the court-martial of the two enlisted Marines for example. People can be acquited, found not guilty, etc…
So with that in mind, the President can direct that someone be court-martialed, but like Loach says, there have to be valid reasons for that article 32 hearing- presumably some sort of breach of the UCMJ, or else it won’t proceed.
Exactly - the person is charged with violating laws or military rules (UCMJ). You are charged with “X”. Just like real laws ( 
) the charge relates to an act that violates the code, and for the defendant to be found guilty, there are certain criteria that must be met to show the offence happened. If the panel of judges (officers) decides that there is no criteria that amount to guilt, then the person is not guilty.
The high-up mucky muck cannot “dictate” a verdict unless he has selected the right group of unprincipled toadies to render the desired verdict; but if some command structure (civilian or military) is intent on perverting justice to railroad someone they’re screwed anyway. It’s perhaps just a bit harder to fix a civilian jury trial for a guilty verdict.
OTOH, most guys who reach a higher level of the military and spent much of their life there, are probably not the types to be intimidated to ignore the rules for political expediency.
I imagine it could be seen that way - if a defendant is acquitted, he’s still probably going to be unpopular with the chain of command, and specific persons, who brought the charge against him. That unpopularity can be manifested in a variety of unenjoyable ways, and can cling to him wherever he’s transferred to, too. So the charge itself could be punitive.
Yes. And I keep reading that a Letter of Reprimand in the military is career-ending (at least for officers). Wouldn’t a court martial (even if acquitted) be even worse?
No. The letter is worse. A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand will go in your permanent record; the one used by promotion boards to determine who gets promoted, and who gets passed over. While there might be some records, somewhere, of the court martial proceedings, there is nothing in the soldier’s personnel file showing charges or a court martial if he/she was acquitted. For a court martial to cling to a soldier after he/she is transferred, it would have to be something pretty high profile. The only way anyone at the new duty station would know is through word of mouth. The Army is a small community, so it’s possible the gossip train might beat the soldier to the next unit. But there won’t be anything in his/her files. And if the soldier feels there are any reprisals, or that his/her leadership is treating the soldier a certain negative way because of the allegations and subsequent acquittal, well there is recourse for that. Reprisals and such mistreatment is not allowed.
As I understand it (and I don’t really know for sure) a court martial consists of a board of about 3 or 5(?) senior officers who act as judge and jury. If a group of senior officers decide you did nothing significant enough to warrant conviction, I would imagine that would be pretty convincing - or the issue would have been so controversial that half the military would be on your side.
Not exactly. For a general court martial there has to be an Article 32 investigation unless it’s waived by the defendant. There is no requirement that an Art 32 be held before a special or summary court martial though. They frequently still happen before the convening authority decides on how to pursue a case. If there’s a good 15-6 investigation and a recommendation for a lesser court the Art 32 might not happen, though. A service member refusing non-judicial punishment and demanding a court instead has a good chance of skipping an Article 32. Presumably, that case isn’t anywhere close to the severity that would call for the general court martial allowed level of punishments. Likely that just goes to a summary court where the service member learns why it’s generally a bad idea to demand a trial by court martial.
Which of course makes for fun conversations when POTUS suddenly says out of the blue that they want to court martial Private Bailey. What kind of court is only one of the many important questions that need to be answered before a court is convened. That’s why the Joint Chiefs get paid the big bucks. 
No.
Yes
Okay, how does section b apply when the “accuser” is the President?
If the President is the one who wants to court martial Private Bailey for Criminal Feels Damage, who is the “superior competent authority” who would convene the court?