More (unlawful) U.S. Militarization of Immigration

Well, this isn't squarely military justice, but it involves military lawyers (judge advocates, or JAGs) who are an integral component of military justice:  see here for the flawed proposal by the Trump Admin to federalize National Guard JAGS to ... wait for it ... serve as Article I immigration judges. 

OK, these so-called civilian  "judges" (actually, employees of the executive branch, as they serve the Attorney General) on their best day are not independent nor impartial, but they claim to be. Importantly, any federalized military lawyers serving in such quasi-judicial (but really, law enforcement role) -- if the President doesn't invoke the Insurrection Act (no facts support such invocation) and if he doesn't find another (non-existent!!) express statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA), such use of these military JAGS is unlawful. Recall that the PCA prohibits active duty and federalized military members from  executing the law, that is, serving in law enforcement roles, unless there is an express statutory or constitutional exception. The reason behind the PCA is that we Americans don't like living under domestic military occupation and don't want to be ... that is, we don't want to live under martial law nor come close.  And guess what? Per our Supreme Court, military tribunals (military courts) hearing civilian cases -- prosecuting or otherwise deciding the legal fate of civilians -- are the hallmark of martial law in the US. And doesn't a civilian immigration court, if headed by a MILITARY JUDGE, sure look like a military tribunal?

As a resident of Los Angeles, I've witnessed firsthand the increasing militarization of immigration enforcement in the US. Recall Martin Niemoller's powerful WWII warning: "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

If Folks Aren't Held Accountable for Breaches Of Standards...then Standards Lose Value as Standards...

 See here for an alleged breach of public trust, both as an elected civil servant (county commissioner in Oregon) and (again, allegedly) as a commander in the U.S. Air Force's Civil Air Patrol organization. Folks in the latter are civilians hence not subject to the UCMJ, but are expected to adhere to the standards outlined in the Code. Well, time will tell if these expectations come with accountability .... at least there is the.ballot box. 

UK court-martial for sharing Oct. 7, ISIS execution videos

HHJ Alan Large
Judge Advocate General

The Times of London reports here on an unusual prosecution in the Court Martial. Excerpt:

Two British Army soldiers have been court-martialled for sharing graphic helmet-cam videos filmed by Hamas during the October 7 attacks.

Signallers Zakariya Munir and Mohammed Salah sent video showing desecrated bodies the day after the atrocities took place in Israel in 2023.

The servicemen, from the 10th Signal Regiment, claimed “you won’t see this in the media” as they shared clips of corpses being kicked and montages of “dead civilians lying in pools of blood”.

The pair, who have now been dismissed from the army, also shared an “exceptionally violent piece of footage” of an Islamic State execution.

HHJ Alan Large, the Judge Advocate General, sentenced both men to be dismissed.

South Sudan court-martial concludes

The UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) has issued the following news release and notes to editors:

A General Court Martial, supported by the South Sudan People’s Defense Forces, concluded in Wau, Western Bahr el Ghazal, on 5 July. It was preceded by two investigation missions to Wau and Jur River counties where 34 pending cases were reviewed.

Subsequently, the military court adjudicated 20 criminal cases, convicting nine members of the SSPDF, stripping them of their ranks and dismissing them from military service.

Notably, the General Court Martial delivered verdicts on two cases related to sexual and gender-based violence, resulting in convictions of seven and 10 years, respectively. Additionally, a conflict related sexual violence case involving multiple assailants and an underage victim was adjudicated, a first of its kind for such military court martials in South Sudan.

The highest-ranking member of the SSPDF convicted was a Lieutenant Colonel, for the loss of a weapon. Two civilians in detention were released from military custody since they do not fall within the jurisdiction of a military court, while another civilian on trial for killing two SSPDF soldiers was sentenced to two years imprisonment and ordered to pay 62 heads of cattle or a monetary equivalent as blood compensation to the victims’ families.

The Court also heard six cases involving conflict related crimes committed during clashes in February 2025 in Kwajiena village, Jur River county. A lack of identification of assailants by victims, despite strong testimonies, did not lead to prosecutorial action in this regard. However, the hearing resulted in a directive to the state government to award financial compensation to all victims in accordance with South Sudan’s civil procedure code.

The General Court Martial team included two female judge-advocates to ensure that both female and male victims and witnesses were supported during the process. All victims also had access to two civilian victims’ counsel, who provided free legal advice and actively participated in the proceedings to protect victim rights and help them navigate the justice process.

This military court was followed by a civil-military dialogue in Wau with a focus on joint efforts to combat sexual violence. The aim was to strengthen trust between uniformed personnel and communities, as well as obtain real time feedback on the impact of such military justice interventions on host populations.

