|The Judge Advocates General|
and their clients testify before the
Senate Armed Services Committee
Thinking about this recent post about the Judge Advocate General of the Canadian Forces, should anyone be surprised if holders of these offices act (or appear to act) as partisans of the management rather than as impartial decision makers exercising a judicial function? Isn't the real issue not whether the certification power is being used asymmetrically (or looks that way), or whether, as Capt Spilman notes, the process is insufficiently transparent and adversarial, but whether the U.S. service TJAGs should have such a power at all? Whatever sense it made when the UCMJ was enacted in 1950, times have changed and the certification power not only does nothing today to foster public confidence in the administration of justice, but, as he suggests, detracts from it.
This structural issue merits consideration by DoD's Military Justice Review Group.