That was Thomas Romig’s view of how Bush administration lawyers—the War Council—treated the rule of law when considering people captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. “If you’re caught as a terrorist, you’re presumed guilty and you have to prove you’re innocent. It was crazy.“ Romig was a major general who was the Army’s judge advocate general from 2001 to 2005. It was this type of conduct and lack of fundamental appreciation of process and legality that cause the trust between uniformed military lawyers and the Bush administration to collapse.
The quintet of lawyers, who called themselves the “War Council,” drafted legal opinions that circumvented the military’s code of justice, the federal court system and America’s international treaties in order to prevent anyone — from soldiers on the ground to the president — from being held accountable for activities that at other times have been considered war crimes.
(my emphasis)
Entries (RSS)
There does not seem to be much substance to Thomas Romig’s view. All you got is a major general who felt pushed aside. I suppose judge advocates are nice people, but they are not combat soldiers. Their notions of due process are not always applicable.
There is curious thing about battlefields that does in fact reduce a lawyer’s notion of legal due process to meaningless mumbo jumbo. You don’t have to worry about anything you say being held against you. YOUR ENEMY KNOWS YOU ARE GUILTY! HE HAS ALREADY PRONOUNCED YOUR SENTENCE!
The only thing that delays execution of your sentence is how good a job you can do of killing your would be executioners before they kill you. When men meet on battlefield, all too often half of them will not walk away. What then keeps men from becoming total savages? It is how sacred they regard their honor. Unfortunately, even those men who fight bravely and honorably made not reqard the treatment of prisoners as a matter that involves their honor.
“Only 6,000 of the 91,000 German prisoners of war survived their captivity and returned home. Already weakened by disease, starvation and lack of medical care during the encirclement, they were sent to labour camps all over the Soviet Union, where most of them died of overwork and malnutrition. A handful of senior officers were taken to Moscow and used for propaganda purposes. Some, including Paulus (the chief German commander), signed anti-Hitler statements which were broadcast to German troops. General Walther von Seydlitz-Kurzbach offered to raise an anti-Hitler army from the Stalingrad survivors, but the Soviets did not accept this offer. It was not until 1955 that the last of the handful of survivors were repatriated.” (from http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-stalingrad)
Did our soldiers treat their prisoners as well as they might have in Iraq and Afghanistan? Perhaps not. Then again one can only imagine how Thomas Romig would have applied our due process standards to the Battle of Stalingrad. Here the Russians fought ruthless Germans invaders with a savagery they latter thought heroic. They gave their prisoners little thought. They merely treated their prisoners with the same respect with which they treated any other political prisoner.
“Tom”:
How many Judges Advocates General do you know? What is your experience with the military legal system? Are you currently or have ever served in the military?
NotNotJayHughes - Don’t try to make me the issue. If you disagree with something I said, prove me wrong.
Otherwise, consider what should be obvious. It takes a considerable amount of education and training to become a lawyer. Even though the military is notorious for assigning people jobs regardless of their training, it does make use of doctors and lawyers as doctors and lawyers. Only in those cases where a lawyer served prior to be becoming a lawyer is he or she likely to have any combat training and/or experience.
That is in fact the case with Romig. See http://washburnlaw.edu/alumni/meetthedean/. Romig served a brief stint as a military intelligence officer.
Oh, PUH-Leeeeeeaz. Liberals want to politicize every decision made by the Bush Adminst and make them seem like the second coming of Nazi Germany. The fact is liberals infest every area of the government, including the military JAG Corp. Guaranteed that guy would not have been made Dean of a law school if he wasn’t a flaming liberal, or a moderate who is burnishing his liberal credentials by dissing the Bush Admin. Also, liberals would have just let all those good ole boy terrorists go to kill some more if they were in charge. I know it. You know it. Only koolaide drinkers like zen don’t know it.
The suggestion that only liberals and disgruntled formers have a problem with the War Council is an attempt to sweep the issue aside.
zen - What is the issue? Do you want soldiers to be policemen? Is really practical to treat terrorists captured by soldiers the same way we treat criminals captured by policemen? You try such nonsense and pretty soon our soldiers will wonder why they should bother taking prisoners.
Don’t forget that the Clinton administration tried to treat Islamic terrorists as criminals. That failed miserably.
