White House seeks control of promotions for military lawyers

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

According to this story in the December 15th Boston Globe, 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.

[snip]

The new JAG rule is part of a set of proposed changes to the military’s procedures for promoting all commissioned officers, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe. The Pentagon began internally circulating a draft of the changes for comments by the services in mid-November, and the administration will decide whether to make the changes official later this month or early next year.

The new rule is just a proposal at this stage, and may be amended or eliminated before any new set of procedures goes into effect. Still, it’s raising concerns among some military lawyers:

Under the current system, boards of military officers pick who will join the JAG corps and who will be promoted, while the general counsels’ role is limited to reviewing whether the boards followed correct procedures. The proposed rule would impose a new requirement of “coordination” with the general counsels of the services and the Pentagon during the JAG appointment and promotion process.

The proposal does not spell out what coordination means. 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.

“It only makes sense to put this in if you want [general counsels to exercise the power to give] thumbs up or thumbs down, in order to intimidate JAGs,” said retired Colonel Gordon Wilder, who was the Air Force’s top JAG specialist in administrative law until last January.

On its face, this looks like yet another push by this administration to stifle dissent and punish those who won’t get with the program. In fact, according to the Globe, it’s a long-held goal of certain Bush administration members:

In the early 1990s, both Haynes [currently Pentagon general counsel] and Vice President Cheney’s top aide, David Addington, were politically appointed lawyers in the Pentagon during the Bush-Quayle administration. On their advice, Cheney, who was then the defense secretary, proposed making each service’s general counsel the boss of his JAG counterpart, but the Senate Armed Services Committee forced the administration to back down.

In 2001, Haynes and Addington were restored to power in the Bush-Cheney administration, and the conflict over JAG independence resumed amid the fights over such war on terrorism policies as harsh interrogations.

Responding to the conflicts, in 2004 Congress enacted a law forbidding Defense Department employees from interfering with the ability of JAGs to “give independent legal advice” directly to military leaders. But when President Bush signed the law, he issued a signing statement decreeing that the legal opinions of his political appointees would still “bind” the JAGs.

So it seems that previous attempts to accomplish this were beaten back by Congress and internal Pentagon resistance. Hopefully the same result will obtain this time, not least because

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.

So what’s the debate? Why put this story here, and not in the Pit? Because I’d like to hear out any supporters of this proposed policy, read what arguments they can muster to support this, and see if the Globe, that liberal rag, is overstating the implications of this – perhaps making a preemptive strike? If the commentary gets too rancorous, the Pit is always there.

[Mr.Moto]

I don’t know without looking at it in detail.

In general, promotions of officers are controlled by the executive and legislative branch both, since the military falls under civilian control. So the devil of this would be in the details.

[Liberal]

I’d be very interested in Lindsay Graham’s take on this since he so often plays the JAG card.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

It was somewhat surprising to me that no one else has so far raised this issue on the SDMB. Googling “military lawyers promotions” got a number of hits to predictable sites like Huffington, ThinkProgress, and other left-leaning blogs; but the first four pages of results showed only the Washington Post for another member of the mainstream media carrying this story.

So is this being overblown? Or overlooked? Or so far down on the list of Things To Be Concerned About that the rest of the MSM can’t find room for it?

ETA: It looks as if the other hits tend to trace back to the Boston Globe as the source.

[dropzone]

The current administration seems to forget that they are only in power for another 13 months and that their archenemies will be making those promotion decisions after that. Not so much “be careful what you wish for” as it is “think about who else will benefit from your wish.”

I’m sure the Pentagon doesn’t want Hillary telling them who to promote any more than they want Dubya doing it.

[BJMoose]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

It was somewhat surprising to me that no one else has so far raised this issue on the SDMB. Googling “military lawyers promotions” got a number of hits to predictable sites like Huffington, ThinkProgress, and other left-leaning blogs; but the first four pages of results showed only the Washington Post for another member of the mainstream media carrying this story.

