WP,pg1: Military Lawyers Fought Policy on Interrogations

[DeepModem Mom]

Military Lawyers Fought Policy on Interrogations
JAGs Recount Objections To Definition of Torture

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 15, 2005; Page A01


Three top military lawyers said yesterday that they lodged complaints about the Justice Department's definition of torture and how it would be applied to interrogations of enemy prisoners captured by U.S. forces, the first time they have publicly acknowledged that they objected to the policy as it was being developed in early 2003.

At a Senate hearing yesterday, the judge advocate generals (JAGs) for the Army, Air Force and Marines said they expressed their concerns as the policy was being hashed out at the Pentagon in March and April 2003. Though their letters to the Defense Department's general counsel are classified, sources familiar with them said the lawyers worried that broadly defined, tough interrogation tactics would not only contravene long-standing military doctrine -- leaving too much room for interpretation by interrogators -- but also would cause public outrage if the tactics became known.

"We did express opposition," said Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Romig, the Army's top lawyer. "It was accepted in some cases, maybe not in all cases. It did modify the proposed list of policies and procedures."

Sen. Lindsay O. Graham (R-S.C.), who chaired the Armed Services subcommittee hearing yesterday, said he was concerned that the JAG objections may have fallen on deaf ears, and that the policy that emerged may have opened the door to abuses at U.S. detention facilities around the world.

"If they had listened to you from the outset, we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we've dealt with" over the past two years, Graham said....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071402187.html

[shraby]

1. We're being prepared for the photos

to come...they must be bad.

[Lerkfish]

3. yup. I think they will be very, very very bad.

if we ever get to see them, which I'm growing increasingly doubtful

[wli]

6. they've already been verbally described

The only specific thing I remember was the gang rape of a preteen boy, but they're around and have even been shown to people who even went so far as to say that Bush was the real terrorist and so on. I think Julianne Malveaux was shown them. I think the only thing going on is editing for mass distribution. They're supposed to be released on the 22nd.

[hootinholler]

2. Holy Crap...

They are saying that the administration wanted to do worse things to prisoners than what was actually approved!

God, please I pray they have crossed the line into clear-cut violations of the war crimes act.

-Hoot

[evermind]

4. "proposed list of policies and procedures"

doesn't sound like a few bad apples in the military run amuck, does it?

Sounds more like a decision to torture people emanated from the top of the administration.

[Toots]

5. But it was only a few rogue soldiers who did this and not Policy

That is their story and they're sticking with it. We know it as More LIES and More LIES and More LIES and More LIES and More LIES.