Sunday, September 26, 2010

Penalizing Competence in the US Military

Tom Ricks has posted a couple of articles on Lt. Col Michael Mori.  According to Mori, the Pentagon was unhappy with his defense of an Australian enemy combatant at Guantanamo in 2003 and thus delayed his promotion for three years.


During the trial period, Mori said that the tribunal system was fundamentally flawed and that the government did not want to give his client a fair trial.  Marine Corps Times quotes Mori as stating to an interviewer, “I think his case has become political and … the first military commissions can’t be acquittals. They couldn’t afford that.” 

Today, he is now suing the Navy for what he claims is capricious treatment toward him for zealously executing his duty.

A followup commentary by a former JAG in Ricks' blog underlies the absolute nonsense that the military is the best setting for evaluating the criminality of foreign combatants.
I don't know anything about Mori's case, but I do know that if you want a long and successful career as an Army lawyer, you'd better remember "you are an Army officer first, and a defense counsel second." In other words, don't rock the boat. In fact, I would never advise a JAG to accept a defense counsel post if they hoped for a long career. Too much institutional bias against the necessary work that they are forced to do on behalf of their accused.

No comments:

Post a Comment