Tuesday, June 08, 2004
FIRE RUMSFELD!
It’s No Better at Guantanamo.
More Embarrassment to Come?
What does it take for the Bush administration to fire anyone, even someone as despicable, disgraceful, and shameful as Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, a man who has done more to undermine the standing of the United States, American and allied troops, and the American people than anyone else occupying his current position, or any other, in decades?
Here’s the latest from The Wall Street Journal (“Pentagon Lawyers Question Methods at Guantanamo,” by Greg Jaffe and Jess Bravin [Ed.: Subscription required. Copyright laws, however, allow me to share the article with friends. If you’re my friend and you would like to read the article in full, simply send me an e-mail, and I will forward a copy to you.]):
Some top military lawyers in the Pentagon are questioning the propriety of interrogation techniques currently being employed to question al Qaeda captives at the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, senior defense officials said.
The techniques were contained in an annex to a policy report on interrogations approved by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in April 2003. A March draft of the report, portions of which were reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, said that some uses of pain and psychological manipulation were lawful interrogation techniques and contended that, in any case, President Bush had the constitutional power to disregard laws prohibiting torture if he believed national security so required. […]
Military lawyers, many of whom worked closely in drafting the interrogation rules, have conveyed their concerns to Bush administration officials in the Pentagon, the defense officials said. Their objections to many of the tactics approved for use at Guantanamo illustrate a rift between senior military lawyers and Bush administration lawyers inside the Pentagon about which extreme interrogation measures are legal.
“There’s a divide within the military,” said an officer who recently retired from a position with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “There’s a group that’s more willing to take the more ‘creative’ approach of the [secretary of defense] and the politicos, and then the more conservative” officers who want to hew more closely to the traditional understanding of military and international law, the retired officer said. He himself is among the conservatives. “There’s a term floating around called the ‘revolt of the professionals,’” this officer said.
I for one remain convinced the worst is yet to come.
Fire Rumsfeld! Now.
The Rittenhouse Review |
Copyright 2002-2006 | PERMALINK |
|
|
|
CONTACT |
|
Send E-Mail
JAMES MARTIN CAPOZZOLA
|
|
BIO & STUFF |
|
James Martin (Jim) Capozzola launched The Rittenhouse Review in April 2002, TRR: The Lighter Side of Rittenhouse, HorowitzWatch, and Smarter Andrew Sullivan in July 2002, and Bulldogs for Kerry-Edwards in October 2004. He is also a contributing member of President Boxer.
He received the 2002 Koufax Award for Best Post> for "Al Gore and the Alpha Girls" (published November 25, 2002). Capozzola's record in the Koufax Awards includes two additional nominations for 2002 (Best Blog and Best Writing), three nominations for 2003 (Best Blog, Best Series, and Best Writing), and two finalist nominations in 2004 (Best Blog and Best Writing).
Capozzola’s experience beyond the blogosphere includes a lengthy career in financial journalism, securities analysis, and investment research, and in freelance writing, editing, ghost-writing, and writing instruction.
He earned his bachelor's degree in political science from the University at Albany and a master's in foreign affairs from the University of Virginia.
Capozzola lives in Philadelphia with his bulldog, Mildred.
|
PUBLICATION NOTES |
|
Posts pertaining to site developments, news, and updates are subject to deletion and to withdrawal, and with respect thereto, without notice.
~~~~~
Access to linked articles may require registration or subscription.
~~~~~
Linked articles are subject to expiration at the sole discretion of the original publisher.
~~~~~
Letters received by The Rittenhouse Review are subject to publication in full and with complete citation and attribution, including the sender's mailing and/or e-mail address and/or addresses, unless otherwise specifically requested in writing and at the time of submission.
~~~~~
The publisher reserves the right to confirm the identity and/or identities of each, any, and all correspondents through and by whatever means legal and necessary.
~~~~~
Any and all correspondence received and published hereat is subject to editing by the publisher for content, particularly but with no limitations implied thereto, with respect to vulgarity and other offensive language, and length, at the complete, full, and unhindered discretion of same.
~~~~~
The decision to publish each or any correspondence, if at all, rests solely with the publisher of this site.
~~~~~
The publisher retains copyrights to all original material here published and any submissions here received, including correspondence directed hereto, whether or not published hereat, unless otherwise specified.
~~~~~
Obviously, no provision is here made for immediate comments from readers.
~~~~~
All rights reserved and all that.
|
|
|
LINKS |
|
|
|
|