Pentagon forbids officer to testify

[Lanya]

 via Wall Street Journal:
   The Bush administration blocked a Marine Corps lawyer from testifying before Congress today that severe techniques employed by U.S. interrogators derailed his prosecution of a suspected al Qaeda terrorist.

    The move comes as the administration seeks to tamp down concerns about detainee policies that flared up after attorney general-designate Michael Mukasey declined to tell senators whether he believes that waterboarding, or simulated drowning of prisoners, constitutes torture. The debate has focused on whether severe interrogation practices, some of which critics consider to be torture, are legal, moral or effective.

    Asked last week to appear before the panel, Col. Couch says he informed his superiors and that none had any objection.

    Yesterday, however, he was advised by email that the Pentagon general counsel, William J. Haynes II, "has determined that as a sitting judge and former prosecutor, it is improper for you to testify about matters still pending in the military court system, and you are not to appear before the Committee to testify tomorrow." Mr. Haynes is a Bush appointee who has overseen the legal aspects of the Pentagon's detention and interrogation policies since Sept. 11, 2001. The email was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. ...

    As reported in a page-one article in The Wall Street Journal, Col. Couch refused to bring charges against Mohamedou Ould Slahi after determining the detainee's incriminating statements had been obtained through what Col. Couch considered to be torture. ...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119448421393585946.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us

[Plane]

Can the Congress pull rank in this situation?

[Michael Tee]

It's nice to read about Col. Couch.  Incredibly, there are still some men of honour left in the U.S. military.  And I'm glad that he's a Marine.  I used to have a very high opinion of the USMC.  Just as the Nazis had to eliminate Gen. Kurt von Schleicher early in their regime and the Chilean junta had to assassinate Gen. Rene Schneider before it could seize power, men like Col. Couch are an obstacle to fascism in Amerikkka and will probably be one of your last lines of defence before the inevitable arrives.

[Seamus]

It's nice to read about Col. Couch.  Incredibly, there are still some men of honour left in the U.S. military.  And I'm glad that he's a Marine.  I used to have a very high opinion of the USMC.  Just as the Nazis had to eliminate Gen. Kurt von Schleicher early in their regime and the Chilean junta had to assassinate Gen. Rene Schneider before it could seize power, men like Col. Couch are an obstacle to fascism in Amerikkka and will probably be one of your last lines of defence before the inevitable arrives.

I'm sorry...  I feel like I'm walking into the middle of a conversation I know little about.  Can I ask you some questions?

Basically, your first line implies that you have a hard time finding men of honour in the U.S. military.  Also, with no reference to the rest of what you said (I admit, I'm very naive about some of this) what is it you find inevitable?

Off the top of my head, I believe that if I had military knowledge and were asked to speak to the Congress, I would.  I would NOT, however, release any information regarding current state of affairs, or release any information that would/could be used against the United States.  But if they wanted my opinion on topics I could discuss, I would.  I would like the "leaders" of our country to be as informed as possible, while maintaining a "need-to-know" status on the security stuff.

Am I missing a chunk of anything?  Thanks.

[Amianthus]

Am I missing a chunk of anything?  Thanks.

I think it's more the "lawyer shouldn't be discussing ongoing litigation" more than anything security related.

You wouldn't expect a state prosecutor from making public his inside information while trying a case against a murderer? I'm pretty sure there are rules against that as well.

[sirs]

Basically, your first line implies that you have a hard time finding men of honour in the U.S. military. 

With time Semus, you'll not that our resident anti-american Canadian finds pretty much zip honor in anything regarding the U.S. military.  Outside of some folks he personally knows, & those who are actually actively fighting against the Presdient or not supporting our current efforts at taking on radical Islamic terrorists, all U.S. military is largely low hanging murderous raping fruit.  HIS words, just applied all together over the plethora of posts he's provided on the subject.  Our soldiers are apparently askin to SS soldiers of Nazi Germany, while the President is a moronic version of Hitler.  Hard to find any honor therem.  You'll note how consistently he refers to anyone that doesn't adopt his midset of how terrible america & its president are, must be by design fascist nazis     

[Plane]

Basically, your first line implies that you have a hard time finding men of honour in the U.S. military. 

