Republican solon blasts Bush Admin.'s 'power grab' in handling of JAGs, applauds Obama's Admin.'s fixes

No one seemed to notice it, but this comment, made by Sen.
Lindsey Graham during Sen. Webb's Sept. 14 hearing on bloat
in the general officer corps, is especially interesting because it comes
from a conservative South Carolina Republican who is also an Air Force Reserve
JAG officer:

SEN. GRAHAM: ...one thing I would say, in my little area of
the world, is that a two-star judge advocate general position did not serve us
well during Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay discussions. Because there's a real
tension, and this is -- goes beyond party politics -- between the office of the
general counsel, who serves the secretary of Defense, and each service chief. They're
civilians. And the military uniformed lawyer, loyalty lies to their commander.  

And we had a very bad problem in the Bush Administration
that the Obama Administration, quite frankly, has corrected. The civilian
lawyers in the Bush Administration, in my view, shut out military legal advice
and tried to make a power grab, saying that the judge advocate general had to
clean -- clear their legal advice to their commanders through the civilian
office of general counsel. That, to me, was an exercise of control of legal
independence.

Is it time for a military journal or law review to step up
and do an in-depth look at the Bush Administration vs. the JAGs? (If you know
of such an overview and analysis, please let me know.)

My personal theory, based on some interviews I did at the
time with JAGs, is that they became the first line of defense against the use
of torture and other Bush Administration transgressions because they were
"double professionals," heedful of their dual duties both as officers and as lawyers.
This made them more likely to refuse to break the law or tell others to do so.