The White House wants total (political) control over military lawyers. In the Boston Globe, Charlie Savage reports that "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."
Control of military lawyers would be very handy for an executive branch under fire for its handling of suspects and prisoners. One foot out of line and you, a military lawyer, could find yourself stuck in your present rank, at best.
The 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 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.
Here's what many of us will want to know: now in its final year of power, what does the administration hope to gain from this? Just a last fling of naked power for a one or two Bush appointees? What's going on here?
Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan who writes: "If the next president continues Bush's torture program, it runs the risk of becoming entrenched into American military practice - especially as its opponents in the military can be weeded out systematically. Sooner or later, the virus will imprint its own DNA on the American military itself."
It's curious that there don't seem to be many (any?) questions asked of presidential candidates about presidential power and over-reaching. But the question of "what next" troubles many, including Prairie Weather, with respect to Hillary Clinton's candidacy.
Comments