The al-Qaeda seven and selective McCarthyism

#1
Although this is not one of the editors at the Washington (Com)post, it is interesting that such an article even appears on its pages--could it be that some of those in the heretofore co-opted media are finally remembering their vital role as journalists in our republic to hold our government (even that of the Anointed One) accountable to the people?

The 'al-Qaeda seven' and selective McCarthyism

By Marc A. Thiessen
Monday, March 8, 2010; 11:22 AM

Would most Americans want to know if the Justice Department had hired a bunch of mob lawyers and put them in charge of mob cases? Or a group of drug cartel lawyers and put them in charge of drug cases? Would they want their elected representatives to find out who these lawyers were, which mob bosses and drug lords they had worked for, and what roles they were now playing at the Justice Department? Of course they would -- and rightly so.

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder hired former al-Qaeda lawyers to serve in the Justice Department and resisted providing Congress this basic information. In November, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Holder a letter requesting that he identify officials who represented terrorists or worked for organizations advocating on their behalf, the cases and projects they worked on before coming to the Justice Department, the cases and projects they've worked on since joining the administration, and a list of officials who have recused themselves because of prior work on behalf of terrorist detainees.

Holder stonewalled for nearly three months. Finally, two weeks ago, he admitted that nine political appointees in the Justice Department had represented or advocated for terrorist detainees, but he failed to identify seven whose names were not publicly known or to directly answer other questions the senators posed. So Keep America Safe, a group headed by Liz Cheney, posted a Web ad demanding that Holder identify the "al-Qaeda seven," and a subsequent Fox News investigation unearthed the names. Only under this public pressure did the Justice Department confirm their identities -- but Holder still refuses to disclose their roles in detention policy.

Americans have a right to this information. One lawyer in the National Security Division of Holder's Justice Department, Jennifer Daskal, has written that any terrorist not charged with a crime "should be released from Guantanamo's system of indefinite detention" even though "at least some of these men may ... join the battlefield to fight U.S. soldiers and our allies another day." Should a lawyer who advocates setting terrorists free, knowing they may go on to kill Americans, have any role in setting U.S. detention policy? My hunch is that most Americans would say no.

Do other lawyers in question hold similarly radical and dangerous views? Without the information Holder is withholding, we cannot know if such lawyers are affecting detainee policy.

Yet for raising questions, Cheney and the Republican senators have been vilified. Former Clinton Justice Department official Walter Dellinger decried the "shameful" personal attacks on "these fine lawyers," while numerous commentators leveled charges of "McCarthyism."

Where was the moral outrage when fine lawyers like John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Jim Haynes, Steve Bradbury and others came under vicious personal attack? Their critics did not demand simple transparency; they demanded heads. They called these individuals "war criminals" and sought to have them fired, disbarred, impeached and even jailed. Where were the defenders of the "al-Qaeda seven" when a Spanish judge tried to indict the "Bush six"? Philippe Sands, author of the "Torture Team," crowed: "This is the end of these people's professional reputations!" I don't recall anyone accusing him of "shameful" personal attacks.

The standard today seems to be that you can say or do anything when it comes to the Bush lawyers who defended America against the terrorists. But if you publish an Internet ad or ask legitimate questions about Obama administration lawyers who defended America's terrorist enemies, you are engaged in a McCarthyite witch hunt.

Some defenders say al-Qaeda lawyers are simply following a great American tradition, in which everyone gets a lawyer and their day in court. Not so, says Andy McCarthy, the former assistant U.S. attorney who put Omar Abdel Rahman, the "blind sheik," behind bars for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. "We need to be clear about what the American tradition is," McCarthy told me. "The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused -- that means somebody who has been indicted or otherwise charged with a crime -- a right to counsel. But that right only exists if you are accused, which means you are someone who the government has brought into the civilian criminal justice system." The habeas lawyers were not doing their constitutional duty to defend unpopular criminal defendants. They were using the federal courts as a tool to undermine our military's ability to keep dangerous enemy combatants off the battlefield in a time of war.

