Pentagon Defies Order to Release Photos; 2,000 Veterans Call for Independent Investigation

7/25/2005 12:23:00 PM

Contact: Charles Sheehan-Miles of Veterans for Common Sense, 202-558-4553 or charles@veteransforcommonsense.org

WASHINGTON, July 25 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Veterans for Common Sense (VCS), a nonpartisan veterans' organization with 12,000 members, called for a commission to investigate torture allegations today, in response to the Pentagon refusal to release photos and videos from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

In an open letter, signed by more than 2,000 veterans and supporters (including 5 flag-rank officers and more than 200 commissioned officers), the veterans urged Congress and the President to "commit -- immediately and publicly -- to support the creation of an independent commission to investigate and report on the detention and interrogation practices of U.S. military and intelligence agencies deployed in the war on terror."

Charles Sheehan-Miles, a 1991 Gulf War veteran and the group's executive director, said, "Once again the administration is fighting to prevent any possible public accountability for its policies, instead choosing to blame it all on the troops. To court-martial privates while high ranking officials get promoted is damaging to the very principle of command responsibility and undermines the U.S. military."

Veterans for Common Sense is co-plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by a coalition of human rights and civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights. The lawsuit has generated thousands of pages of documents in the last year documenting torture, abuse and in some cases murder in U.S. detention centers.

Individuals who have seen the photos and videos, including some members of Congress and journalist Seymour Hersh, have reported they include scenes far worse than anything released from Abu Ghraib thus far, including rape and the videotaped beating of a prisoner. The courts had ordered the Pentagon to release the photos by Friday, July 22, but the Pentagon filed a last minute brief attempting to block their release.

Sheehan-Miles said, "The Pentagon is doing everything it can to prevent the release of these graphic images, because they know that if the U.S. public were to see the true scope of the abuses, the demands for an independent investigation would be too strong to be ignored."

The full text of the letter and list of signers is available at http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org

INTERVIEWS AVAILABLE

ABOUT VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE -- Veterans for Common Sense (VCS) is a non-partisan veterans' organization focused on U.S. national security. Its 12,000 members have served in every U.S. conflict since 1941. Web site: http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org

http://www.usnewswire.com/


/© 2005 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

Signed and fwd to others. Thanks for the heads-up... WS

Snuffy, that's a real stretch calling this organization non-partian. When I google these folks I get over 5,000 hits from web sites which look like the following:
http://www.airamericaplace.com/archive.php...ow&id=10&page=3
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/.../02/24vets.html
http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/vi...october2004.htm
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/inde...Article&ID=1934
http://www.muhajabah.com/islamicblog/archi...oard/009116.php
http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/537/...3_Antiwar.shtml
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ddress=145x1544
http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Veterans
Calling this group non-partisan insults the reader's intelligence, which is one of the reason's the democratic party keeps getting it's self in trouble.

If you look at the original post, the phrase 'non-partisan' is within their words, not Snuffy's. The Democratic Party has nothing to do with the release, or this site, so why are they in trouble for what someone else said?

Well Snuffy posted it and people who by just about anyone's measure are extreme partisans try to purport they are non partisans. I guess if someone can accept these guys as non-partisan then the SwiftBoat Vets were a non-partisan think tank, eh?

I bet we don't hear the democratic party say a thing to set the record straight.

Methinks "twould seem strange some of the same folks cryin' loudly 'cause they feel the Americans were violating the Geneva Conventions now be cryin' loudly because the Geneva Conventions are bein' followed. What's that all about, eh? 'Tis a puzzlement!

Tell us “fly”, is this your way of saying you believe all is as it should have been, when it comes to our governments handling of capturee’s at Abu or Guantanamo.
You’ve seen the photos, and you think this is appropriate?

They, (the democrats), are only in trouble with the right wing folks who have the intent to go on keeping any intelligent conversations from diverting Americans from "their delusional reality". Some one needs to wake these otherwise good Americans up, they need to smell the coffee along with their dose of reality.

Nope! Never said, or even implied that, did I?

Methinks you might be interested in tryin' to mischaracterize what I said, but I just ain't gonna let that old MP trick happen, eh? Best try harder!

They, (the democrats), are only in trouble when they paint themselves into a corner with rhetoric and hyperbole over an issue which if not completed will end up being really bad for the USA.

