Intervening in military discipline is wrong

For eight years, I served in the U.S. Army as an officer, lawyer and member of the Army’s legal branch, the Judge Advocate General’s Corps. During that time, I was assigned as both a prosecutor and defense counsel at military courts-martial in Korea and Germany. These proceedings are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is applicable to all branches of the armed forces.

Based on my experience with the military justice system, I can attest to its integrity and fairness. The constitutional rights of the accused are assiduously protected by the military justice code, the military judges who interpret the law and the jurors — officers and enlisted men — who make decisions based upon the law. I say this without reservation having handled hundreds of cases during my time on active duty.

I am therefore dismayed by President Donald Trump’s intervention in the Navy’s disciplinary review of Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher’s battlefield misconduct. The disciplinary peer-review was intended to determine whether that misconduct should result in Gallagher’s dismissal as a Navy SEAL. Such a review is proper and consistent with Navy regulations allowing, indeed requiring, such a proceeding.

In ordering a halt to the review, the commander-in-chief alleged that the case was “handled very badly from the beginning.” Typical of his style of governance, the president cited no specifics, no violations of law or procedure, and no facts that would support his unwarranted and politicized conclusion.

I find this particularly offensive in view of his own military experience; that is to say, none whatsoever. His military acumen was acquired through four college deferments and fortuitous bone spurs rather than serving on active duty. Had he served, he might better understand the need for discipline and good order on the battlefield.

FRANK YOURICK Murrysville