If lawyers who once sought to free captured terrorists are now setting U.S. policy when it comes to the release of Guantanamo detainees, moving terrorists to the United States, trying senior al-Qaeda leaders in civilian courts, and whether to give captured terrorists Miranda rights, then, as Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) put it, the public has "a right to know who advises the attorney general and the president on these critical matters." Only when this information is public can members of Congress judge whether these individuals have properly recused themselves or whether they should be involved in detainee matters at all. The charge of McCarthyism is intended to intimidate those raising legitimate questions into silence. But asking such questions is not McCarthyism. It's oversight.

Marc Thiessen is the author of Courting Disaster and writes a weekly column for The Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../08/AR2010030801742.html?wpisrc=nl_pmheadline
 
#2
As a response to the bit in bold:

Ok, if I locked up most of the population of Brixton violent crime would drop immediatly. I know if I released them many would go on to commit crimes. However, this does not justify them being locked up in the first place; innocent until proven guilty.

Guantanamo has created a legal black hole that makes a mockery of American claims to justice. The most frustrating point is that most are indeed terrorists, but we can do nothing about it. Release them and they will return to the fight. Continue to detain them and undermine everything America supposedly stands for. It should never have been created in the first place and has left a legally toxic legacy.
 
#3
ouyin said:
As a response to the bit in bold:

Ok, if I locked up most of the population of Brixton violent crime would drop immediatly. I know if I released them many would go on to commit crimes. However, this does not justify them being locked up in the first place; innocent until proven guilty.

Guantanamo has created a legal black hole that makes a mockery of American claims to justice. The most frustrating point is that most are indeed terrorists, but we can do nothing about it. Release them and they will return to the fight. Continue to detain them and undermine everything America supposedly stands for. It should never have been created in the first place and has left a legally toxic legacy.
I agree that the policies and procedures for handling detainees were flawed from the beginning but that does not mean there are still not alternatives to the misguided approach of the Attorney General. Of course the point of the story is that it demonstrates the apparent attitude of Holder and others in the current administration that they are above the law and well accepted ethics if attorneys on his staff have had any role in the handling of the detainee cases who were also involved in defending them in their previous private practice.
 
#4
Jan. 20th, 2012 the Mongbus known as the Obama Administration will be gone, Holder and all.
 
#5
jumpinjarhead said:
I agree that the policies and procedures for handling detainees was flawed from the beginning but that does not mean there are still not alternatives to the misguided approach of the Attorney General. Of course the point of the story is that it demonstrates the apparent attitude of Holder and others in the current administration that they are above the law and well accepted ethics if attorneys on his staff have had any role in the handling of the detainee cases who were also involved in defending them in their previous private practice.
[My bold in your quote] I believe you'll find that the previous administration also considered itself "above the law" by creating Gitmo in the first place. The present administration has thus been placed in an impossible situation. And all by a psycho who thought the US Constitution was "just a piece of goddamn paper".

MsG
 
#6
Goldbricker said:
Jan. 20th, 2012 the Mongbus known as the Obama Administration will be gone, Holder and all.
Goldbricker:

Sad news I am afraid. The date will be Jan 20th, 2013.

Like the bumpers stickers say "Jan 20, 2013, End of an error"

It is important to note that the terms "McCarthyite" "Rascist" and Anti-semetic" are only used when a conservative starts to win an argument with a liberal.
 
#7
I've spent decades listening to Americans boasting about how their country is run on the principles of freedom and democracy. It's been a nice change to see the truth revealed since 9/11.

Americans are a bunch of fascists. You always have been and you always will be. You can't even take on the idea of how civilised legal representation works. You think you have the right to go anywhere you like in the world to kill and arrest whoever you want, and to hell with laws that have taken a thousand years of struggle to gain and protect. Stringing people up from tree branches or throwing them in jail because you don't like their faces is just about your style.

Except, of course, that America thinks big. Raining thousands of tonnes of bombs down on a neutral little country like Cambodia is where your defence industries make their profits, right? Or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Iran, or whichever country is next in your collective paranoid psyche.

What the British are doing associating themselves with you I can't imagine. We used to be quite a classy bunch, once.

And why the hell Australia is killing Muslim children in the 'Ghan when we live next door to 230 million Muslims is beyond my understanding.

At any event, do please keep on posting in this forum. You're an example to us all.
 