The republicans have big grins over what you want to do Vaughn.

Just what is it you think I want us to do?

I think in the 'shoot the messenger' way this thread has drifted, we are losing sight of the fact that a court order has demanded the release of these pictures. End of story, no debate. The government is defying the courts. Andy Jackson did that before he shipped the Cherokee to OK. What precedent is set when the executive branch defies the judicial branch? This is what this story is really about, to me.

Methinks that decision is under appeal, eh? 'Twould seem the argument that both the takin' of these pictures and any release of them be in violation of one of the Geneva Conventions, the Third I believe, might just yet hold sway.

The misdeeds of those who grievously mistreated prisoners under their supervision should not be swept under the rug, but methinks further violations ain't the way to get what methinks we all want. Then methinks there's gotta be some consideration, in view of what happened last time, of the unintended consequences if more of these illegal pictures and videos are released in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Is this a vote for censorship, or should some of our most basic rights be adhered too. Since the 2000 election, way to many facts have taken a back seat in the name of preserving democracy, the democracy isn’t worth having if it survives at the expense of the truth.

vfguenley;

If you've read my posts I think you know I agree with your view of the Iraq War. It was a big mistake. I'm gonna stay out of this "When Vets get Mad" back and forth.

But I'm not sure it will be a positive thing for America, and our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to have these photos and videos spread around. I wish that the entire chain of command be called on the carpet, and for them to answer for these outrages. I believe Rummy should resign or be fired. Four stars, and lower should be busted not promoted.

But the response to these photos and outrages will be taken out on our troops. That is my fear.

Just my

Nope! Never said, or even implied that, did I? Methinks 'tis a vote for bein' consistent and enforforcin' our obligations under a treaty we're a signatory too, no matter what our personal ideology or agenda might be.

Again methinks you might be interested in tryin' to mischaracterize what I said, but again I just ain't gonna let that old MP trick happen, eh? Best try lots harder!

Incoming! I'm outta here!

Why? Methinks I'm tryin' awful hard to be nice, eh? See:

Am I being told that our lack in field leadership shouldn’t be discussed in public for fear of negative consequences? ie; censor the facts and hope these transgressions never occur again?

Honor our troops by honoring the truth, this is the American way.

No. Not by me. I'm saying that those in the Chain of Command responsible should be tarred and feathered. Let them be brought before a joint session of Congress. Don't televise it. Then have mass resignations, and Court Marshals!

I don't have the answers vfguenley. You are a vet I take it? If you were on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan, would you want these pictures out right now? You could rightly say that our troops would never do these things, except for a corrupt few, but all will be tainted and blamed.

I could be wrong, and anyway the law should be followed. I'm just worried about the troops in harms way.

I agree that releasing these photos is likely to unleash some serious anti-American fervor that will be felt most by our service people over seas, like it did the first time.

However, if one was to release the photos and sentence and/or punish those responsible...all the way up the chain of command---VERY PUBLICLY, our troops might be safer. But since the Bush Administration is unlikely to take responsibilty in ANY way, this could just turn into a nightmare without any end in sight.

I wonder if there would be a way to do a limited release, such as to just the legislature for creation of new policy or something that would effectively change the way that prisoners are treated without ending up posted on fanatical Islamic websites?

What worries me is how this government wants to selectively follow the international treaties. If it's okay to violate the Geneva Convention when they want to, and pull ourselves out of the World Court, and insist that Americans cannot be charge with war crimes, where does it stop.

It was my impression that the appeal was filed after the court order was to take place. Am I mistaken in this?

I don't know. But if the Pentagon, and White House are defying the law, they should be brought to account!

The troops are in harms way, theoretically to forward and protect the "American way of life", would this “American way of life" include a lying government, or one that believes that honesty is the best policy.

We've got this lying Government, and no they should not be protected from the consequences of their corruption. It's just that the hammer will fall I fear, not on the guilty but on the innocent. The troops are following orders and are trying to make lemonaide out of the Lemon (Iraq) they have been given. 99% would never follow such orders as is represented in these photos. In fact if I was given such an order, I wouldn't want to be that officer (if these are even Military and not "Contractors").

We can be honest, and punish those responsible. But what is wisdom given the likely results of allowing the release of these photos? I don't trust that the guilty will be punished under this administration or Congress. Instead the innocent will suffer.

So what is wisdom?

