.jpg)
We have long supported a third star for each of the Judge Advocates General. Now our wish for three third stars is well on its way to being granted.
Over the past week, the Kabul Klipper has become a third star information clearinghouse. He noted here that the President has nominated Rear Admiral MacDonald for a third star and here that the President has nominated Major General Rives for a third star.
Amidst the soggy remains of last night's fireworks here at Casa CAAFlog, I was left wondering, "What about General Black?" Fortunately, a Friend o' CAAFlog has called my attention to this Air Force Times piece from yesterday reporting that "Army judge advocate general Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black is also expected to be nominated soon for his third star."
Military justice blogs are to blogs as military music is to music. The views expressed on this blog are offered in the contributors' personal capacity. They do not purport to be speaking for, and their views should not be imputed to, any other organization, agency, or entity.
Military justice research links
- 2008 Military Judges' Benchbook web site
- AFMAN 51-203, Records of Trial (1 Oct 1999)
- AFPD 51-2, Administration of Military Justice (7 Sep 1993)
- Air Force Instruction 51-201, Administration of Military Justice (21 Dec 07)
- Air Force Rules of Professional Conduct
- AR 27-10, Military Justice (16 Nov 2005)
- AR 27-26, Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers (1 May 1992)
- COMDTINST M5810.1D, Military Justice Manual (17 Aug 2000)
- Congressional Research Service, Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Trends (March 30, 2006 ed.)
- Congressional Research Service, The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation: Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (2002) with 2006 supplement
- JAGINST 5803.1C, Professional Conduct of Attorneys Practicing Under the Cognizance and Supervision of the Judge Advocate General (9 Nov 04)
- JAGINST 5810.2A, Military Justice Regulations (17 Sep 93)
- JAGMAN, JAGINST 5800.7E (20 Jun 07)
- Law Library Microform Consortium, Military Law Collection
- LOC military law collection
- Manual for Courts-Martial (2008 ed.)
- Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2005 ed.)
- Manual of the Judge Advocate General (JAGMAN), JAGINST 5800.7E (20 Jun 2007)
- Military Justice, Army Regulation 27-10 (16 Nov 2005)
- UCMJ (as of 28 Jan 2008)
Links
- ACCA's web site
- AFCCA's web site
- AIr Force Judge Advocate General's School's web site
- Air Force Law Review
- Army Lawyer
- Army Trial Judiciary's docket
- CAAF's web site
- CAAFlog.com
- CGCCA's web site
- Coast Guard trial and appellate dockets
- Court-Martial Trial Practice blog
- JAA American Inn of Court's web site
- JAA's web site
- JAG LAW Blog
- JAG Magazine [Navy]
- Journal of Military and Veteran Law
- Military Law Review
- Naval Law Review
- NIMJ's web site
- NJS's web site
- NMCCA's web site
- SCOTUSblog (aka, the greatest blog on the planet)
- Supreme Court's web site
- The Reporter [Air Force]
- This Court-Martial Sentences You To . . . [blog]
- TJAGLCS's web site
Blog archive
-
▼
2008
(813)
-
▼
July
(71)
- Gray's federal habeas representation
- S.2052 Equal Justice . . . Act: Held Over
- CAAF and representation at the Supremes
- Cert petition challenges military appellate defens...
- Thomas cert petition QP
- Number of military executions in the UCMJ era
- Full text of 2008 MCM amendments
- New military cert petition
- Acting SG joins Louisiana in seeking rehearing of ...
- Senate Judiciary Committee to consider expansion o...
- New military cert petition filed
- SIGNIFICANT MILITARY JUSTICE DEVELOPMENT: Presiden...
- Resource: Article on Military Contractor Status in...
- Military justice: still the Rodney Dangerfield of ...
- CAAF signals interest in member challenge case
- New pro se IFP military cert petition
- New commentator in the CAAFlog herd
- Updates
- POTUS signs 2008 MCM amendments
- The Senate approves two new three-star constellations
- BREAKING NEWS: CAAF orders oral argument in Wuterich
- Denedo cont'
- Acting SG seeks still more time in Denedo
- Interrogation evidence ruling in Hamdan
- Military law front and center in Kennedy v. Louisi...
- My apologies to the good -- and apparently sober -...
- Important voluntary intoxication decision
- And a new published ACCA opinion
- New published AFCCA opinion
- Some numbers
- CBS Petition in SSgt Wuterich case
- Canadian Deserter Legal Update
- CAAF grants review of yet another child pornograph...
- New military cert petition in a case with no SCOTU...
- The Military Justice Symposium issue is here!
