February 2025

Let’s fire all the lawyers

  • The recent firing of three senior military lawyers, Army Lt. Gen. Joseph B. Berger III, United States Air Force | Air Force Lt. Gen. Charles L. Plummer | Charles Plummer, and Navy Rear Adm. Lia M. Reynolds, by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has sent an ominous message to the entire country, suggesting that the Secretary is uninterested in legal niceties and willing to remove anyone who might stand in his way.
  • The Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces | Judge Advocate General (JAG) of each service branch plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law in the military, providing independent legal advice to commanders, prosecuting war crimes, and representing unpopular defendants in military trials, as seen in the case of Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift | Charlie Swift, who challenged the military commissions set up by the George W. Bush administration.
  • Military lawyers have a long history of standing up for the rule of law, including during the Bush administration’s attempts to set up a system of military commissions to try non-citizen enemy combatants, and have been instrumental in enforcing statutory prohibitions on mistreating detainees, with internal critics like then-Air Force TJAG Lt. Gen. Jack L. Rives | Jack Rives speaking out against abuses.
  • The independence of JAG lawyers is codified in statute, with United States Congress | Congress providing that no officer or employee of the United States Department of Defense | Department of Defense may interfere with the ability of the Judge Advocate General to give independent legal advice, and Hegseth’s firing of the TJAGs may violate the spirit of this statute, even if it does not violate the letter.
  • The firing of the TJAGs has significant implications, particularly given the military’s increasing role in domestic operations, such as along the U.S.-Mexico border, and the potential use of the Insurrection Act of 1807 | Insurrection Act to call out troops for domestic law enforcement operations, which highlights the need for independent legal advice in the military to prevent excesses and ensure that the rule of law is upheld.
  • The author, Stephen Vladeck, argues that the fate of the three senior military lawyers is not a minor issue, but rather a critical one that could have far-reaching consequences for the rule of law and the military’s role in society, and that the need for independent legal advice in the military may soon take on critically important proportions, both within the ranks and outside them. “Concerns Rise Over Secretary of Defense’s Dismissal of Military Legal Leaders”1. Dismissal of Senior Military Lawyers:- Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fired key military legal leaders, including the Judge Advocates General (TJAG) of the Army, Air Force, and Navy.- This move suggests a disregard for legal protocols and raises alarms about the influence on military justice.2. Military Lawyers’ Role in Justice:- Military lawyers have historically defended the rule of law, notably challenging unlawful military commissions during the War on Terror.- They play crucial roles in representing defendants, prosecuting war crimes, and ensuring legal compliance in military operations.3. Independence of Legal Advisors:- Congress codified the independence of TJAGs in 2004 to protect their ability to provide unbiased legal advice to military leaders.- Firing TJAGs undermines this independence and sends troubling messages to junior JAG officers about legal support.4. Potential Implications of Dismissals:- The military’s growing role in domestic issues emphasizes the need for independent legal advice in future operations.- The dismissals could hinder the military’s capacity to resist unlawful actions from senior leadership.5. Historical Context of Legal Representation:- The quote from Shakespeare highlights the dangers of undermining legal authority as a precursor to eroding the rule of law.- The firings of military lawyers might reflect an intent to weaken legal challenges within the military.
By Abe Mazliach, ago

Assault on our Constitution

Heather Cox Richardson

Senator Angus King (I-ME) took his Republican colleagues to task February 6, 2025 for their willingness to overlook the Trump administration’s attack on the U.S. Constitution.

“[W]e’re experiencing in real time exactly what the framers most feared. When you clear away the smoke, clear away the DOGE, the executive orders, foreign policy pronouncements, more fundamentally what’s happening is the shredding of the constitutional structure itself. And we have a profound responsibility…to stop it.”

“[T]he reason the framers designed our Constitution the way they did was that they were afraid of concentrated power,” King said. “They had just fought a brutal eight-year war with a king. They didn’t want a king. They wanted a constitutional republic, where power was divided between the Congress and the president and the courts, and we are collapsing that structure,” King said. “[T]he people cheering this on I fear, in a reasonably short period of time, are going to say where did this go? How did this happen? How did we make our president into a monarch? How did this happen? How it happened,” he said to his Senate colleagues, “is we gave it up! James Madison thought we would fight for our power, but no. Right now we’re just sitting back and watching it happen.”

“This is the most serious assault on our Constitution in the history of this country,” King said. “It’s the most serious assault on the very structure of our Constitution, which is designed to protect our freedoms and liberty, in the history of this country. It is a constitutional crisis…. Many of my friends in this body say it will be hard, we don’t want to buck the President; we’ll let the courts take care of it…. [T]hat’s a copout. It’s our responsibility to protect the Constitution. That’s what we swear to when we enter this body.”

 

“What’s it going to take for us to wake up…I mean this entire body, to wake up to what’s going on here? Is it going to be too late? Is it going to be when the President has secreted all this power and the Congress is an afterthought? What’s it going to take?”

By Abe Mazliach, ago