Legal Services During War

• Author: by Colonel Ted B. Borek
• Pages: 02

1. INTRODUCTION

   'Ve learn from history that ue do not learn fmm hutory."

   This article examines legal services during war. Its purpose is to help staff judge advocates and commanders plan and train for the deployment and use of legal assets dunng penods of confllct To be prepared to prowde adequate legal services in any future conflict, the Judge Advocate General's Corps must continue to develop and implement initiatives in training and doctrme that will emure SUEcessful delivery of total legal serwe support on the AirLand battle. field.

   As the Staff Judge Advocate of a divlsmn m Germany from 1984 to 1986, I confronted potentlal war deployment issues with little in. formation available to help solve the problems I decided that a hls-

   vocate assets in the Rear and others dispersed them with the bngades, but these deployment schemes were based largely on peacetime geographical boundaries. I asked myself some fundamental questions Khere were legal assets positioned in past conflicts? Similarly there was debate about whether court-martial eases would be tried dunng early stages of any conflict. How soon after beginning past combat operations did trials begin? Also, I believed that staffjudge advocates should be familiar with substantive mues confronted ~n past confiicts to anticipate future needs, especmlly for purposes of tramng. Wartime needs are likely to vary from peacetime needs, but how" After-action studies from World War I1 suggested that "enough prior study had not been given to many ofthe topics" Army lawyers encounteredIs such criticmm still valid? Finally, there were differences among senior judge advocates about general deployment doctrine The debate asked whether legal offices should be deployed with divisions incombat, or would the command be served better with lawyers assigned to echelons above the divisionv3 Histoncal experience might provide relevant illustrations of the type of ~ervices to be provided at different echelons of command' and, in this way, be a guide for current doctrine?

   Using a historical approach, this article attempts to answer these questions and identify the topics that Army lawyers and commanders must consider if we are to provide quality legal Services in future conflicts. Procedurally, I had hoped to review documents about judge advocate ~ e r v i ~ e ~ in World War 11, Vietnam. Korea, and Grenada. Unfortunately, I found a dearth of material about the Korean eonflict,j and many of the historical reports from Vietnam are still classified Consequently, this study focuses on judge advocate senices m the European Theater of Operations during World War I1 and on the Grenada operation. Regarding World War 11, notable emphasis ISplaced on Judge Advocate Studies from the Report of the General

   Leglalation Team 48 (Sept 196il

   'Id

   'Cornom U S Army Tram"# and Doetrine Command PamDhlet Yo 625.52, 4111-~tsn

   O&atmna, US Army Operational Concept for Proilding iegal Serwcel m Theater ofoperanons 121 Mar 86> lherelnafier TRADOC Pam 52:-521 uilh Dep't of Arms Field Manual 100.16, Suamrt Ooerationi Echelons Above Corm at 7-10 to 7-11

   19881 LEGAL SERVICES DURING WAR

   Board, U.S. Forces, European Theater, and on after-action reports of the U.S. 12th Army Group and the First, Third, and Fifteenth Armies. Far Grenada, most information eomea from personal interviews of participants and from after-action reports of the 82d Airborne Divimn, the XVIII Airborne Corps, and the United States Army Claims SeNKe.

   11. EUROPEAN THEATER, WORLD WAR I1 A. OVERVIEW

   To prepare for the Normandy invasion, United States Army per. sonnel arrived in the British Isles shortly after the United States entered the war. In March 1942, a staffjudge advocate was designated far Headquarters, United States Army Forces in the British Isles, and in the early summer of 1942 the European Theater of Operations, United States Army (ETOUSA), began to function in LondonG To support the theater, a branch office of The Judge Advocate General and a board ofreview were established in May and became operational by July 1942.' In the spring of 1944, as the invasion drew near, B

   forward echelon of Services and Supply was established with a Judge Advocate Sections

   Many units with Judge advocates partlcipated in the invasion and supported operations thereafter. The prinmpal United States ground forces in the European Theater were two army groups and five field armie8, with an average of two to four corps per army and two or more divisions per corps? Each of these units had judge advocate officers. In addition, base Section offices with judge advocates were

   'Repan of the General Board United Stater Forces. Europesn Theater Judge Ad. weate Section in the Theater ofbperatrons, at 1,2 General Order 128, dated 17 June 45) (retained by the Amy Military Hlstory Institute) [hereinafter Stvdy 821'I Hmtar). of the Branch Office of The Judge Advocate General wlh the Umted States Farces European Theater 18 July 1942-1 Bavernber 1945 at 21 11 Nay 19451 [heremaRer TJAG Branch Histdry1 The hmtory of the Branch Office and Board of Review was mtten f(l prnvlde a treatme far fvture gvldanee about the many admln-lsfreiive and military jubtiee problems confronted m the European Theater Id The two.valume work mntainr B campllatm of statistical data about eourts-rnsrtd as well 88 background mformatmn on eonstltutlanal. evidentiary. and substantwe legal issues considered by the Board af Revler