That is EXACTLY the problem with the recent Supreme Court decision regarding Gitmo. If they have this constitutional right (and how do non-US citizens have rights under the U.S. Constitution???) to challenge their detention, then the soldiers will be responsible for collecting “evidence” to present to a judge, then this judge, who probably has no military background whatsoever, is going to decide if they’re detention is warranted. So the soldier, who already has to worry about he and his buddies getting shot or blown up, now has to dust for fingerprints too, so to speak? And what evidence is necessary? Does it need to be beyond a reasonable doubt?
Citizen Tom is right…they simply won’t be captured anymore.
The fear that both Tom and Right Field have (burden of evidence upon soldiers) seems completely unfounded, and contradicts the reporting. Any soldier caught in the scenarios you both describe would have access to legal counsel, yes? It is the military lawyers themselves that were raising concerns about the pressure and maneuvering by the White House lawyers. One would have to assume that had the military legal teams shared the fears you express, they certainly would have been the strongest voices for protecting “their own.” But instead, they were the ones protesting.
From the article:
And for Tom,
You say, “Don’t forget that the Clinton administration tried to treat Islamic terrorists as criminals. That failed miserably.”
By what measure do you draw this conclusion? The individuals that bombed the WTC in 1993 are in prison today.
Further, I think there has been a bit of language creep happening in recent years. “Terrorism” suggests attacks upon the public, not engagements with military forces. Again, this is where the “battlefield” also loses it’s context. Just points to consider.
By what measure did the treatment of the first WTC bombers as criminals fail? As they used to say on Saturday night, “Jane, you ignorant slut.” It just allowed al Qaida to send a few bombers to kill thousands, if possible, and then we just chased the actual perps, while the rest sat in their little terrorist camps and plotted 9/11. What ignoramous, besides zen and the other liberal koolaide drinkers, thinks that was a good idea?
Hmmm…I will wait to see what Citizen Tom provides. Though he may, I’m not convinced that he would agree that the criteria we should use to judge crime-fighting successful, would be the complete elimination of crime all-together.
Nor do I think that a rational argument could be made that the wars we are engaged in will ensure no further terror attacks against us. Especially considering that terrorist recruiting has increased since they began.
zen - I see no need to criticize the Judge Advocate General’s corps. It is the news media, not me, who wants such a stupid feud.
In one sense, you are right. We do have decades of experience fighting a threat like al Qaida. However, until the Bush administration, we waited for them to attack us; we did not take the battle to them. In fact, we have relatively little experience, that is successful experience, dealing with the sort of combatants al Qaida puts into the field, homicidal terrorists wearing no uniform and fighting for no recognizable nation. That successful experience began when the Bush administration went after al Qaida.
What we do with al Qaida “soldiers” is a political decision. For good reason, the Geneva Convention does not cover such “soldiers.” If you read the Constitution with any care, you will also find it says nothing about Constitutional protections for foreigners. So what we do with such “soldiers” is a political decision. Congress and the president had worked that out. The Supreme Court should have left well enough alone.
“Mohammed met his captors at first with cocky defiance, telling one veteran CIA officer, a former Pakistan station chief, that he would talk only when he got to New York and was assigned a lawyer — the experience of his nephew and partner in terrorism, Ramzi Yousef, after Yousef’s arrest in 1995.”
BWAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAA!!! At first, Mohammed thought he was gonna be treated like the liberals want him to be treated. Soon, however, he learned that GWB was no little faggot liberal, and he began to spill his guts. Would he have spilled his guts if he was allowed a lawyer, and the writ of habeas corpus, and all the other “rights” idiot liberals [I know, that is redundant] wish to have given him.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/22/america/22ksm.php?page=4
Blame the media if you wish. Disagree with JAG also. But it still doesn’t change the fact that the White House’s War Council sought to pursue means by which to ignore established president — making even the most experienced with the area of law, uncomfortable to put it mildly.
Coerced evidence and hearsay are not criteria for detainment, nor for useful intelligence. Something of which the military and law enforcement also acknowledge, yet the White House knows better.
The Supreme Court, which you also may disagree with, serves a vital role in our system of government. Not liking their decision doesn’t discount their purpose.