With time Semus, you'll not that our resident anti-american Canadian finds pretty much zip honor in anything regarding the U.S. military.  Outside of some folks he personally knows, & those who are actually actively fighting against the Presdient or not supporting our current efforts at taking on radical Islamic terrorists, all U.S. military is largely low hanging murderous raping fruit.  HIS words, just applied all together over the plethora of posts he's provided on the subject.  Our soldiers are apparently askin to SS soldiers of Nazi Germany, while the President is a moronic version of Hitler.  Hard to find any honor therem.  You'll note how consistently he refers to anyone that doesn't adopt his midset of how terrible america & its president are, must be by design fascist nazis     

Lets not keep reminding him.

He may change , and I would not chastise him for evolveing.

[sirs]

My bad.  Sorry, Plane

[Michael Tee]

<<Basically, your first line implies that you have a hard time finding men of honour in the U.S. military.>>

Yes, they've consistently disgraced themselves since Viet Nam.

<<  Also, with no reference to the rest of what you said (I admit, I'm very naive about some of this) what is it you find inevitable?>>

I was speaking mid- to long-term of the inevitable rise to power of a fascist government in the U.S.A., towards which the current Bush administration has taken several giant steps, not the least of which is the legitimization of torture.

<<Off the top of my head, I believe that if I had military knowledge and were asked to speak to the Congress, I would.  I would NOT, however, release any information regarding current state of affairs, or release any information that would/could be used against the United States. >>
 
As far as you are concerned, the U.S. Congress IS the United States.  They are the democratically elected representatives of the people of the United States.  If the executive branch has any objection to your speaking, they (through your superior officers) can forbid you to speak, and if Congress has the balls, they can challenge that order in court on various grounds depending on circumstances, in which case the court will decide.

It is not really your decision as to what information you will or will not give to Congress.  If they ask, you tell.  If ordered not to tell, you obey the order.  If Congress challenges the order legally, you await the decision of the Court.  Despite all the best efforts of the Bush administration, you still live in a nation of laws, not a nation of individuals each making his or her own law for himself or herself.

<<But if they wanted my opinion on topics I could discuss, I would.  I would like the "leaders" of our country to be as informed as possible, while maintaining a "need-to-know" status on the security stuff.>>

As I said, it's not really up to you.

[Plane]

My bad.  Sorry, Plane

Not so bad , but remember we do want opposing points of view to be represented .


Being opposed is irritating, but it is practically the root purpose of this site.


If we loose MT he will be hard to replace , people who agree with me are almost too easy to find .




http://www.biblegateway.com/

Proverbs 27:17

    

 17 As iron sharpens iron,
       so one man sharpens another.

[Plane]

<<Basically, your first line implies that you have a hard time finding men of honour in the U.S. military.>>

Yes, they've consistently disgraced themselves since Viet Nam.

<<  Also, with no reference to the rest of what you said (I admit, I'm very naive about some of this) what is it you find inevitable?>>

I was speaking mid- to long-term of the inevitable rise to power of a fascist government in the U.S.A., towards which the current Bush administration has taken several giant steps, not the least of which is the legitimization of torture.

<<Off the top of my head, I believe that if I had military knowledge and were asked to speak to the Congress, I would.  I would NOT, however, release any information regarding current state of affairs, or release any information that would/could be used against the United States. >>
 
As far as you are concerned, the U.S. Congress IS the United States.  They are the democratically elected representatives of the people of the United States.  If the executive branch has any objection to your speaking, they (through your superior officers) can forbid you to speak, and if Congress has the balls, they can challenge that order in court on various grounds depending on circumstances, in which case the court will decide.