So is this being overblown? Or overlooked? Or so far down on the list of Things To Be Concerned About that the rest of the MSM can’t find room for it?

ETA: It looks as if the other hits tend to trace back to the Boston Globe as the source.

My WAG:

a) most news ops figure the matter is too esoteric for the Sleeping Millions to give a hoot (“nobody cares about process”)

b) the headline “Bush Admin Full of Control Freaks” is gettin’ kinda old . . .

[BrainGlutton]

@dropzone

The current administration seems to forget that they are only in power for another 13 months and that their archenemies will be making those promotion decisions after that. Not so much “be careful what you wish for” as it is “think about who else will benefit from your wish.”

I’m sure the Pentagon doesn’t want Hillary telling them who to promote any more than they want Dubya doing it.

They’ve spent the past seven years doing everything they can to curtail the independence of bureaucrats* and bring them in line with the political will of the WH. I guess it’s hard to break the habit, even when reality intrudes. (It’s also hard to break the habit of screening out reality.)
*Some have fought back, BTW.

[marshmallow]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

So what’s the debate? Why put this story here, and not in the Pit? Because I’d like to hear out any supporters of this proposed policy, read what arguments they can muster to support this, and see if the Globe, that liberal rag, is overstating the implications of this – perhaps making a preemptive strike? If the commentary gets too rancorous, the Pit is always there.

One obviously wants to politicize as many branches of the government as possible. Independent offices with power are a threat, especially if there’s a risk of them viewing what you’re doing as illegal. If they agree with what you’re doing or you have a hammer over their head so they are powerless then that is the ideal situation.

Just consider is more efficient.

@dropzone

The current administration seems to forget that they are only in power for another 13 months and that their archenemies will be making those promotion decisions after that. Not so much “be careful what you wish for” as it is “think about who else will benefit from your wish.”

I’m sure the Pentagon doesn’t want Hillary telling them who to promote any more than they want Dubya doing it.

Yes, there will be future Democratic administrations who will take advantage of this if it goes through. So? Future GOP ones will too. And any future GOP administration will most likely be home to many of the same people who are in the current one. Moreover, I don’t think the GOP will exactly be crying in their cereal over the fact that a Dem POTUS would be in charge for a little bit. It’s not like they have diverging views outside of domestic squabbles over gays and which way to enrich HMOs.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

White House drops bid for veto power over JAG promotions

The firestorm of protest following publication of the plan’s existence it would appear has helped to get it shitcanned.

The Bush administration is dropping a plan to take control over the promotions of military lawyers, following an outpouring of alarm over the independence of uniformed attorneys who have repeatedly objected to the White House’s policies toward prisoners in the war on terrorism.
more stories like this

Under the proposal, first reported by the Globe on Saturday, politically appointed lawyers in the Pentagon would have gained the power to veto the appointment or promotion of any member of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, the military’s 4,000-member uniformed legal officers group.

Retired JAGs loudly objected to the proposal, which they characterized as an attempt to politicize the corps of military lawyers by allowing the administration to block the advancement of officers considered likely to speak up if they thought the White House had issued an illegal order to the military.

Geoff Morrell, Pentagon press secretary, said William “Jim” Haynes, the Defense Department’s general counsel, decided on Monday to shelve the idea. Morrell said the military services’ legal departments had also expressed concern about the proposal in internal Pentagon reviews.

“In light of the feedback that [Haynes] received, he thought that it was wiser to try a different approach,” Morrell said.

I suspect that “try a different approach” is a face-saving euphemism for “Crap! Busted.”

[Captain_Carrot]

@marshmallow

It’s not like they have diverging views outside of domestic squabbles over gays and which way to enrich HMOs.

And, you know, torture, and immigration, and the war (for the most part), and domestic spying, and Presidential jurisdiction, and abortion (again, for the most part), and the role of religion in government, and the political duties of career bureaucrats, and…