   8 id

   'Id Fmt United Stater Army Group was activated in the Umted Kmgdorn onOctobr 19, 1944 The 12th Army Group also w u activated m England ~t became operatianal in France m 1 Avgvst 1944, the isme day a8 Thlrd Unltsd Si&. AmyAt fhaltirneGenerslOmarN Bradleybe~amecornrnanderof12thUnitedStat~aArmyGroup with authanty over Fmt Amy. commanded by General Covrtney s.

   Hodges

   and Thnd Army commanded by General Gmge S Patton By January 1945 12td Army Group c o k e d of the First. Third, and Nmth Amme. mcludlng 8 coda, 23

   located throughout liberated terntory By the end of the war roughly 485 judge advocates supported 118 general court-martial junsdictions, usually units of division size or larger lo

   Recalling the operational setting will facilitate understanding of judge advocate aeniee~ While It took allied units about six weeks after landing at Normandy to establish a front line about twenty miles from thecoast, byAugust31,1944, elementsafGeneral Pattan's Third Army crossed the Meuse River at Verdun, about 300 miles to the emt.'l The Allied front line continued eastward, and by mid-December, when the Germans launched their counteroffensive in the Ardennes, the Allied Armies had liberated France and reached the German border After the Allies eontamed the German offens~ve. they

   moved eastward agam. In early March 1945, Patton's Third Army raced sixty miles in three days to reach the Rhine River near Coblenz The First and Ninth Armies reached the Rhine to the north of the Third Army about the same time. When the war offiaally ended on 8 May 1945, Allied forces had travelled as far as the Elbe River. about 500 miles east of Normandy The Allied front line extended into Czechoslovakia and Austria as well.

   Judge advocate offices moved many times in support of combat operations. For example, General Patton's staff Judge advocate be. lieved that his office moved Seventeen times while going through France.I3 The Judge Advocate Section generally stayed with the rear echelon and operated from tents. Tnala sometimes were held m the open air.14

   2. JUDGE ADVOCATE ORGANIZATION

      There were a number of differences in judge advocate offices of World War 11 that should be recalled For example, there was no requirement for a lawyer to represent an accused, even in general eouns-martial The Articles of War provided only for the detail of an

      >-Id at 677

      "lnferv~w with Calanel Charles E Chewer IU

      s Army, retired) by Colonel Fred

      K Green, at 42 119331 Itranscnpt refamed by the Army Milifari Hlbtory InStltutel[heremaker Chewer Intervieu'

      .&Id sf 52

      19881 LEGAL SERVICES DURISG WAR

      officer of the Judge Advocate General's Department as a member of a general courts-martial if reasonably available.15 The lack of a re-quirement for trial and defense counsel to be lawyers perhaps was the reason for having 80 few judge advacates authorized for combat units For example, an infantry divmon was authorized five people in Its judge advocate Section. two officers (a lieutenant ealonel and eaptaml. one warrant officer, and two enlisted soldiers.'' One less officer was authorized for an armored dmsmn. A corps judge advocate office totaled five also. two officers (a colonel and lieutenant colonell, and three enlisted soldiers, including a stenographer and clerk typists An army's office totaled thirteen: six offiicera, one warrant officer, and six enlisted soldiers. An army group had nine: four officers, onewarrant officer, and four enlisted

      In addition to division, carps, and army headquarters, judge ad. vacates supported base sections that were established in Britain and on the continent For example, five base sections were established inBritain well before the invasion The Advanced Base Section moved to the continent on June 16. 1944," only ten days after D-Day The Normandy Base Section and Bntany Base Section were established in August. Other base sections moved from Britain to the continent to establish the Paris and Channel Base Seetmns Generally, base sections were given general courts-martial authority, and so. in addition to prowdmg many other legal servms, one of the primary functions of base section judge advocates was to process courts. martial.18

      Despite the comparatively small number ofjudge advocate officer8 at each unit, the tasks given lawyers increased, not only in the area of militaryjustm, but in other legal areas as well A monthly report by the staffjudge advocate, Third U.S. Army. typified the work normally done: try cases; prepare procedural guides; review courts-martial records and pretrial...