- Wuterich Writ Day
- The 2008 Silver CAAF Tongue Award Winner
- That's a wrap
- The 10th Circuit on Article 134 convictions
- NMCCA on interpanel accord (kind of)
- Legal posture of U.S. military deserters in Canada
- Shocking News: CAAFlog Blogger Court-Martialed
- Next term
- And then there was one: a CAAFlog contest
- To quote Roger McGuinn, goin' down to the country
- CAAF releases opinion in Czachorowski
- Putting the brakes on Wheeler
- CAAF grants review of Article 32 waiver issue
- CAAF orders further proceedings on Grostefon issue
- Ask and ye shall receive?
- Walker's central holding
- Wagner on 802 conferences
- NMCCA sets aside death sentence in Walker
- CAAF invalidates Army Reg's prohibition against ce...
- To paraphrase Tina Turner, big Wheeler keep on tur...
- Don't bother trying to reach the No Man Monday mor...
- Recent note on Article 120
- May Army Lawyer online
- An Article 62 timeline
- When you wish upon a third star
- Whither Wheeler?
- QP from Moorefield cert petition
- Air Force JAG nominated for third star
- Independence Day Thoughts
- Another military cert petition
- DOJ notes possibility that Kennedy v. Louisiana do...
- BREAKING NEWS: ACCA issues published opinion in A...
- CAAF grants review to test CCAs' corrective powers
- SSgt Wuterich petitions CAAF
- Navy JAG nominated for third star
- Dossey dosey-dos to CAAF
-
▼
July
(71)
Labels
- Admin (14)
- Architecture (2)
- Art. 2a10 (27)
- Article 125 (1)
- CAAF docket (41)
- CAAF grants (28)
- CAAF judges (2)
- CAAF oral argument audio (11)
- Capital courts-martial (46)
- CCAs (32)
- CLE/Events (13)
- collateral review (4)
- Court-martial news (69)
- habeas (5)
- MEJA (31)
- Military commissions (5)
- Military justice legislation (19)
- Military justice reform (18)
- MilJus Scholarship (22)
- New Article 120 (8)
- New CAAF opinions (40)
- New CCA opinions (47)
- Rants (9)
- SCOTUS MilJus Cases (64)
- TWIMJ (39)
- US SOFAs (16)
Contributors
Our contact information
You can reach us by email at:
caaflog@caaflog.com
caaflog@caaflog.com
Posts
15 comments:
By the way, how about the Cost Guard JAG? He should receive a second star. The same way the senior Marine JAG officer should, even being part of Navy dep.
Why would the SJA to to the Commandant be a 2 star? He is a staff officer who reports to the Commandant. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs just RECENTLY had his JAG elevated to ONE star. Why would a member of the JCS have a 2 star when the Chairman has a one star? The SJA to CMC has some sway in the process of the Marine JAs but at the end they are just the same as other officers. There is absolutely no parity in job descriptions between a service TJAG and the SJA to CMC. These comparisons and demands for similar treatment are misplaced.
Anonymous,
I don’t think so. First you overlooked the JAG CG.
And as you even said the CJC JAG was elevated from Colonel to ONE star. So he was elevated from O-6 to O-7. If you were elevated from O-6 to O-7, why not elevate the SJA to CMC from O-7 to O-8 (two star)? The argument is the same.
And there are not such thing alike but different, because in the end all the Military are the same, and fight for one goal: defense of the country.
Finally I don’t think that job description applies because if so why promote the JAG’s from the Services to three stars? I do believe that was correct the promotion, but should also applies to the JAG CG and SJA to CMC from O-7 to O-8.
I do not follow, the Chairman has a one star lawyer while his Marine rep on the Joint Chief's staff has a 2 star? Makes no sense. The service JAGs were promoted to avoid marginalizing their views which happened as 2 stars. In the DC world 2 stars are common and have little pull where 3 stars have considerably more. That also brings the uniform JAGs closer to parity with GC. The argument is not the same for SJA to CMC as the SJA to CMC is nothing more than the lawyer to the CMC. Navy JAG is not the lawyer to CNO. CNO, by the way, a 4 star the same as CMS has an 0-6 lawyer. So by your logic the CNO should now have a 2 star. Why does CMC get a 1 star and CNO gets a Captain? It also has a lot to do with the number of FOGOs allowed. SJA to CMS does not maintain budgets for buildings and what not, recruiting, etc. So, in actuality the argument is not even close to being the same. As far as the CG goes, haven't really studied it but since CG like USMC are not staff and are line officers it may have something to do with that. It is possible but unlikely that a CG or USMC judge advocate could get a star in a position not as a lawyer.
Since Coast Guard isn't part of DoD it isn't even a close argument. SecDef can not nominate TJAG to CG for a second or third star. If DHS wants to push it they can but apparently it's not a priority for them. So TJAG to CG and all other TJAGs is comparing apples to something not an apple.
WHy not make the SJA to the Salvation Army a 3 star too?
