Military lawyers don’t let ‘political overtones’ of border cases interfere with doing their jobs

JAGs not ‘political’

“Leadership fails JAGs on border cases” (June 27) warns against assigning military lawyers to prosecute those who illegally enter the U.S., fearing that the 21 JAG officers are entering “a political firestorm.”

The author cautions that the political overtones of the debate about unlawful entry at our southern border should be a red light for JAG officers, warning their superiors about work that may be controversial. As a retired Army JAG colonel with 34 years of commissioned service, I disagree.

Military attorneys have never backed off from work which may have political or controversial overtones. When President Ford set up the Clemency Program in 1974 for draft-dodgers and deserters, JAG officers were picked to serve as government and defense attorneys. This was a highly controversial policy with political ramifications and impact on the voting public – forgiveness for those who refused to serve or who deserted from the military in an ongoing war.

Those of us assigned to defend deserters didn’t question our orders because of the “political overtones” of desertion and the Vietnam War. Judge advocates and their superiors have no business assessing the political aspects of their assigned work. And they have no desire to do so either.

The author’s view of JAG officer duties is at odds with what real JAGs do in real time every day. There are dozens of judge advocates nationwide who work as SAUSAs (Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys) to handle matters in federal court when the U.S. Attorney doesn’t have the manpower. These judge advocates are now needed at our southern border. The government needs their courtroom skills to mount a case against unlawful immigrants.

Those who hope to keep our borders secure and our country safe are entitled to vigorous courtroom advocacy. The JAG Corps can provide it and will do so.

‘Mission accomplished?’

Regarding “With an eye on the election, lawmakers wrap up work. Here’s what they did at a glance.” (June 29): Jonathan Kappler of the NC Free Enterprise Foundation states that some of the six balloted constitutional amendments embrace policy issues that “had trouble in the courts.”

This being the case, it is transparently insulting to voters that one of these constitutional amendments would further erode the discretionary power of our (Democratic) governor and shift the fulfillment of judicial vacancies to the (Republican-dominant) legislature.

Who needs an independent judicial branch when your objective is absolute, irrevocable power?

Given the collective intent of the six amendments before us, coupled with the extreme gerrymandering of our voting districts, I suggest that we simply consolidate all six into a single constitutional amendment rendering the North Carolina Constitution null and void. As part of this amendment, all decision-making power would be assigned, in perpetuity, to the standing leaders of the state legislature.

Mission accomplished.

Ignore tweets

“Trump wants to strip undocumented immigrants of rights to due process” (June 25) summarizes the difficulty lawmakers are having in developing legislation to improve immigration policy. One major problem is that the president “gives contradictory directives to Republican allies.”

There are also several references in the article about the president’s tweets, including a tweet that “demoralized Republicans as they headed home for the weekend” and “a pair of tweets sent ... during his drive from the White House to his Virginia golf course.”

I have a suggestion for lawmakers. Start ignoring the president’s tweets. Continue to work on fair, reasonable, meaningful immigration reform. If the president vetoes the legislation, he will be responsible for the lack of progress. Lawmakers should stop letting the president’s inconsistent impulsive tweets make them look like marionettes being dangled on a string.

If Congress would insist that valid communication must be through in-depth conversations or well-reasoned speeches or even serious civil press conferences, they could concentrate on being effective legislators. Isn’t it time that tweets were consigned to the category of ephemeral communication along with graffiti on underpasses?

This story was originally published July 2, 2018 at 11:44 AM.