This Pentagon file photo, obtained by The Associated Press, shows Sgt. Michael Smith, left, with his dog Marco, menacing a detainee at an unspecified date in 2003 at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, Iraq.
Military psychologists were enlisted to help develop more aggressive interrogation methods, including snarling dogs, forced nudity and long periods of standing, against terrorism suspects, according to a Senate investigation.
Before they were approved by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, such harsh techniques had drawn warnings from military lawyers that they could be illegal, an investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee has found. Officials familiar with the findings discussed them on condition of anonymity because the information has not been formally released . . .
And this from Capital Hill Blue
People often scoff at the notion of "military justice," opining that it is an oxymoron. Nothing could be further from the truth. To get a feel for the value that the military puts in its lawyers, watch this video: Gitmo hearing 'not justice'; in this case, MAJ Jackson is willing to put his career on the line to call the proceeding what it is - an injustice. That's pretty outspoken for a military officer, but it is a value that the Army in particular expects from its officers - to do the right thing, even when it is the hard thing.
Those of us who are trained in the law, and military law in particular, are not as surprised as others. We understand that the Uniform Code of Military Justice is quite a remarkable instrument for justice - which is apparently why the administration was so reluctant to use it. For example, most people think that the famous phrase "you have the right to remain silent..." comes from the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona - it actually is modeled on the UCMJ's Article 31, which preceded Miranda by 16 years. F. Lee Bailey, the famous defense attorney, has opined that if he were innocent he would rather be tried in a military court martial than in a civilian court because of the safeguards required in such trials. That is the objection that many of us have to the Military Commissions Act. There were established procedures, recognized as "just" around the world, including in international law, that could have been used. The Geneva Conventions specifically provide that:
I have been disturbed by other authorizations by the administration that are not in conformity with the Geneva Conventions, in particular GC III, Art. 99, which provides:
Quote:No moral or physical coercion may be exerted on a prisoner of war in order to induce him to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond - impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer - N. Hussein O'Ponderer
No comments:
Post a Comment