I don't know.

My thinking, exactly.

That doesn't really matter if we punish those responsible very publically or privately, the military will get tarred with the same brush as the bad apples perpetrating the offenses. The folks have no interest in justice or inhumanity, what they are interested in is proving America is bad.

I can give you an example which was on this forum. One of the forum members what has recently split to a different forum used the image of the prisoner abuse at Abul Grahib as her avatar. It didn't matter to that member that the soldiers responsible got court martialed and sent to jail, what mattered was using the symbolism that America is bad.

Somehow these folks believe if they can prove America is bad we will all suddenly realize we deserved having airplanes flown into our buildings.

That's quite a broad brush Marine. You cited one poster who used that image to make your point. There are idiots in every group or cause (not that I'm calling that poster an idiot). The overwhelming majority of people that I know here, in my life, and on the other forum are sincere people who love their country.

They see the Bush Administration as the ones who are dishonoring and harming America. And I do too.

TROU, I don't think you can deny that there are people using the freedom guaranteed to you and I as a weapon against us. Releasing photographs for the purpose of inciting hatred against our troops, country, and/or government is a reprehensible act in my opinion but some people insist upon doing it because it is their right.

People who do things just because they have a right to do and disregard if it is the right thing to do abuse all our rights.

If their purpose is to incite hatred against us yes, I would agree. However, they may not have that purpose in mind, even if that is the result.

Those who use our freedoms as a weapon against our country are enemies. I have yet to see them here. Even those I am outraged by, I see as my fellow Americans. If I could see into their heart, and I saw what you are saying, I would denounce them, but not silence them.

I have known a few such as you describe in my life. I quickly wanted nothing to do with them.

I can't know the real reason why that poster used the Abu Ghraib scene as an avatar, but my guess is it was used to get a rise out of some military members on this forum. Tacky and underhanded strategy as far as I'm concerned.

There will always be those who are really extreme in their opinions about war and in their methods for advancing those opinions. -it happened during the Vietnam war and now with the Iraq war. But they're not the majority. Maybe that's why they're so noisy and offensive at times, because they are not the majority and they have to work really hard to be heard.

And I think it does matter to the vast majority of Americans that troops responsible for abuses have been and will be held accountable. Some of us do wonder if some of the troops "bosses" should also be held accountable.
What do you think, Marine? Are all those responsible being held accountable or only the troops directly committing the abuses? Where was the oversight by the higher ups? War is super stressful and I would think that troops need guidance and lots of it.

I can understand that military veterans do not want to see the troops experience the same kind of hostility that faced the Nam vets upon their return home. I never understood the hostlity, at all.
I don't think this will happen again. I believe that the vast majority of Americans will just be glad to see our troops back home and those who have lost their lives will be respected for doing their jobs as members of the military. Any other sentiment would be ludicrous, IMO. Most Americans are balanced in their views and the more radical thinkers do not represent their opinions.

I have no idea if anyone is tellin' you that, but methinks if so 'tain't happenin' in this thread, eh? Sorry, can't help you on this!Methinks what worries me even more is that, for whatever reason, some folks (apparently including a few here) and at least one federal court also seem to think it's okay to do the same. Do two wrongs make a right? How do further violations make up for those occurin' in the past?Aren't some Americans already bein' prosecuted under 10 USC Chapter 47 for Geneva Convention violations? Aren't many, including most here, asking for more prosecutions where indicated?

Who is saying 'tis "it's okay to violate the Geneva Convention when they want to", 'cept maybe one federal court and a few here that wanna see more pictures taken in violation of those Conventions distributed in violation of those Conventions? Am I missin' somethin' here?

When did we pull out of the World Court? Methinks you're confusin' it with the newly established international court with far more reachin' powers that many, myself included, feel supersedes national sovereignty while denying the accused rights afforded under our Constitution. Methinks it doubtful even a simple majority of Democrats in the Senate would vote to ratify that treaty.

'Twould seem those in the UK that promoted this new court are now havin' second thoughts now that some of their own troop's cases have apparently been grabbed up by it, eh? Did you notice there've been debates in the British Parliament to withdraw from it now that they've seen the problem?

Can't seem to find any references to those who "insist that Americans cannot be charge with war crimes", could you provide more info please?Methinks you are correct in this. I've no idea why briefs for an appeal were not filed until after the effective date of the court order. Sloppy legal representation perhaps?

