« Did Trudeau Know This or Was it Just an Obvious Guess?
Main
Bigfoot and Bison Hair »
July 28, 2005
Military Opposition to Practices "Inconsistent with Our Most Fundamental Values"
Today's New York Times has an article entitled "Military's Opposition to Harsh Interrogation Is Outlined" in which it quotes memos from several high ranking military officers on the use of "harsh interrogation" methods. Here are some snippets from the article.
These military lawyers were clearly disturbed by the proposed techniques that were deviations from past practices that were being advocated by the Justice Department," said Senator Graham, himself a former military lawyer.
The documents include one written by the deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force, Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, advising the task force that several of the "more extreme interrogation techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic criminal law" as well as military law.
Rear Adm. Michael F. Lohr, the Navy's chief lawyer, wrote on Feb. 6, 2003, that while detainees at Guantánamo Bay might not qualify for international protections, "Will the American people find we have missed the forest for the trees by condoning practices that, while technically legal, are inconsistent with our most fundamental values?"Brig. Gen. Kevin M. Sandkuhler, a senior Marine lawyer, said in a Feb. 27, 2003, memorandum that all the military lawyers believed the harsh interrogation regime could have adverse consequences for American service members. General Sandkuhler said that the Justice Department "does not represent the services; thus, understandably, concern for service members is not reflected in their opinion."
Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Romig, the Army's top-ranking uniformed lawyer, said in a March 3, 2003, memorandum that the approach recommended by the Justice Department "will open us up to criticism that the U.S. is a law unto itself."[Emphasis added]
America Blog contributor Michael in New York echoes my sentiment,
My only complaint? That no general or major military official has had the bravery to come forward and resign out of disgust with Bush's disregard for the Geneva Convention, the safety of our troops, his incompetence in securing the peace, his refusal to put the boots on the ground needed to get the job done and his lies that dragged the military into an unnecessary war.
Two small quibbles: It is not clear that the Geneva Conventions are being disregarded. They do not seem to apply directly to many of those we are holding at Guantánamo and elsewhere. However, they are easily extendable by analogy to those situations and the current administration has consistently failed to make those reasonable extensions. Quite the contrary, they are extreme legal literalists on this issue.
I think that the answer to Rear Adm. Lohr's question, "Will the American people find we have missed the forest for the trees by condoning practices that, while technically legal, are inconsistent with our most fundamental values?" is "No." The American people as a whole are quite willing to turn their collective heads away from all these distractions.
Posted by Duane Smith at July 28, 2005 9:18 AM | Read more on Current Events |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1286