- 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.
0 Comments