Control Sought on Military Lawyers
Quote:
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is pushing to take control of the promotions of military lawyers, escalating a conflict over the independence of uniformed attorneys who have repeatedly raised objections to the White House's policies toward prisoners in the war on terrorism.
The administration has proposed a regulation requiring "coordination" with politically appointed Pentagon lawyers before any member of the Judge Advocate General corps - the military's 4,000-member uniformed legal force - can be promoted.
A Pentagon spokeswoman did not respond to questions about the reasoning behind the proposed regulations. But the requirement of coordination - which many former JAGs say would give the administration veto power over any JAG promotion or appointment - is consistent with past administration efforts to impose greater control over the military lawyers.
The rest of the story is here: Controlling Lawyers
I can't believe this is even being discussed in a country that prides itself on the rule of law and the independence of legal counsel. This will have such a chilling effect on legal advice as to make lawyers a rubber stamp for the administration's policy. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail.
Well, it would be only fair...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LawVol
You beat me to the punch, Tom. I just saw this article as well. Thankfully, reason has triumphed political manuevering. Although I wonder if we JAGs will need to look over our shoulder when given legal advice or penning legal articles.
since the Troops now have to look over their shoulders before pulling a trigger due to the pervasive presence of JAG to Battalion level... :D
My suspicion is that 'initiative' was undertaken by some overly zealous, overly political young SES staffer trying to impose his or her view of the world or aht they'd heard their Boss wish could be true -- and it snuck out before someone said "What the heck are you doing..."
Uh, you don't really bleive those ROE are crafted by
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LawVol
That comes from Rules of Engagement which is crafted by commanders and their political bosses, not JAGs. Don't shoot the messenger. :D:eek:
Besides the old adage that its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 always seems to apply.
Commanders and Politicians with no legal input, do you?
I agree with your last point -- and that is why excessive legal interference is very problematic; it causes more to be carried by six because of fear of being judged by 12.
Then there was this one, which I thought was priceless: LINK
I was just yanking your chain, really have no
problem with JAG folks; some of my best friends are lawyers :)
Do agree with your last comment on the two principal points though:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LawVol
The issue discussed at the link you posted brings up two huge problems with some JAGs. First is the tendency to play it safe and become "Dr. No." Saying no to the question presented by a soldier or commander is the easy thing to do. In my opinion, it shows an attorney that is doing only half his job. Which brings me to the second problem: the failure of alot of JAGs to "know their client." By learning a little about what your the operators do in whatever branch of the service the JAG is in, he can develop a better understanding of the mission. This helps the JAG "get to yes." When someone presents a legal issue to a JAG (e.g. can I do X?), they don't just want to hear NO. They want you to tell then how they can do whatever it is they want to do. If the JAG understands the mission and a little about what its like to perform that mission, he can help the soldier/commender get where they want to go (e.g. you can't do it that way, but this way will get you there).
Too many JAGs learn the law and forget to learn about the job their clients perform (we need more checking out sites like this). No one wants to break the law in performing their job, but they want to get that job done. JAGs should be facilitators rather than road blocks. Having too many JAGs act as road blocks leads to conclusions such as yours that JAGs run legal interference. I wish I could refute that argument, but I cannot.:( Those of us that understand that JAGs should be mission facilitators have a responsibility to pass this on to other JAGs.
Agreed -- but fortunately, those types are really the exception. In the link I provided, as soon as the error was noted, she quickly recanted -- she meant well. The punishment accorded the sniper in the event seems to be no more than the function of dipwad boss, nothing to do with the JAG type.
Quote:
I have always thought that taking a JAG and giving him a career-broadening assignment in some other operations-type career field would be extremely beneficial. I would think that a 12 to 18 month assignment somewhere between the 4 and 6 year mark would do it. The logistics of doing this might be a dealbreaker, but doing it would surely allow JAGs to gain an understanding of their clients and address the issues I've discussed above. Plus, it would be fun to get my boots muddy again (OOH RAH).:D
Good idea. The Army used to require all new Lieutenants bound for other branches to do two years combat arms duty (Infantry, Armor or Artillery) before reporting to their branch school. That was an idea with much merit that fell (logically) by the wayside during Viet Nam and, unfortunately was not revived after that war on cost grounds. I don't think your idea is in the too hard box. Now, if we can just get it to be some general's own idea... :D
I've always thought it would be a good idea to recruit lawyers and doctors for the services from within. Identify talent, recruit, send 'em to school in return for a service commitment...