It is not really your decision as to what information you will or will not give to Congress.  If they ask, you tell.  If ordered not to tell, you obey the order.  If Congress challenges the order legally, you await the decision of the Court.  Despite all the best efforts of the Bush administration, you still live in a nation of laws, not a nation of individuals each making his or her own law for himself or herself.

<<But if they wanted my opinion on topics I could discuss, I would.  I would like the "leaders" of our country to be as informed as possible, while maintaining a "need-to-know" status on the security stuff.>>

As I said, it's not really up to you.

I think that the Pentagon willfind itself outranked if it trys to hide much from congress.

[sirs]

My bad.  Sorry, Plane

Not so bad , but remember we do want opposing points of view to be represented .

And with Tee, they're not just opposing, they're literally abusive     

[Michael Tee]

<<I think that the Pentagon willfind itself outranked if it trys to hide much from congress.>>

Yeah, I keep forgetting you still haven't evolved into a full-fledged fascist dictatorship yet.

[Seamus]

<<Basically, your first line implies that you have a hard time finding men of honour in the U.S. military.>>

Yes, they've consistently disgraced themselves since Viet Nam.

This is going to probably be a contentious point, then.  I see our military as a bunch of patriotic men and women fighting for our rights to sit in front of our computers and call our President a weenie if we want.  I see them as patriots who have given of themselves so that we may have more.  They do the will of the Commander in Chief, who in turn is supposed to do what is right for the people while upholding the constitution.  Our military rocks, imo.  Men and Women alike, all trained and ready to serve for the betterment of their country.

<<  Also, with no reference to the rest of what you said (I admit, I'm very naive about some of this) what is it you find inevitable?>>

I was speaking mid- to long-term of the inevitable rise to power of a fascist government in the U.S.A., towards which the current Bush administration has taken several giant steps, not the least of which is the legitimization of torture.

 I readily admit I need to check Webster to correctly define "fascist", but I rather like our three branch and separation of powers setup.

<<Off the top of my head, I believe that if I had military knowledge and were asked to speak to the Congress, I would.  I would NOT, however, release any information regarding current state of affairs, or release any information that would/could be used against the United States. >>
 
As far as you are concerned, the U.S. Congress IS the United States.  They are the democratically elected representatives of the people of the United States.  If the executive branch has any objection to your speaking, they (through your superior officers) can forbid you to speak, and if Congress has the balls, they can challenge that order in court on various grounds depending on circumstances, in which case the court will decide.

It is not really your decision as to what information you will or will not give to Congress.  If they ask, you tell.  If ordered not to tell, you obey the order.  If Congress challenges the order legally, you await the decision of the Court.  Despite all the best efforts of the Bush administration, you still live in a nation of laws, not a nation of individuals each making his or her own law for himself or herself.

<<But if they wanted my opinion on topics I could discuss, I would.  I would like the "leaders" of our country to be as informed as possible, while maintaining a "need-to-know" status on the security stuff.>>

As I said, it's not really up to you.

But it IS.  I am a free American.  If I feel that divulging something would be either against the constitution or against American safety, I would not share it.  Yes, I could go to prison.  Yes, I may be fined.  Yes, the repercussions would be icky to say the least.  But we're talking about what *I* would do.  Speaking about a soldier in our military, I believe he is doing exactly what he should.  He was given a green light, but then was ordered to hold.  Until his superiors tell him his next step, he follows his rules.  At this point in time, his superiors have told him to not speak.  So he shouldn't.

My twelve Euros.

[yellow_crane]

Most of us know the difference between the soldiers and the war, although the Right has striven hard to confuse the separation, since it works in with their contrived usage of patriotism; all politicians and parties have done this, though this Administration has seemed to settle for nothing less than owning patriotism outright.

So here we are, if we are me, against the war, though not against the soldiers.

But if we look at a hypothetical war waged by Canada, the perspective we would have would be from without.   Hence, it becomes harder to separate the Canadian soldiers from their country's rightfully or wrongfully waging it.  We have no emotional connection like they have, so there would be no need to separate them.

Call it the perspective of the local.