Trump ‘orders’ review end
Eyebrows raised at intervention on Navy SEAL’s behalf
US Defence Secretary Mark Esper has said President Donald Trump ordered him to stop a disciplinary review of a Navy SEAL accused of battlefield misconduct, an intervention that raised questions about the United States’ commitment to international standards for battlefield ethics.
Esper, who initially favoured allowing the Navy to proceed with a peer-review board for Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, which could have resulted in him losing his SEAL status, said he was obliged to follow Trump’s order. But he also directed the Pentagon’s legal office to review how service members were educated in the laws of armed conflict and trained to wartime behavioural standards.
“I can control what I can control,” Esper told reporters when asked whether Trump sent the right message to US troops by intervening to stop the Gallagher review. “The President is the commander in chief. He has every right, authority and privilege to do what he wants to do.”
Gallagher was acquitted of murder in the stabbing death of an Isis (Islamic State) captive but convicted by a military jury of posing with the corpse while in Iraq in 2017.
In another twist to the Gallagher saga, Esper also made an extraordinary accusation against Richard Spencer, whom he fired on Monday as the civilian leader of the Navy.
Esper said Spencer last week had gone behind his back to propose a secret deal with the White House in which Spencer would fix the outcome of the Gallagher review. Esper said this was a violation of the military chain of command and that Spencer acknowledged his misstep.
Through a Navy spokesman, Spencer declined requests for comment on Esper’s allegation. However, in a resignation letter on Monday he had said he could not in good conscience follow an order that he believed would undermine the principle of good order and discipline in the military — suggesting that he had been ordered to stop the peer-review process for Gallagher.
Trump began to get involved in the Gallagher case this year after Bernard Kerik, a former business partner to his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, became an advocate for the family and made appearances in conservative media.
The SEAL also changed his defence team to include Marc Mukasey, a lawyer for the Trump real estate company.
Trump has tweeted in support of Gallagher, praising the sailor’s service and saying the case was “handled very badly from the beginning”. Trump restored Gallagher’s rank this month, which had been reduced in his military jury conviction.
Trump also pardoned two soldiers — a former Army special forces soldier set to stand trial next year in the killing of a suspected Afghan bombmaker in 2010 and an Army officer who had been convicted of murder for ordering his soldiers to fire on three unarmed Afghan men in 2012, killing two.
Beyond the Spencer firing, the Gallagher case has raised questions about the appropriate role of a US President in matters of military justice.
“What concerns me the most is the chilling effect this will have on special forces’ willingness to report when they see illegal behaviour,” James Stavridis, a retired Navy admiral, said.
Senator Jack Reed, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee and an Army veteran, accused Trump of “inappropriate involvement” in the military justice system.
“The White House’s handling of this matter erodes the basic command structure of the military and the basic function of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,” Reed said.
Last week Trump tweeted that Gallagher must be allowed to retire as a SEAL, regardless of the Navy’s intention to review his standing in the elite force. Esper’s comments yesterday revealed that on Monday Trump had given the Defence Secretary a direct order to make this happen.
Even before receiving that order, however, Esper had decided the Gallagher process should be stopped. He said his rationale was that, “given the events of the last few days”, it was no longer possible for Gallagher to get a fair shake.
“As professional as they are,” he said of the Navy review board members, “no matter what they would decide, they would be criticised from many sides, which would further drag this issue on, dividing the institution.”