Tuesday, February 22, 2005

An empty shell of a story 
Here's a story about Guantanamo JAGs who supposedly objected to "aggressive interrogation techniques" at the prison.

Military lawyers at the Guantanamo Bay terrorist prison tried to stop inhumane interrogations, but were ignored by senior Pentagon officials, The New York Daily News has learned.

Judge advocates - uniformed legal advisers known as JAGs who were assigned to a secret war crimes task force - repeatedly objected to aggressive interrogations by a separate intelligence unit at Camp Delta, where Taliban and al-Qaida suspects have been jailed since January 2002.

But Pentagon officials "didn't think this was a big deal, so they just ignored the JAGs," a senior military source said.

Well, jeez...you think you might clue us in to what those "aggressive techniques" might have been?

I guess not. We can't be bothered with the facts. But since the reporter doesn't bother to let us know what those techniques are, for all I know, the Pentagon officials were right to ignore the JAGs. JAGs are pretty good at writing memos and filing protests through channels. It's what they do.

But they aren't very good at getting information out of intransigent detainees. Yes, they argued that long interrogations and isolation are "effective."

But not too many JAGs hold "top secret" clearances. So it is quite possible that the JAGs are not even in a position to evaluate what "effective" means.

Nor are we told how routine or widespread these aggressive practices are. Are they used on everybody? Or just a few hard core Al Qaeda types?

Moreover, the JAGs may hold a legal opinion - but the cost-benefit tradeoff is not theirs to decide. The commander holds the final say, subject to the guidance of the chain of command and the law itself. The JAGs are advisors, but they hold no veto power over command authority.

If a subordinate commander breaks the law, it is the senior commander, or his designated representative, who prosecutes. Not the JAGs. And while Colonel Miller's legal reasoning may be sound or may be unsound, all the reporter bothers to give us is a "he said/she said" argument.

This democratic republic cannot make an informed decision based on the facts in this story, because there aren't any.

Come to think of it, there's not even a single, solitary, on-the-record source.

There's just no "there" there.

Splash, out


Vous avez un blog très agréable et je l'aime, je vais placer un lien de retour à lui dans un de mon blogs qui égale votre contenu. Il peut prendre quelques jours mais je ferai besure pour poster un nouveau commentaire avec le lien arrière.

Merci pour est un bon blogger.
Great Blog!
I came across your blog by accident....then was intrigued! Chip http://www.focusedinterview.com
I came across your blog by accident....then was intrigued! Chip http://www.focusedinterview.com
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Meter

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!