The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Tchiowa

This guy who was so well trained and did what very very few could ever muster up the ballz to do - died for GWB and his war machine.

Fallen Heroes Memorial: Air Force Senior Airman Jason D. Cunningham


And we debate if it is wrong to slaughter a few along the way or pour a little war on their faces.


Gheez,,,,,,

Hootad Binky

Admin Prevents Former Gitmo
Prosecutor from Testifying before Congress

December 11, 2007, 11:12AM

When Col. Morris Davis stepped down as the Pentagon's chief war crimes prosecutor in October, the reason given seemed to be a somewhat bureaucratic one. He stepped down, it was reported, "in a dispute over whether Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, legal advisor to the administrator overseeing the trials, has the power to supervise aspects of the prosecution."

But in an op-ed in today's Los Angeles Times, Davis is crystal clear. "I felt that the system had become deeply politicized and that I could no longer do my job effectively or responsibly," he writes.

It's a taste of what he would have said had he been allowed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning, during its hearing on the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees. But Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) announced at the beginning of the hearing that the committee had invited Davis to testify, but that "the Defense Department has ordered him not to appear."

Update: Here's video of Feinstein's comments:


"We assured the administration that Colonel Davis would not be asked about open and pending cases," Feinstein said. "But we were told simply that Colonel Davis was active duty military, and because he was active duty military, they could issue an order he had to follow." Calling it a shame, she added, "I wish the administration would allow him to appear. Unfortunately, I have to conclude that by prohibiting Col. Davis from testifying, the administration is trying to stop a fair and open discussion about the legal rights of detainees at Guantanamo."

In Davis' op-ed, he gives three reasons for his resignation, all deriving from a complaint that control of the military commissions at Gitmo had been taken from the military and given to political appointees. He targets Susan Crawford, who oversees the commissions, and William Haynes, the Pentagon's general counsel, in particular. The system was rigged, he complains, in order for the appointees to micro-manage the trials which they insisted take place behind closed doors, another decision he disagreed with.

And then there's the issue of torture:

Finally, I resigned because of two memos signed by Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England that placed the chief prosecutor -- that was me -- in a chain of command under Defense Department General Counsel William J. Haynes. Haynes was a controversial nominee for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, but his nomination died in January 2007, in part because of his role in authorizing the use of the aggressive interrogation techniques some call torture. I had instructed the prosecutors in September 2005 that we would not offer any evidence derived by waterboarding, one of the aggressive interrogation techniques the administration has sanctioned. Haynes and I have different perspectives and support different agendas, and the decision to give him command over the chief prosecutor's office, in my view, cast a shadow over the integrity of military commissions. I resigned a few hours after I was informed of Haynes' place in my chain of command.

TPMmuckraker | Talking Points Memo | Admin Prevents Former Gitmo Prosecutor from Testifying before Congress

__________________
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone elses opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. -Oscar Wilde

Texpat

did you actually read that?

Because one soldier quits, doesn't indicate a problem.

Just ask Ray. I retired, but I was a coward. This guy resigned in the middle of a war. What a pathetic loser.

None of us know the real details. Folks retire/resign for a lot of reasons. A colonel is insignificant in the big picture.

Boon Mee

Zubaydah’s “Come To Allah Moment:”

If it leads to the disruption of more terror attacks, don't believe any y'all bleeding-hearts can not defend the use thereof...

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121002091.html?hpid=topnews

__________________
ผมเป็นคนบ้านนอก

Lily

So, if a man has made a mistake in his life, he is disqualified from commenting on any matter of principle for the rest of his life?


Wrong again on both counts.

He is one of your own.

raycarey

CIA director hayden testified before congress yesterday, and considering that he left the torture taping at tenet's door, and the destruction at goss'.....we can expect them to be brought before congress, right?

the CIA, the white house, and both parties are up to their necks in this embarrassment, so it seems clear that a special prosecutor is needed.

btw, why was he wearing his military costume? it's certainly not required....what was the purpose?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/wa...n/12intel.html

Whiteshiva

To BM & Texpat:

Surely you are not blind to the potential danger in giving the government too wide powers, accepting some torture by redefining the meaning of it, denying some people their basic human rights (as given in the Geneva convention and in the UN declaration of Human Rights), by simply redefining the crime they are charged with.

