Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
A 'Sweeping Overhaul' of the JAG Corps Poses Likely Dangers -- Sarah Elaine Harrison - Lawfare
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a--sweeping-overhaul--of-the-jag-corps-poses-likely-dangersHegseth’s planned changes could have serious consequences for how the U.S. military operates and holds service members accountable.
In February, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fired the Air Force’s and Army’s top judge advocates general (JAGs). Last month, he commissioned his personal lawyer as a Navy JAG. He is now reportedly paving the way to make major changes within the JAG Corps—including how military lawyers advise on the law of war and prosecute those who violate it. These moves raise concerns that the JAG Corps could be compromised by partisan appointments and bad faith interpretations of the law, with wide-ranging consequences for how the U.S. military conducts operations and disciplines personnel.
Secretary Hegseth and the JAGs
On the evening of Feb. 21, President Trump fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, C.Q. Brown, the chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Lisa Franchetti, and the vice chief of staff of the Air Force, Gen. Jim Slife. On the same night, without any notification, Secretary Hegseth cut the top two uniformed lawyers of the Air Force and Army (referred to as “TJAGs”), Lt. Gen. Charles L. Plummer and LTG Gen. Joseph B. Berger III, respectively—the Navy position, previously filled by Vice Admiral Christopher French (retired as Rear Admiral), is currently filled by Acting Judge Advocate General Rear Admiral Reynolds. In what was described as the Defense Department’s “Friday night massacre,” many commentators were more alarmed by Hegseth’s removal of the TJAGs than the president’s firing of the chairman. The actions taken were also unprecedented—no secretary of defense in recent memory has targeted JAGs in this way.
As described by experts, judge advocates, like other servicemembers, fill non-partisan roles. The thousands of lawyers serving in the JAG Corps are tasked with providing independent, neutral, and fact-based legal advice on domestic and international law across the rank and file, up to the highest-level commanders. Under 10 U.S.C, no officer or Department of Defense employee—political or career—may interfere with the ability of JAGs to give independent legal advice.
In firing the TJAGs, Hegseth did not point to any misconduct to justify his decision. His only stated reasons were that he considered the TJAGs not “well-suited” for the job, and he wanted to avoid “roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief.” While troubling for him to imply that only loyalists to the president should be in these positions, the secretary’s public statements prior to assuming his post made plain that he views military lawyers as obstructionists and the laws they advise on, including the Geneva Conventions, as outdated and too restrictive. To illustrate his opinion of military lawyers, in his book he recalled a time during his military service when he used a degrading term—“jagoffs”—to describe them.
. . .
Secretary Hegseth and the JAGs
On the evening of Feb. 21, President Trump fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, C.Q. Brown, the chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Lisa Franchetti, and the vice chief of staff of the Air Force, Gen. Jim Slife. On the same night, without any notification, Secretary Hegseth cut the top two uniformed lawyers of the Air Force and Army (referred to as “TJAGs”), Lt. Gen. Charles L. Plummer and LTG Gen. Joseph B. Berger III, respectively—the Navy position, previously filled by Vice Admiral Christopher French (retired as Rear Admiral), is currently filled by Acting Judge Advocate General Rear Admiral Reynolds. In what was described as the Defense Department’s “Friday night massacre,” many commentators were more alarmed by Hegseth’s removal of the TJAGs than the president’s firing of the chairman. The actions taken were also unprecedented—no secretary of defense in recent memory has targeted JAGs in this way.
As described by experts, judge advocates, like other servicemembers, fill non-partisan roles. The thousands of lawyers serving in the JAG Corps are tasked with providing independent, neutral, and fact-based legal advice on domestic and international law across the rank and file, up to the highest-level commanders. Under 10 U.S.C, no officer or Department of Defense employee—political or career—may interfere with the ability of JAGs to give independent legal advice.
In firing the TJAGs, Hegseth did not point to any misconduct to justify his decision. His only stated reasons were that he considered the TJAGs not “well-suited” for the job, and he wanted to avoid “roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief.” While troubling for him to imply that only loyalists to the president should be in these positions, the secretary’s public statements prior to assuming his post made plain that he views military lawyers as obstructionists and the laws they advise on, including the Geneva Conventions, as outdated and too restrictive. To illustrate his opinion of military lawyers, in his book he recalled a time during his military service when he used a degrading term—“jagoffs”—to describe them.
. . .
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
