Former JAG officers say the regulation would end the uniformed lawyers' role as a check-and-balance on presidential power, because politically appointed lawyers could block the promotion of JAGs who they believe would speak up if they think a White House policy is illegal.
The Boston Globe got a copy of the proposed change in regulations, and reports:
The JAG rule would give new leverage over the JAGs to the Pentagon's general counsel, William "Jim" Haynes, who was appointed by President Bush. Haynes has been the Pentagon's point man in the disputes with the JAGs who disagreed with the administration's assertion that the president has the right to bypass the Geneva Conventions and other legal protections for wartime detainees.
Military lawyers should not be controlled by civil appointees.
As part of the uniformed chain of command, the JAGs are not directly controlled by civilian political appointees. But Haynes has long promoted the idea of making each service's politically appointed general counsel the direct boss of the service's top JAG, a change Haynes has said would support the principle of civilian control of the military.
John Yoo may also figures into the picture, even though he says he wasn't informed of the change.
One of Haynes' allies on the Bush administration legal team, former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo, recently coauthored a law review article sharply critical of the JAGs' unwillingness to endorse the legality of the administration's treatment of wartime detainees.
....several retired JAGs said they think the proposed change is an attempt by the Bush administration to turn Yoo's idea into a reality.
While "coordination" is not defined in the proposed regulation, legal experts and JAG lawyers say it's pretty clear what Bush intends:
But both JAGs and outside legal specialists say that it is common bureaucratic parlance for requiring both sides to sign off before a decision gets made - meaning that political appointees would have the power to block any candidate's career path.
GWU professor Stephen Saltzburg, whom I've worked on committees with and for whom I have tremendous respect, puts it this way:
Stephen Saltzburg, a George Washington University law professor who is also general counsel to the National Institute of Military Justice, agreed that the regulation boils down to giving political appointees the power to veto JAG promotions.
"The message would be clear to every JAG, which is that when you have been told that the general counsel has a view on the law, any time you dare disagree with it, don't expect a promotion," Saltzburg said, adding "I don't think that would be in the best interest of the country. We've seen how important it can be to have the JAGs give their honest opinions when you look at the debates on interrogation techniques and the like."
This could spell the end for the JAG corps:
The new proposal goes further than anything the administration has pushed before because it would affect all military lawyers, not just the top JAGs. Retired Rear Admiral Donald Guter, the Navy's top JAG from 2000 to 2002, said the rule would "politicize" the JAG corps all the way "down into the bowels" of its lowest ranks.
"That would be the end of the professional [JAG] corps as we know it," Guter said.
Military lawyers have consistently been in the forefront of resistance to the Bush Administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, torture and violation of the Geneva Conventions. It really seems like he is now trying to rig the military justice system.
A history of the JAG Corps is here. As TalkLeft reader Terry Kindlon (who emailed me this article)says, "More confirmation that, at long last, these guys have no sense of decency.