Imagine this scenario (far-fetched, but bear with me) - in a few years time, you have tried to evade paying tax on some of your income, lets say you helped a neighbour paint his house, and he gave you some $$ for it.

One day four men arrive at the door, blindfold you and take you away. Your family is given no other information than that you are considered a threat to national security. You are kept in solitary confinement, beaten and tortured. Since you refuse (or rather are unable) to give the interrogators the information they want, this goes on for a while. When you demand to see a lawyer, you are told that you are a terrorist suspect, and thus are considered a enemy combatant (fifth column, if you'd like). When waterboarding and "mild" torture doesn't work on you (because you are basically innocent), the people detaining you decide to send you to North Korea (recently turned pro-western, but with plenty of handy "expertise in torture") for further processing. "He's a tough nut - make sure you break him", is the last you hear before you are bundled into a plane and flown out of the US. Your family will probably never see you again. You have no rights. You disappear into some hellhole, never to be seen again.

These things happened under Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Saddam, hell, it was close to going that way in the US during the McCarthy period, only that time the bogyman was communism rather than terrorism. It happens today in totalitarian regimes all around the world.

In modern democracies, we have built up a defence against this blatant abuse of power, in order to protect the individual, and thus our freedom. This defence consists of elements such as free speech, the right to a trial, the right to elect our leaders, etc. Basically what we call human rights, much of which is included in most constitutions, including the US. It has taken a lot of time, blood and suffering to get to where we are today, and yet some leaders want to eliminate these rights with a pen stroke and leave it up to themselves to decide who are afforded these rights and who are to be denied them. The potential for abuse is huge, and if history is a yardstick these kind of privileges inevitably get abused. A good present day example would be Putin's Russia.

Your crime in my example above - well, you cheated on your tax, tax payers money go to pay the war on terror, so consequently you were against, even sabotaging, the war on terror.

Since you refuse to tell the interrogators what they want to hear, you are obviously not cooperating. They even have a witness saying that you have been talking about killing the president. That witness is the husband of the woman you have been shagging on the side for the last year, but since this case will never go to court, there will be nobody around to discredit the witness, who, besides have been given full anonymity.

Bye, bye!

__________________
Any error in tact, fact or spelling is purely due to transmissional errors...

chitown

Far fetched - taxes and terrorism are 2 different things!

Lily

^^I am sorry that I cant green you!

raycarey

can ANYONE provide documented evidence that the US has received actionable intelligence from water boarding and the like?

yeah, i know bush claims quite a bit about kalid sheik mohammed, but considering his difficulties with both the facts and the truth, you'll have to excuse my skepticism.

proof or evidence.....post it here.

Whiteshiva

Farfetched? Perhaps, but it wouldn't have been the first time the US have gotten a suspected terrorist locked up on tax evation charges.....

Norton

That was all they could manage with old Scarface, Al Capone.

Whiteshiva

Glad to see that someone paid attention in class!

Texpat

doesn't that just piss you off?

raycarey

that type of militarist theater/propaganda should 'piss off' any american.

Norton

If I'm not mistaken he is still on active duty and it is customary for active duty military to wear their uniforms in "formal" situations.

Texpat

Yes, Norty, but Raybaby has his knickers in a twist every time he sees a military man in uniform.

He can't even stand the thought of it. Deep psychological scars, probably.

raycarey

hardly. in most cases it's simply amusing. in fact, i'm still waiting for the video or photo of you prancing around the issan countryside in your costume to the bemusement of your neighbors last veteran's day. PLEASE post it.

the CIA is supposed to be a civilian (and independent) organization. and as hayden is not required to wear the costume, one has to wonder why he does.

but let's get back on topic.
a quick recap of unanswered questions....

what about the false positives that torture produces?
what about the fact that no evidence has been made available to indicate that US govt's application of torture has been effective?
what about the hundred of death row prisoners that were released because of DNA evidence? and all those people released from guantanamo?
what about the geneva conventions that the US govt signed?
what about the loss of the moral high ground which the US had some claim to?
what about the fact that the army has outlawed waterboarding?

Texpat