#8
DavidBOC said:
Goldbricker said:
Jan. 20th, 2012 the Mongbus known as the Obama Administration will be gone, Holder and all.
Goldbricker:

Sad news I am afraid. The date will be Jan 20th, 2013.

Like the bumpers stickers say "Jan 20, 2013, End of an error"

It is important to note that the terms "McCarthyite" "Rascist" and Anti-semetic" are only used when a conservative starts to win an argument with a liberal.
I think you'll find that's Racist and anti-semitic, but congratulations, you got McCarthyite correct. Although what that's got to do with this argument I'm not really sure.
 
#9
Bugsy said:
jumpinjarhead said:
I agree that the policies and procedures for handling detainees was flawed from the beginning but that does not mean there are still not alternatives to the misguided approach of the Attorney General. Of course the point of the story is that it demonstrates the apparent attitude of Holder and others in the current administration that they are above the law and well accepted ethics if attorneys on his staff have had any role in the handling of the detainee cases who were also involved in defending them in their previous private practice.
[My bold in your quote] I believe you'll find that the previous administration also considered itself "above the law" by creating Gitmo in the first place. The present administration has thus been placed in an impossible situation. And all by a psycho who thought the US Constitution was "just a piece of goddamn paper".

MsG
You again use too broad a brush. I am on record beyond this thread that the previous administration was wrong in its policies regarding classification of detainees as combatants first and then whether "lawful" of "unlawful" that in turn led to errors in the way some detainees were interrogated etc. This does not, however, meant that putting them at Guantanamo was "illegal." The point of this thread and my comments , however, have less to do with the relative culpability of one administration or the other than the current situation where the chief law enforcement officer of the US and his and-picked staff of lawyers appear (we do not know for sure since the needed information is being withheld in contravention of applicable ethics rules for lawyers in the US as well as the very policies recently announced by Holder Linkyand the Anointed One Linkyabout presumptive disclosure of government information)
If you will take the time to review the law as it related to the issues about the extent of rights available to foreign nationals (not basic human rights under Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions but the full panoply of rights available to criminal defendants in civilian federal court system once they are on US "soil") you will find the decision to put them at Guantanamo was clearly within the then-existing law (statutes and case law).

I think you (and others who have said similar things) have taken at face value the PR propaganda campaign against the Guantanamo facility that was run humanely and in accordance with applicable international norms as numerous inspections by the ICRC, EU, US and other agencies have confirmed. The interrogations are another matter and should be analyzed separately. The problem of where to put these detainees and how to try them is extremely difficult as reflected in the fact that many of the home nations of the detainees would not take them and in the difficulty that even the Obama administration is having in coming up with a viable alternative. Also, if you will research the current debate among scholars and governments you will see that the international law in this area is now in flux since the traditional norms embodied in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 2 subsequent protocols are based on principles (sovereignty etc.) that are not present in the new model of warfare involving parties that are not nation states.
 
#10
littlejim said:
I've spent decades listening to Americans boasting about how their country is run on the principles of freedom and democracy. It's been a nice change to see the truth revealed since 9/11.

Americans are a bunch of fascists. You always have been and you always will be. You can't even take on the idea of how civilised legal representation works. You think you have the right to go anywhere you like in the world to kill and arrest whoever you want, and to hell with laws that have taken a thousand years of struggle to gain and protect. Stringing people up from tree branches or throwing them in jail because you don't like their faces is just about your style.

Except, of course, that America thinks big. Raining thousands of tonnes of bombs down on a neutral little country like Cambodia is where your defence industries make their profits, right? Or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Iran, or whichever country is next in your collective paranoid psyche.

What the British are doing associating themselves with you I can't imagine. We used to be quite a classy bunch, once.

And why the hell Australia is killing Muslim children in the 'Ghan when we live next door to 230 million Muslims is beyond my understanding.

At any event, do please keep on posting in this forum. You're an example to us all.
I so appreciate your encouragement for posting. I was on the cusp of quitting but now my spirit is renewed. Many thanks Little Jim.
 
#12
littlejim said:
I've spent decades listening to Americans boasting about how their country is run on the principles of freedom and democracy. It's been a nice change to see the truth revealed since 9/11.

