Try to force those two words together.
On October 4, 2007, Colonel Morris D. Davis resigned as chief prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay, and he has devoted considerable time, ever since, to giving his reasons why. Confessions extracted from defendants under torture were to be admitted as evidence at the trials. This breach of international law in a legal proceeding, Colonel Davis found unconscionable, and it was perhaps the largest single cause of his resignation.
But there were other disagreements. Colonel Davis had been advised by Brigadier General Thomas W. Hartmann, at the Office of Military Commissions, to mount prosecutions that would have political value for the Cheney-Bush administration. In an apparently high-minded conversation, on the other hand, he was informed by William J. Haynes II, the general counsel of the Pentagon, that the Guantanamo trials were meant to become a sort of Nuremberg Trials for our time. Yet this dignified precedent, too, led back to politics and facade. When Colonel Davis pointed out that the Nuremberg Trials sounded like an excellent standard to aim for--adding that some of the Nuremberg defendants had been acquitted, and this was among the facts that lent credibility to the proceedings--his simple reminder was greeted with consternation.
As Davis recalls, "I said to him that if we come up short and there are some acquittals in our cases, it will at least validate the process"; and at that point, Haynes's "eyes got wide and he said, 'Wait a minute, we can't have acquittals. If we've been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can't have acquittals. We've got to have convictions.'"
So Colonel Davis has written editorials and given interviews that expose the rigged system at Guantanamo: a set of procedures corrupted by the intent to use evidence obtained by torture, and, much more (as he sees it), by the constant intervention of supervisory officers outside the system of military justice, functionaries who have in view the political fortunes of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. The latter charge is so exceptional on the face of it that skepticism might be called for in any setting other than that of Cheney-Bush, where such meddling has proved itself the rule.
All of this matters now because Colonel Davis has agreed to testify on behalf of one of the defendants, Salim Ahmed Hamdan.
A spirit far less candid than skepticism--a tone of archness and a misplaced hunt for "human interest"--badly vitiated William Glaberson's February 28 New York Times story "Ex-Guantanamo Prosecutor to Testify for Detaineee." Rightly calling Colonel Davis "one of those critics who will not go away," Glaberson went on to characterize him as a man "willing to turn on the system he helped run." Turncoat is the word that hovers over that sentence, yet the same thing could have been said in different words. The truth is that Colonel Davis risked his career to expose the injustice of a system that paid his salary. How many have the strength to "turn" in quite this way?
Glaberson quotes Colonel Davis's view that he is well situated to unsettle the complacency of the Pentagon "and try to get this fixed"--but then catches him "enjoying some aspects of his new role." No explanation is offered for that curious comment. But Colonel Davis is described, elsewhere in the article, as "provocative," and perhaps the message is clear. The article skirts the edge of saying that a man who holds two opposed views at different times--one of which pits him against his associates--has crossed a line beyond which all bets are off regarding the sobriety and soundness of his character. Yet what were the opposed views? That some of the detainees are dangerous terrorists who ought to be prosecuted with the greatest energy and resourcefulness, but that, in any case, all deserve fair trials, and a foregone conclusion of "all convictions" will serve neither justice nor the interests of the United States. Where exactly is the contradiction?
The Glaberson story is pestered by other peculiarities. Bad editing--Colonel Davis's pre-Guantanamo life drops out of nowhere into paragraph eighteen and is finished in two sentences--supports the bad writing to such an extent that one hardly knows whom to blame. Inexplicably, this report of February 28 omits the fact that, on February 25, the Department of Defense announced the resignation of William J. Haynes II--someone whose disappearance at just this moment might be supposed to give a certain plausibility to Colonel Davis's charges. And when Glaberson tells us that Colonel Davis "suggested darkly that there are 'people at key points in the process, that I just don't know what their allegiance is,'" there is really nothing dark about the suggestion. The main person in question is Susan J. Crawford, the convening authority of the Military Commissions: a protege of Dick Cheney (as Scott Horton described her in a widely available column) and a close associate of David Addington. Now, what was that about "darkly suggested"?