One thing you can rest assured about is if an officer somewhere up the chain of command is using his troops as a scapegoat to cover up something he or she authorized it won't stay a secret very long. Some old staff NCO someplace will find out about it and has been around long enough to know who else should find out about it so the appropriate party's butt ends up on the hot seat.

It makes me chuckle to see some of the Vets on this forum who served at most four years some 35 to 40 years ago think they know how life works out in the military, they haven't a clue how things really work in the military.

For them that seem to think nothin's bein' done 'bout the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib methinks you might wanna read "U.S. military dog handlers face Abu Ghraib hearing" from Reuters dated today. 'Twould seem there's still ongoing investigations and judicial proceedin's, eh?

I've always had confidence that those responsible, no matter their rank, will be held accountable for their misdeeds. Thanks for your response, Marine.

,
I think it’s sad for you career soldiers, that after an entire military career, never having to think for yourselfs, you have decided to become politically active and tax your abilities to stand for something outside the military and think things through. You were better off letting the “corp”, "army" or "navy" think for you. For all the years you were on the job, did you spend any time considering how the American political process works. Or are you like most good soldiers, you stayed out of politics. You have placed yourself way above the rest of us “peons” with your “they haven’t got a clue” remark Mr Marine, as if the military is so complex that the rest of us, including those who might have served 2, 3 or 4 years, are not intelligent enough to understand the culture of military life. This is where today’s military and the rest of the career military people are missing the point. The point being that they “work for us”, they are not a stand alone government organization, they are not above any laws, they are responsible to the American voter and citizen, and because of their arrogance and continued culture of ignorance, they are losing support of their boss’s, as these few of many polls indicate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Dec20.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/20/poll/
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/03/iraq.poll/
Because one served a career in the military doesn’t mean squat, it just means this individual never wanted to try themselves in a competitive workplace. Understanding the culture of military life is not rocket science, and understanding the culture of the career soldier will give one a perspective from which to balance the motivations and statements made in this forum by some of it’s more vocal career vets.
The arrogance seen in the statements made by some ex-career soldier's is typical of those who’s mindsets are driven by military thinking. This is normal to the career soldier, it’s trained into them to think they are a cut above, and they are not "debriefed" when they leave the military. They bring the soldiers mindset home and try to apply it to civilian life. This struggle has been expressed many times in this forum, the career guys have a difficult time relating to some of us other vets who might have earned our stripes in a way that displeases the career guy, my strips were "earned" non the less.
Regardless, many of us vets who didn’t make a career of the military think we might have a perspective of current events that is balanced by both our military experience, and our many years of being forced to think for ourselves in the competitive workplace. We can rely on both the experiences of “combat”, the experiences taught by history, and the first hand knowledge of living and voting in a precinct. As these ex-career soldiers try to press their influence around this forum, one needs to keep in mind that even though many of these folks are career vets, their experiences are limited, and their opinions are based on many years of military influence.

I'm thinking of the writing the Gonzalez prepared for Bush that drew so much heat during his confirmation hearings. Arguing how the prohibitions against torture, etc. within the GC didn't apply to the current detainees.


I guess I stand corrected.


I'm just working from memory from what Bush himself said. If I get time, I'll look for links, but today's a busy day, and so is tomorrow.

Methinks that pertained only to "Enemy combatants" like those held at GTMO. Those held at Abu Ghraib, which methinks is what we're talkin' 'bout in this thread, I believe were all considered POW's (according to the Teguba report) and there was no question whether or not Geneva Conventions applied, but I could be wrong.

'Twould seem the fact we've got different categories of detainees complicates talkin' 'bout them. IMHO there is a difference in how they should be treated, but when in doubt methinks they've got to be considered as POW's covered under the Geneva Conventions and treated accordingly.Methinks 'tis truly sad when someone knows so little of what they speak. Even sadder is when they make a public display of their ignorance while showing gross disrespect for the rights and abilities of those they speak of, eh?

FYI I had to do plenty thinkin' for myself durin' my time, whether conning a ship, workin' up a budget, organizin' equipment maintenance, treatin' patients, or a number of other responsibilities I had. Even when workin' in the field small unit tactics required everyone workin' as a team while knowin' when and where to use initiative, eh? My experience with both the Navy and Marines was that automatons were weeded out quickly!