Americans are a bunch of fascists. You always have been and you always will be. You can't even take on the idea of how civilised legal representation works. You think you have the right to go anywhere you like in the world to kill and arrest whoever you want, and to hell with laws that have taken a thousand years of struggle to gain and protect. Stringing people up from tree branches or throwing them in jail because you don't like their faces is just about your style.

Except, of course, that America thinks big. Raining thousands of tonnes of bombs down on a neutral little country like Cambodia is where your defence industries make their profits, right? Or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Iran, or whichever country is next in your collective paranoid psyche.

What the British are doing associating themselves with you I can't imagine. We used to be quite a classy bunch, once.

And why the hell Australia is killing Muslim children in the 'Ghan when we live next door to 230 million Muslims is beyond my understanding.

At any event, do please keep on posting in this forum. You're an example to us all.
Lead us in a song Bolshevik ********......

Arise, ye workers from your slumber,
Arise, ye prisoners of want.
For reason in revolt now thunders,
and at last ends the age of cant!
Away with all your superstitions,
Servile masses, arise, arise!
We'll change henceforth the old tradition,
And spurn the dust to win the prize!
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.
 
#13
jumpinjarhead said:
Although this is not one of the editors at the Washington (Com)post, it is interesting that such an article even appears on its pages--could it be that some of those in the heretofore co-opted media are finally remembering their vital role as journalists in our republic to hold our government (even that of the Anointed One) accountable to the people?

The 'al-Qaeda seven' and selective McCarthyism

By Marc A. Thiessen
Monday, March 8, 2010; 11:22 AM

Would most Americans want to know if the Justice Department had hired a bunch of mob lawyers and put them in charge of mob cases? Or a group of drug cartel lawyers and put them in charge of drug cases? Would they want their elected representatives to find out who these lawyers were, which mob bosses and drug lords they had worked for, and what roles they were now playing at the Justice Department? Of course they would -- and rightly so.

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder hired former al-Qaeda lawyers to serve in the Justice Department and resisted providing Congress this basic information. In November, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Holder a letter requesting that he identify officials who represented terrorists or worked for organizations advocating on their behalf, the cases and projects they worked on before coming to the Justice Department, the cases and projects they've worked on since joining the administration, and a list of officials who have recused themselves because of prior work on behalf of terrorist detainees.

Holder stonewalled for nearly three months. Finally, two weeks ago, he admitted that nine political appointees in the Justice Department had represented or advocated for terrorist detainees, but he failed to identify seven whose names were not publicly known or to directly answer other questions the senators posed. So Keep America Safe, a group headed by Liz Cheney, posted a Web ad demanding that Holder identify the "al-Qaeda seven," and a subsequent Fox News investigation unearthed the names. Only under this public pressure did the Justice Department confirm their identities -- but Holder still refuses to disclose their roles in detention policy.

Americans have a right to this information. One lawyer in the National Security Division of Holder's Justice Department, Jennifer Daskal, has written that any terrorist not charged with a crime "should be released from Guantanamo's system of indefinite detention" even though "at least some of these men may ... join the battlefield to fight U.S. soldiers and our allies another day." Should a lawyer who advocates setting terrorists free, knowing they may go on to kill Americans, have any role in setting U.S. detention policy? My hunch is that most Americans would say no.

Do other lawyers in question hold similarly radical and dangerous views? Without the information Holder is withholding, we cannot know if such lawyers are affecting detainee policy.

Yet for raising questions, Cheney and the Republican senators have been vilified. Former Clinton Justice Department official Walter Dellinger decried the "shameful" personal attacks on "these fine lawyers," while numerous commentators leveled charges of "McCarthyism."

Where was the moral outrage when fine lawyers like John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Jim Haynes, Steve Bradbury and others came under vicious personal attack? Their critics did not demand simple transparency; they demanded heads. They called these individuals "war criminals" and sought to have them fired, disbarred, impeached and even jailed. Where were the defenders of the "al-Qaeda seven" when a Spanish judge tried to indict the "Bush six"? Philippe Sands, author of the "Torture Team," crowed: "This is the end of these people's professional reputations!" I don't recall anyone accusing him of "shameful" personal attacks.

The standard today seems to be that you can say or do anything when it comes to the Bush lawyers who defended America against the terrorists. But if you publish an Internet ad or ask legitimate questions about Obama administration lawyers who defended America's terrorist enemies, you are engaged in a McCarthyite witch hunt.