The Wau General Court Martial was funded by the generous support of the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Juba. In particular, it builds on the work of similar military proceedings that took place in Wau in 2022, which resulted in convictions of eight members of the SSPDF for murder. The convicted soldiers were stripped of their ranks and dismissed from the SSPDF.

As part of its ongoing efforts to strengthen justice mechanisms and rule of law processes, the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) also provided funding for victims and witnesses to receive psychosocial support before, during, and after trial.

Note to Editors:

The SSPDF’s Military Justice Directorate (MJD) deploys General Courts Martials to promote accountability for crimes committed by members of the SSPDF, instill discipline among its ranks and strengthen its relationship with civilian populations.

During the closing of the Wau General Court Martial, the SSPDF Military Justice Directorate distributed to all military personnel at the Fifth Infantry Division, ‘Six Key Messages to End Sexual Violence’ that are binding standing orders developed by the Directorate.

The Wau General Court Martial is part of continued partnerships between UNMISS and the Military Justice Directorate to strengthen accountability within the SSPDF. Since 2020, the Military Justice Directorate, with support from UNMISS, has deployed 14 such courts to nine locations across South Sudan, and addressed a total of 136 criminal cases involving uniformed personnel, including murder, assault, and sexual and gender-based violence.

Greedy Tommy and all that -- book review by Dwight Sullivan

Adm. Sir John Duckworth, RN

The Royal Navy’s Admiral John Byng was famously court-martialed and executed in 1757 for the offense of failing to "do his utmost" during the 1756 Battle of Minorca. That inspired Voltaire’s quip that the British “kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.”

Byng’s court-martial was too early to be included in John Morrow’s about-to-be-released book (July 10, 2025, publication date), Admirals in Court: Discipline, Honour and Naval Justice, 1778-1814. Excerpts available on Google Books nevertheless suggest that the work is a spirited, insightful look into the British naval justice system from the time of the American Revolution through the War of 1812.

Morrow is a professor emeritus of politics and international relations at the University of Auckland. His latest book offers a deep dive into the nine courts-martial of Royal Navy flag officers from 1778 to 1814. As he explains in the preface, “Courts martial were used by the Admiralty Board and less directly by governments to uphold discipline and punish wrong-doing (which includes failures in key duties) and maintain the aggressive and dynamic culture of the Royal Navy.” He later refers to “the first rule” of a British officer: “fight the French whenever he can.”

The book’s opening chapter, about court-martial procedures in Britain’s “Senior Service,” will particularly interest military lawyers. Unsurprisingly, the admirals’ courts-martial were, in some respects, atypical of the era’s British naval justice system. Morrow observes that during the period he studied, “[f]lag officers invariably had assistance from legal counsel when writing their defence statements and they usually read them to the court on the accused’s behalf. However, legal counsel played no other formal role in court martial proceedings.” The flag officers’ “courts martial were usually longer than most other naval trials and were also more elaborate, at times involving extensive lists of witnesses.” Morrow also notes that the “defence statements of men from the lower deck were often brief, confined mainly to acknowledging guilt and seeking, by reference to previous good service, to mitigate the severity of the penalty. That was not the case for flag officers.” Most of the accused admirals “took full advantage of the opportunity to provide detailed rebuttals of charges and the evidence of prosecution witnesses.”

The excerpts from Morrow’s case studies available on Google Books offer engaging descriptions of the admirals’ alleged offenses and resulting trials. For example, his chapter about the 1805 court-martial of Vice Admiral Sir John [Thomas] Duckworth is titled “Vice Admiral Duckworth’s Excess Baggage.” It refers to enlisted sailors’ nickname for Duckworth: “greedy Tommy.” Other chapters include bracing accounts of naval battles lost and won—or avoided—and the resulting consequences at courts-martial.

The table of contents suggests that the principal text is roughly 200 pages plus notes, bibliography, and index. But my perusal of the full book will be delayed by its price. Bloomsbury Academic—the volume’s publisher—charges the princely sums of $103.50 for the hardback edition and $82.80 for a PDF. Amazon charges even more for the hardback and $103.50 for a Kindle edition. Worldcat lists it at just seven U.S. libraries—Montclair State University’s library being the closest to Washington, D.C. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that it will arrive at a closer library once we reach its formal publication date.

None of the trials featured in the book ended in a Byngesque firing squad. Still, the Royal Navy court-martialed nine admirals over thirty-six years with the apparent goal of encouraging the others.

_____

Dwight Sullivan is a senior counsel at the Air Force Appellate Defense Division and a professorial lecturer in law at the George Washington University Law School. The views expressed in this guest post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.

[Editor's Note -- thanks and BZ to Mr. Sullivan, prolific author and varacious assimilator of esoterica.]