The Belmont Club will be moving on Monday, June 23 to this new site.
Politicizing the JAG corps? Eugene Volokh looks at a situation described by the Boston Globe.
posted by Ticker at 12/17/2007 05:56:00 PM
Well of course. Anytime JAGS view themselves as a "check" on the President, they are bound to get pushback from the President. Last time I checked only Congress and the Courts were part of the constitutional checks and balances.Moreover, JAG-led "Lawfare" is likely to hobble the military (deliberately) so that subpoenas replace guns and missiles. Naturally the Left would want to prevent the military from doing anything. Since the military protects the people and the Left HATES the people.Did I mention the class-aspect of JAGS vs. the rest of the military?
Since when is an military officer not an officer? Let's just say that when you work for the executive branch, you work for the President. The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the USA, the last time I read the Constitution. The President is also at the top of the chain of command.Somehow, I son't think these fundamentals have changed since my four year tour of duty nearly 40 years ago. When I was defending accused servicemen, I was by law immune from "command influence". Otherwise, I understood that I was working for the chain of command. I wonder what has changed?
As a lawyer can you lie for your client. If you can, does this conflict with your oaths as an officer.It is clear that some of the JAGs representing detaineees have been less than truthfull when representing their clients to the media.
The JAG Corps is recruited and managed differently than the rest of the military. They are not handled the same way as other officers, and while they are the only ones allowed to do some things they also are not allowed to do a great many other things as well. So the fact that they would be handled differently should not be a surprise in itself.I had no contact at all with JAGs for most of my career but a great deal for the last 10 years. Virtually all of my contacts were quite affable, and I learned to address their mindset so well that on at least one occasion I was mistaken for one of them by one of them (tried to take it as a complement, but….)The biggest problem I had was the JAG’s ability to take a law passed by Congress and interpret it in a fashion that clearly violated the intent of the law, and to do so without having to justify their assessment to anyone. So yes, maybe someone should be checking on these guys. And if the Grand High Order of Military Legal Eagles can’t do that right, using political appointees to do so makes sense.
Remember that officers in the US (not just military officers, but civilian government officials as well) take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not any specific individual who happens to hold that office at any particular time. The US is a nation of Laws, not Men. It is terribly disappointing that apparently some in the current administration don't like it that way. I understand that elections have consequences and it does matter who wins, but it is also important to remember that the Constitution is what protects our liberties, not the individual office-holder. (Good lord, I almost sound like a liberal here).I write this as a 5th generation republican and someone who works closely with JAGs.
PS - I generally do not support giving any powers to President George Bush that I would not like to see President Hillary Clinton have.I don't want her to have this kind of power.
Where I have problems with the JAG is when they believe that their primary function is to be defense counsels to the prisoners. I also have problems when the JAG steps in to determine what weapons a sniper can use (we had that problem a couple of years ago when a JAG told a command that they could not use the ammunition that the snipers normally used and they would have to use a lesser one - the result would have been more deaths and escape for the terrorists - luckily someone caught this before she could get away with it).
This comment has been removed by the author.
Seems Congress was not amused.See here:http://tinyurl.com/28stoz
Post a Comment
Create a Link