Some defenders say al-Qaeda lawyers are simply following a great American tradition, in which everyone gets a lawyer and their day in court. Not so, says Andy McCarthy, the former assistant U.S. attorney who put Omar Abdel Rahman, the "blind sheik," behind bars for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. "We need to be clear about what the American tradition is," McCarthy told me. "The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused -- that means somebody who has been indicted or otherwise charged with a crime -- a right to counsel. But that right only exists if you are accused, which means you are someone who the government has brought into the civilian criminal justice system." The habeas lawyers were not doing their constitutional duty to defend unpopular criminal defendants. They were using the federal courts as a tool to undermine our military's ability to keep dangerous enemy combatants off the battlefield in a time of war.

If lawyers who once sought to free captured terrorists are now setting U.S. policy when it comes to the release of Guantanamo detainees, moving terrorists to the United States, trying senior al-Qaeda leaders in civilian courts, and whether to give captured terrorists Miranda rights, then, as Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) put it, the public has "a right to know who advises the attorney general and the president on these critical matters." Only when this information is public can members of Congress judge whether these individuals have properly recused themselves or whether they should be involved in detainee matters at all. The charge of McCarthyism is intended to intimidate those raising legitimate questions into silence. But asking such questions is not McCarthyism. It's oversight.

Marc Thiessen is the author of Courting Disaster and writes a weekly column for The Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../08/AR2010030801742.html?wpisrc=nl_pmheadline
My cautious optimism about the Washington (Com)post having found its journalistic voice again is tempered by this rejoinder that largely misses the point of the concerns being expressed about the ethical issues raised within the Justice Department. Instead the writer returns to the DC political playbook and attacks some of the more outspoken people who are asking for a meaningful response from Justice.

'Al-Qaeda 7' smear campaign is an assault on American values

By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, March 9, 2010

The word "McCarthyism" is overused, but in this case it's mild. Liz Cheney, the former vice president's ambitious daughter, has in her hand a list of Justice Department lawyers whose "values" she has the gall to question. She ought to spend the time examining her own principles, if she can find them.



A group that Liz Cheney co-chairs, called Keep America Safe, has spent the past two weeks scurrilously attacking the Justice Department officials because they "represented or advocated for terrorist detainees" before joining the administration. In other words, they did what lawyers are supposed to do in this country: ensure that even the most unpopular defendants have adequate legal representation and that the government obeys the law.

Liz Cheney is not ignorant, and neither are the other co-chairs of her group, advocate Debra Burlingame and pundit William Kristol, who writes a monthly column for The Post. Presumably they know that "the American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams' representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre" -- in other words, older than the nation itself.

That quote is from a letter by a group of conservative lawyers -- including several former high-ranking officials of the Bush-Cheney administration, legal scholars who have supported draconian detention and interrogation policies, and even Kenneth W. Starr -- that blasts the "shameful series of attacks" in which Liz Cheney has been the principal mouthpiece. Among the signers are Larry Thompson, who was deputy attorney general under John Ashcroft; Peter Keisler, who was acting attorney general for a time during George W. Bush's second term; and Bradford Berenson, who was an associate White House counsel during Bush's first term.

"To suggest that the Justice Department should not employ talented lawyers who have advocated on behalf of detainees maligns the patriotism of people who have taken honorable positions on contested questions," the letter states.
ad_icon

But maligning is apparently the whole point of the exercise. The smear campaign by Cheney, et al., has nothing to do with keeping America safe. It can only be an attempt to inflict political damage on the Obama administration by portraying the Justice Department as somehow "soft" on terrorism. Even by Washington's low standards, this is unbelievably dishonest and dishonorable.

"Whose values do they share?" a video on the group's Web site ominously asks. The answer is obvious: the values enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

The most prominent of the nine Justice officials, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, represented Osama bin Laden's driver, Salim Hamdan, in a case that went to the Supreme Court. In a 5-to-3 decision, the court sided with Hamdan and ruled that the Bush administration's military tribunals were unconstitutional. Are Liz Cheney and her pals angry that Katyal was right? Or do they also question the "values" and patriotism of the five justices who voted with the majority?