Essentially what you are arguing in favor of is the ability to capture and hold anyone, indefinitely, without charges, anywhere in the world, without a voice, and to be tortured, maybe even killed. If you think that is a standard that the framers of the Constitution had in mind, I would strongly disagree.
zen - Based upon a story in the news media, one that presents little factual evidence, you have assumed guilt. I just assume the folks in the White House are a little confused about how to deal with a new situation. I also assume at least someone in the news media wants to provide an audience for advertisers.
I do think we should act in accord with our Constitution, and the Constitution is actually pretty clear about this kind of situation. When a situation requires the use of soldiers, we suspend courtroom procedures. Our Constitution protects the rights of American citizens. It says nothing about anybody else.
There are altogether 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our soldiers certainly did not lock up anywhere near that many people. They put relatively few people in Gitmo.
The White House has been quite particular about who they want to keep locked up. I wish other people were as sensible. As experience has shown, when released, some of the detainees at Gitmo will go right back to trying to kill our people. Why let such people loose?
Actually the White House argued that the Constitution does not explicitly grant even US citizens the right of habeas corpus. Perhaps one of the most twisted distortions of logic ever expressed.
I don’t understand the relevance of how many people have been locked up, or abused, or tortured, or killed while in detainment. One instance is enough to break the law.
If there are no checks and balances (reasons, evidence, charges) for who is being detained, then how do you know the particulars about who the White House wishes to keep locked up? By your own admission, you’ve said that any type of evidence would be impossible to secure. And yet, now you champion the White House for it’s “particulars” about what they’ve done.
zen - If you expect government to be perfect, you are expecting far to much. The fact politicians will sometimes skirt around, if not break, the law is why we should keep government as small as we can. Has the Bush administration attempted to skirt the law? Perhaps. But even when he vehemently disagrees, Bush has respected the court. Is it too much to ask for the court to respect the Constitution?
The reason the numbers are significant should be self-evident. Our military forces are not trying to lock up and hold just anyone. They are being particular.
There are checks and balances. What we are debating is the proper extent of those checks and balances.
I do not expect perfection. But it’s difficult to accept that Bush has shown respect for the law while at the same time attempting to skirt the law. That doesn’t make sense at all. Look at the infamous ’signing statements’ where Bush basically says he acknowledges the law, but is choosing to interpret it in his own was—often at odds with the intention of the legislation. This is precisely where the courts must do their duty—interpret the law. If the administration did not “skirt the law” as you put it, and operate in the grey area, the courts likely wouldn’t need to correct course.
Again, the numbers. You speak as if there is a quota system. Keep the number of detainees below a certain threshold and it shouldn’t draw scrutiny and potentially uncover abuse.
Publication:IBD; Date:Jun 23, 2008; Section:Issues & Insights; Page Number:A18 [dunno what this means, I am re-posting what another re-posted.]
“George W.’s War
No one likes war. War is a horrific affair, bloody and expensive. Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an unconscionable thought. Yet some wars need to be waged, and someone needs to lead. The citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war. It’s up to our leader to convince them. That’s why we call the leader “Commander in Chief.”
George W.’s war was no different. There was lots of resistance to it. Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea. The Commander in Chief had to lobby for legislative approval.
Along with supporters, George W. used the force of his convictions, the power of his title and every ounce of moral suasion he could muster to rally support. He had to assure Congress and the public that the war was morally justified, winnable and affordable. Congress eventually came around and voted overwhelmingly to wage war.
George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support. But in the end, only one European nation helped us. The rest of the world sat on its hands and watched.
After a few quick victories, things started to go bad. There were many dark days when all the news was discouraging. Casualties began to mount. It became obvious that our forces were too small. Congress began to drag its feet about funding the effort.
Many who had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were beginning to speak against it and accuse the Commander in Chief of misleading them. Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot and even a liar. Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance.
As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of the conflict and the casualties. George W.’s popularity plummeted. Yet through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endorsing the struggle.
Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then and there, in overwhelming and total defeat.
At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes. More troops were added and trained. Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals installed.
Then, unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve. Now it was the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and losing support. Victories began to come, and hope returned.
Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just George W.’s good luck. The progress, they said, would be temporary. He knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts.
Then, in the unlikeliest of circumstances and perhaps the most historic example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly defeated. After six long years of war, the Commander in Chief basked in a most hard-fought victory.
So on that historic day, Oct. 19, 1781, in a place called Yorktown, a satisfied George Washington sat upon his beautiful white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the Revolutionary War….”