Dear Anonymous
“I do not follow, the Chairman has a one star lawyer while his Marine rep on the Joint Chief's staff has a 2 star? Makes no sense.”
But before, as you said, it did make sense when the Chairman had an O-6 while his Marine rep had O-7
“The service JAGs were promoted to avoid marginalizing their views which happened as 2 stars. In the DC world 2 stars are common and have little pull where 3 stars have considerably more. That also brings the uniform JAGs closer to parity with GC.”
I do agree fully.
“The argument is not the same for SJA to CMC as the SJA to CMC is nothing more than the lawyer to the CMC. Navy JAG is not the lawyer to CNO. CNO, by the way, a 4 star the same as CMS has an 0-6 lawyer. So by your logic the CNO should now have a 2 star.”
No.
You even started to make my point on saying “Why does CMC get a 1 star and CNO gets a Captain? It also has a lot to do with the number of FOGOs allowed. SJA to CMS does not maintain budgets for buildings and what not, recruiting, etc.”
If an O-8 does not make noise enough, an O-7 does not make any noise at all. Although I concede that SJA to CMC is not the same as the TJAG’s, it is convenient that the one grade difference be sustained.
“As far as the CG goes, haven't really studied it but since CG like USMC are not staff and are line officers it may have something to do with that. It is possible but unlikely that a CG or USMC judge advocate could get a star in a position not as a lawyer.”
They are lawyers. For an example the CG JAG’s was as an editor on the Harvard Law Review when he was at Harvard Law School.
“Since Coast Guard isn't part of DoD it isn't even a close argument. SecDef can not nominate TJAG to CG for a second or third star. If DHS wants to push it they can but apparently it's not a priority for them. So TJAG to CG and all other TJAGs is comparing apples to something not an apple.”
So the CG does not matter???
I agree, CMC should have an 0-6 the same as the CNO but the Marines have decided that they want a one star lawyer. It has nothing to do with parity. THe Marines, today could take away an infantry 3 star and make that a lawyer billet. They chose not to. If, as you concede, the SJA is not the same at TJAG why would the rank be the same because they are both lawyers? What if a shipdriver went to law school, does the degree get them the star? The services just can't create FOGO billets. The three 3 star billets were an exception that did not take away another 3 star from end strength. Hell, lets have 15 flag officers. Navy JAG did have a 1 star for a while why not just make a few more? Maybe if the CG JAG was editor of the law review at Chicago he could promote but Harvard? No way! What happens to the next CG JAG that isn't an Ivy leaguer? Does that JAG get demoted back down as the criteria seems to be law school performance? And as far as the CG is concerned I never said they don't matter I just said comparison of the two ends at the fact both JAGs are lawyers. But if it satisfies you I will recommend to Secretary Gates that he nominate the CG JAG for 3 stars.
The assertion that "the SJA to CMC is nothing more than the lawyer to the CMC" is factually untrue. The SJA to the Commandant of the Marine Corps is dual hatted as the Director of the Judge Advocate Division. In that capacity, the SJA to CMC exercises substantial supervisory responsibility over Marine Corps judge advocates and legal services specialists.
While the Judge Advocate General of the Navy is also the Judge Advocate General of the Marine Corps (and while the first Navy JAG was a Marine -- oorah!), the SJA to the Commandant while wearing his Director, Judge Advocate Division hat executes a supervisory role that more closely parallels that of a Judge Advocate General than that of the legal counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In my experience with the military commissions, it was also quite common to see congressional hearings treat the SJA to the CMC on par with the three Judge Advocates General. Most hearings that I saw with more than one of the Judge Advocates General also included the SJA to CMC as a witness. I can't remember a single one that featured the legal counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs as a witness.
CAAFlog, 2 weeks ago Admiral Dalton testified before Congress on GTMO.
And note that RADM Dalton testified as a FORMER legal counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. And she testified as a retired officer -- no doubt appearing in mufti before SASC.
The distinction based on Marine JAs being line officers is hollow. Air Force JAs are line officers--only the Army and Navy segregate their judge advocates so strictly. The assertion that SJA to CMC is a mere staff officer is also false, and the commenter there showed his prejudice, or ignorance. Someone with experience would know the billet is closer to that of a judge advocate general. This is not about a buildings-and-grounds budget.
The one-rank distinction is appropriate, important and ought to be maintained.
Is the dual hatting of the SJA to the CMC an administrative function imposed by CMC or by Congress? The fact that Congress "treats" him like a JAG does not make him equal.
Annonymous--if they are the same then they should be the same rank. WHy say one rank difference is appropriate? Why is his title, which everyone seems to dismiss, SJA to CMC and not TJAG of the Marine Corps?
I saw a piece of correspondence today from the SJA to CMC, his signature block does not include his dual has as Director of the Judge Advocate Division.
Post a Comment