CNN
–
An executive order issued this week by President Donald Trump, which appears to be giving him great power to interpret the law, has led to military commanders rejecting illegal orders and presidents denying military commanders the military. It raises concerns among legal experts that it can discourage you from refusing to affect legal proceedings.
“I’m worried about the calm effect… I can definitely see people who are hesitant to carry out their duties because they’re afraid that Trump will punish them,” the prosecutor told CNN. He spoke.
An executive order issued by the White House on Tuesday evening focuses on giving the president greater control over independent federal agencies, but the president and the attorney general said, “The executive branch is in law.” It includes the language “providing authoritative interpretations.” The Department of Defense is part of it. The order shows that President Trump and his Defense Secretary Pete Hegses ordered the military to play a greater role in immigration detention operations at the tropical border, indicating that the administration is open to military use within the country. It’ll come when it comes.
At his confirmation hearing in the Senate in January, Hegseth lay down a question about whether he would stand up to Trump if the president issues an illegal order.
“I reject the premise that President Trump is giving absolutely no illegal orders,” he said.
“I know that (Secretary of Defense Pete) Hegseth has been critical of war crime prosecutions in the past. If they put that official policy into place, it will discourage war criminals from prosecuting them. Can you? Christensen added. “Will the commander discourage him from facing illegal orders? …This can scare the decisions of service members.”
This “will easily have made it clear” that this did not apply to military judges or lawyers’ decisions, Christensen said. And without further clarification on how to implement orders from the Pentagon and the White House, Christensen and other military law experts are unclear what secondary and tertiary effects will be achieved within the military. is.
Christensen said lawyers in the military are likely already working through what this means for the pentagon.
“My time in service was interesting, wondering, or worried that the president was prosecuting a lawsuit or that he was a judge and was a Primary Side. It never happened,” he said. “But now, I think people will probably do that.”
Federal law established the military’s own judicial system, known as the Uniform Law of Military Justice. And while it doesn’t happen frequently, the president – also the commander – already has the authority to interfere in the legal process of military law – especially the first semester of 2019, which is a high-profile war crime did so by issuing an amnesty. Contrary to the advice of the Pentagon leader, the case. CNN reported to then defence secretary Mark Esper and other senior military leaders that he told Trump that his actions could undermine the integrity of the military’s judicial system.
“The Department of Defense is confident in its military justice system,” said Jonathan Hoffman, a spokesman for the Pentagon at the time. “The President is part of the military justice system as commander and has the authority to consider the issues of this nature.”
Rachel Van Lundingham, a former Air Force judge advocate at Southwestern Law School and current law professor, said in his application to the military justice system that the executive order was “already the current legal operating system of the administrative department.” It’s saying things.”
“If (the Legal Advisors Office) says tomorrow, “Waterboarding is not torture,” if you’ve done it once 20 years ago, you can’t contradict it without losing your duties,” Van Randingham said. I said that. “The judges (the military court of appeals) can be removed from their position… They work for the president and if the president wants to exploit that structure, he has the legal authority to do so. That’s how Congress sets things up.”
The military court of appeals, or CAAF judges, can be removed for their obligations or neglect of misconduct, Van Randingham added, “just because the president doesn’t like their opinions.” “You cannot delete it.”
However, another military law expert, Josh Kastenberg, a former Air Force judge and prosecutor, is currently a professor at the University of New Mexico School of Law, and the order is broader than other parts of the military facility. He said it has meaning.
“Military facilities are much larger than the uniform code of military justice, and include civilian labor and defense contractors,” Kastenberg said. Management and federal contracts, safety inspections, promotions, demonstrations, such as these, can actually result in the effects of illegal commands. ”
“This order makes all of that even more possible,” he said.
Kastenberg pointed to other scenarios he believes the executive order could have an impact. This includes orders that say, “We cannot speak to Congress without first passing the Secretary of Defense,” or “No one can speak to reporters without our permission.” ”
He may also consult a military lawyer on order if there are legal questions, but who could “stop it and just follow” could have an impact on the military commander. It reflected concerns about certain calm effects.
Kastenberg also pointed to the stringent process of awarding defence contracts and contracts to businesses. He said the order could be used by the administration to “lead military contractors to donors” “in a way we’ve never seen before.”
“I’m worried about this cascade effect of this legality,” he said.
