C-SPAN video of the DAC-IPAD video from February 14, 2020, is available at the following links:

Part 1

Part 2

The main event during the meeting was a panel of retired military judges providing their perspectives (and answering questions) about military sexual assault cases, including conviction and acquittal rates.

Some (of many) interesting parts include this moment when Colonel Glass discussed the relative inexperience of military prosecutors, this moment when Colonel Moore discussed the virtues of generalization within the judge advocate communities, and this public comment by the alleged victim in the Grazioplene case.

3 Responses to “Video of the DAC-IPAD meeting on February 14, 2020”

  1. stewie says:

    Generalization is always an option. If folks want to be an SJA, then guess what, they will probably have to generalize.
    But there are plenty of folks, like me, who are more than happy to cap out at LTC if that means spending a ton of time in military justice as a “specialist.” (or contracts, or operational law or what have you).

  2. Abe Froman says:

    Stewie,  I think the Col’s point on specialization was that being solely in the courtroom insulates JAGs from knowing what is going on in the field/fleet.  The Comprehensive Review makes a similar point about the Navy miljus folks as well. I think that is a valid point, to an extent. The USAF model for first tours is not the Navy model, so I think the comparison ends there. But, does specialization come at a cost of BIG DoD experience?  Is that a cost that they are willing to pay for specialization?  

  3. stewie says:

    So what? Like I said, there will be plenty of folks who want to be SJAs. Those folks will need to be generalists to compete. There are plenty of folks who don’t care if they make O6 or become an SJA. So long as they know that, having them as specialists in critical areas is mighty fine. Every judge advocate doesn’t want to be an SJA, and most of them WON’T be an SJA. So why would we train and model as if everyone wants to be and is going to be?
     
    If you had told me that I would have had to stay at LTC, would never make COL, BUT I could be a judge or do some other crim law related area, I would never have retired, and I’d say you’d have a pretty experienced guy in one of those positions. Other folks need an assignment to be broadly skilled but then can do the BJA jobs, the admin law jobs, the DSJA and SJA jobs, and they can have folks like me advising them and running the show.
     
    But plenty of folks like me get out at various points because we were told, nope, gotta leave crim law now, gotta be broadly skilled. You lose a lot of talent that way. The SJAs will come, and they will make themselves broadly skilled because they want to be an SJA, they want to make O6. You can have your cake and eat it too in this situation IMO.