Might be that Army MP's in the Nam were different? From my own experiences with'em they wasn't nice folks at all, eh?

conning a ship” tell me, did you make the decision as where you were going, or when you would be going, tell us all about that freedom to take your vessel anywhere anytime. No orders to follow huh.
Working up a budget, complete and total freedom to buy anything you might deem necessary, just as if it was your money huh, no guts no glory.
Treatin patients, it’s great you didn’t have a protocol to follow, I’m sure the navy preferred it without any rule books to get in the way.
Your initiative was completely without guidelines huh, things like rank or chain of command didn’t mater did they. What about the "SOP" it didn't count? The army mp’s followed the same rule book that has influenced your life these past many years. Then again we didn’t "expletive deleted" when our jeeps came without armor, we did what we could by adding junk yard inventories to our equipment, we didn’t "expletive deleted" when the insurgents threw home made explosive devices at us, we learned to stay on top of the situation, without all the controversy. It’s my opinion that between the draftee’s and the regular army’s soldiers, we were much better fighting representatives of the United States than the whining professionals of today.

I rest my case, eh? Methinks I couldn'ta done a better job showin' my contention be true. IMHO 'tis now time to make a decision, but 'tain't a tough one.

Plonk!

NOPE YOU SURE COULDN'T, IT'S GOOD TO SEE THAT ONCE THE TRUTH HITS YOU, YOUR ABLE TO GET COMFORTABLE WITH IT, THAT ALSO MUST BE S.O.P.

I think, if you're honest, you'll admit most everything in life has rules and restrictions to one degree or another. If you drive a car, use an ATM, work for someone else, walk across the street at an intersection, go to a bar or most anything else I think, if you're honest, you'll admit you're not on your own. Likewise, if you're honest, I think you'll admit the military is no different, except that it's a little more organized. If you're honest I think you'd recognize those of us that retired from it are no different than anyone else, except maybe in some of our experiences.

Is there a reason you decided to take shots at him rather than at what he was saying. Maybe you didn't have a good rebuttal, so you decided to go after the messenger rather than the message? From what I've seen lurking here and in the past you've probably earned your way onto his ignore list.

I'd also agree that this whole Abu Ghraib picture discussion has gotten a little confusing and convoluted. Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are two entirely different situations with two entirely different type populations. I think each has to be discussed on it's own merits, but then that's just my opinion.

Those who have committed misdeeds should be prosecuted for them, and if found guilty should pay a high price. At the same time they should be given the same consideration under the law as anyone else, and presumed innocent until proven guilty. Of course I'm just a dumb grunt, so please take my opinions with that in mind.

[QUOTE]FYI I had to do plenty thinkin' for myself durin' my time, whether conning a ship, workin' up a budget, organizin' equipment maintenance, treatin' patients, or a number of other responsibilities I had. Even when workin' in the field small unit tactics required everyone workin' as a team while knowin' when and where to use initiative, eh? My experience with both the Navy and Marines was that automatons were weeded out quickly!
Semperfi, and anyone else who cares to read. Who’s chain are we trying to pull here, this is stated as if some soldiers were granted full authority over the “Standard Operating Procedure”, how far from real is that? Automatons weeded out, it’s this function of automatically following orders that is fundamental to the successful operations of any military, from E-1 to E-9 and through O-13 it’s the same, everyone follows orders. To try and sell us on the idea that the military is a hotbed of training to become independent is ludicrous. Sure it is a good thing when people can think on their feet, so long as they are thinking in military terms and from a strict military perspective. The discussion here is about how transparent we think our government should be while dealing with controversial subjects such as releasing photos of our people messing things up, to be polite. It is my position that we Americans should always, with a few exceptions concerning national security if the exceptions are real and verifiable, conduct the business of our government in a transparent way. Our friend “flydangler” is trying to belittle my experience and call me ignorant for taking the opposite view. Say what you will, my experience is what it is and I call it like I see it, from an ex-military mans combat influenced perspective. I didn’t just fall off the proverbial turnip truck, (a deuce and a half maybe, but no turnips), I came by this perspective after two tours in a combat zone at a point in time when combat was taking 400 plus American lives a week. We should never allow ourselves to fall into the trap of lying to ourselves and others, that in some way our form of government would benefit from censoring selected subject matter for any reason what so ever. Since we are not fighting the Russian Communists any longer, or the Eastern Block in general, (who did hold the capacity to end it all for us and everyone else, guess they still do don't they), maybe some concern for the Chinese maybe not, there should be very little need to classify these types of materials. Our government was founded and based on the principles of being transparent on every level, it would be a bad precedent to allow another knee-jerk reaction to influence our future negatively. All that the military is trying to accomplish with this form of censorship is save themselves from further embarrassment while trying to not stir up any more controversy. Controversy is good for our military, maybe they’ll spend a little more time in the process of keeping their “ducks lined up”. If mistakes hadn’t been made, this discussion wouldn’t be happening.
As an MP in a combat zone, one of my many duties back in the day, was to deal with captured enemies. We used the Army field manual as our rule book, we had very few problems interpreting the rules of conduct, it was in black and white in a manual, why would we need a new set of rules?