The letter from the conservative lawyers points out that "in terrorism detentions and trials alike, defense lawyers are playing, and will continue to play, a key role." It notes that whether terrorism suspects are tried in civilian or military courts, they will have access to counsel -- and that Guantanamo inmates, even if they do not face formal charges, have a right to habeas corpus review of their detention. It is the federal courts -- not defense lawyers -- that have made all of this crystal clear. If Cheney and her group object, they should prepare a blanket denunciation of the federal judiciary. Or maybe what they really don't like is that pesky old Constitution, with all its checks, balances and guarantees of due process. How inconvenient to live in a country that respects the rule of law.

But there I go again, taking the whole thing seriously. This is really part of a death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy to wound President Obama politically. The charge of softness on terrorism -- or terrorist suspects -- is absurd; Obama has brought far more resources and focus to the war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan than the Bush-Cheney administration cared to summon. Since Obama's opponents can't attack him on substance, they resort to atmospherics. They distort. They insinuate. They sully. They blow smoke.

This time, obviously, they went too far. But the next Big Lie is probably already in the works. Scorched-earth groups like Keep America Safe may just be pretending not to understand our most firmly established and cherished legal principles, but there is one thing they genuinely don't grasp: the concept of shame.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...aign=Feed:+kow-reading+(Kings+of+War-Reading)
 
#14
jumpinjarhead said:
If you will take the time to review the law as it related to the issues about the extent of rights available to foreign nationals (not basic human rights under Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions but the full panoply of rights available to criminal defendants in civilian federal court system once they are on US "soil") you will find the decision to put them at Guantanamo was clearly within the then-existing law (statutes and case law).
Which is completely irrelevant as, oddly enough, US Federal law doesn't apply outside the US.
It's quite simple really: they're either POWs, and should be treated as such, or; they criminals and should be treated in accordance with the local legal system.
Would you like it if foreign nations decided to implement their laws in the US?
 
#15
ottar said:
jumpinjarhead said:
If you will take the time to review the law as it related to the issues about the extent of rights available to foreign nationals (not basic human rights under Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions but the full panoply of rights available to criminal defendants in civilian federal court system once they are on US "soil") you will find the decision to put them at Guantanamo was clearly within the then-existing law (statutes and case law).
Which is completely irrelevant as, oddly enough, US Federal law doesn't apply outside the US.
It's quite simple really: they're either POWs, and should be treated as such, or; they criminals and should be treated in accordance with the local legal system.
Would you like it if foreign nations decided to implement their laws in the US?
Hardly irrelevant old man. Other posters and I have said the US (as should all nations) should be a nation of laws--under our Constitution that means US law as well as international law under certain circumstances. You over-simplify the issue of determining POW status and conflate that with the separate issue of dealing with crimes committed by detainees, whether POWs or otherwise. As for the former category, the relevant international law (and the Uniform Code of Military Justice--the relevant US law) provides for trials of POWs who have committed criminal acts in forums other than those provided for civilians in US federal courts and that is where the US government erred in terms of some of the procedures it developed.

To say, however, that errors were made does not mean, as some have incorrectly argued, that the only alternative is to handle these cases in our civilian system. We have a perfectly good courts martial system that can be used but regrettably, just as those on the left have got it wrong due to prejudice and ignorance of the way the system works, so did the civilian neo-cons in the Bush administration who were largely ignorant of the UCMJ.

As I have previously noted in other threads, some of the most outspoken and effective critics of these policies were, and continue to be, the senior judge advocates of all the US military services who candidly testified to that effect before Congress. Of course, this factual information does not nicely fit the propaganda template of the anti-US crowd (both within and without the US) so it is largely ignored.

While the UK may not have a problem subjecting its own military disciplinary system to outside control as we have seen in numerous cases being effectively overturned by the European Court of Human Rights Linky, the US must be more circumspect about such things. This is so due to both our Constitutional system and hard experience since WWII that shows the US it cannot lightly surrender its sovereignty since there are so many nations that are ready to abuse it due to various motives (jealousy, ideology, politics etc.).
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
msr Current Affairs, News and Analysis 2
E The Intelligence Cell 2
GROWNUPS_BEWARE The Intelligence Cell 0

Similar threads

Latest Threads