Again, why does Glaberson say that Colonel Davis has "written op-ed pieces" (giving the impression of a publicity seeker) and why does he cite an interview in The Nation (giving the impression of a left-wing constituency) when the most recent and remarkable of Davis's editorials appeared on February 17 in the New York Times? It is entitled "Unforgivable Behavior, Inadmissible Evidence," its subject is "waterboarding," and Glaberson would have done well to ask Colonel Davis what moral consideration determined his use of the word unforgivable.
If we outlive these times, when American liberty is under attack by Americans, and so few in journalism and politics have shown the civic courage exhibited by so many in the judiciary and the armed services, any honor we recover will be owed in large part to officers with names like Batiste and Swift and to judges with names like Taylor, Rodgers, and Walton. Colonel Morris Davis is another of that company, and only a perversion of the idea of news gathering could reduce his protest to an obscure case of office politics.
That should explain the reason that only retired Generals and Admirals speak their mind. Doing so while in uniform is a career ending act. Any wonder why so many GI's are "Quitters"? Quitters such as Col. Davis are HEROS not BOOTLICKERs.
And, it WON'T be pretty...
I think it's entirely possible that Iraq had a more fair justice system under Saddam
Thank you for writing about this. The overall press silence on this subject is deafening!
It is NO coincidence that these 'show' trials are scheduled to run during the six months leading up to the 2008 presidential election. The Rovian republicans are determined to use these death penalty trials of the 'worst of the worst terrorists' to scare American voters into voting for Warminger McCain in the general election.
Senator Clinton, who is widely regaded as strong on defense and security has a chance to beat McCain, but if the democrats nominate inexperienced Obama, they will ensure that the Architect Karl Rove gets another republican elected, using the dirtiest political trick in all of history.
The Bush administration plans to execute these prisoners in Guantanamo death chambers right before the election. The anger against the U.S. that will be stirred around the world and the fear and division in the U.S. created by these trials will have a HUGE impact on the general election.
The press should examine NOW how this will impact the general election, while democratic primary voters still have a chance to nominate Senator Clinton, the only candidate who can possibly beat McCain after this spectacle plays non-stop from March through November.
If this exposes the intention kangaroo court at the expense of what's left of our international standing, so be it.
This is what happens when scumbags like bush and cheney try to game the system, it sticks to the bottom of their shoe like the dogshit that it is.
Any word on whether the gag order on Australian, David Hicks, has been lifted yet?
I'd be really curious to hear what he has to say about the deal that cheney made with howard to get his release.
Dave McGlaughlin Harrisburg, Pa.
1) Is about to retire anyway?
2) Did he previously say that sympathy for the detainees is nauseating?
We must not forget these things and force the prosecution of all involved. If we can bring back someone to uphold the Constitution this November, we can show the world that America is not what it now appears.
Gen.Betryus wrote on in 2004 in suuport of dear leader's reelection campaign.
Guess it's only wrong/suspicious when others do it.
But the Col may not favor the death penalty & might make his opposition to the death penalty know at sentencing proceedings. If the Col asked the lives of the clods who are guilty of treason be spared-the US Court would grant the Col's request for the Col's arguments couldn't be refuted. The Col acts like a moral person.
The whole world knows that Guantanamo is no Nuremburg. I hope that the next administration closes down that farce and returns to real justice.
Imagine if China were whisking away our citizens to a military prison, subjecting them to torture and tribunals that don't actually offer any justice. Many of the people there are innocent, and have just been caught up by an overzealous military. However, because Bush can't admit he's wrong, these people are subject to years of torture and illegal imprisonment. Guantanamo is an international outrage and must end!
www.serveoutloud.blogspot.com
He could not be more out of touch! No wonder, we are going downhill. Then he blabbers about
human rights with the Chinese or Cuba when he has enough dirt in his own front door.
Simply amazing.
I still can't decide if Bush is a moron, a puppet or both. I'm thinking both. Plus a little bit of a*hole thrown in...
www.serveoutloud.blogspot.com
War brings out the worst of everyone. (The blogosphere notwithstanding) Despite events such as My Lai, Abu Ghraib and Haditha, most of the military personnel are honorable, but we can't weed out all of the bad apples.