Vaughn, you prove my point you haven't a clue about how the military functions with above referenced post. Especially since your "experience" is limited to a military which ceased to exist when the draft went away.

Let me guess Vaughn, where did you top out on rank? With 4 years, maybe an E-5 Sergeant if you kept you nose clean and were generally a good soldier as I guess you were. You were still a boot when it comes to knowing about military life and how things worked. You didn't go to Staff NCO school did you? How about any advanced leadership training? Didn't know any assistant division commanders from when they was still a Second Leiutenant did you? I could give you a multitude of additional examples which you only get from being there; but you know something? It probaly still wouldn't matter to you because you still don't have a clue.

Read it and weep. As most of us suspected, it was not the military that wanted our values as a country tarnished but the "bully boys" in the Bush Administration. I only hope that one day we will have a full, independent investigation into this sorry affair and that all of those who are responsible for these egregious actions are held accountable, not just a few grunts that have been set up to take the fall.

The majority of those in the military, like the people in this story, deserve to have the cloud of suspicion lifted from them and it won't happen until all of the information comes out. The cowards in the Bush administration are hiding behind the military and anything that they can use. They are willing to sacrifice the honor of those in the military in order to avoid taking responsiblity. Shame on all of them.

July 28, 2005
Military's Opposition to Harsh Interrogation Is Outlined
By NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON, July 27 - Senior military lawyers lodged vigorous and detailed dissents in early 2003 as an administration legal task force concluded that President Bush had authority as commander in chief to order harsh interrogations of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, newly disclosed documents show.

Despite the military lawyers' warnings, the task force concluded that military interrogators and their commanders would be immune from prosecution for torture under federal and international law because of the special character of the fight against terrorism.

In memorandums written by several senior uniformed lawyers in each of the military services as the legal review was under way, they had urged a sharply different view and also warned that the position eventually adopted by the task force could endanger American service members.

The memorandums were declassified and released last week in response to a request from Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. Mr. Graham made the request after hearings in which officers representing the military's judge advocates general acknowledged having expressed concerns over interrogation policies.

The documents include one written by the deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force, Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, advising the task force that several of the "more extreme interrogation techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic criminal law" as well as military law.

General Rives added that many other countries were likely to disagree with the reasoning used by Justice Department lawyers about immunity from prosecution. Instead, he said, the use of many of the interrogation techniques "puts the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusations abroad."

Any such crimes, he said, could be prosecuted in other nations' courts, international courts or the International Criminal Court, a body the United States does not formally participate in or recognize.

Other senior military lawyers warned in tones of sharp concern that aggressive interrogation techniques would endanger American soldiers taken prisoner and also diminish the country's standing as a leader in "the moral high road" approach to the laws of war.

The memorandums provide the most complete record to date of how uniformed military lawyers were frequently the chief dissenters as government officials formulated interrogation policies.

"These military lawyers were clearly disturbed by the proposed techniques that were deviations from past practices that were being advocated by the Justice Department," said Senator Graham, himself a former military lawyer.

He said that the genesis of the dispute was a memorandum issued in August 2002 by the Justice Department and signed by Jay S. Bybee, the head of the office of legal counsel.

The Bybee memorandum defined torture extremely narrowly and said Mr. Bush could ignore domestic and international prohibitions against it in the name of national security. That position was rescinded by the Justice Department last Dec. 30.

Rear Adm. Michael F. Lohr, the Navy's chief lawyer, wrote on Feb. 6, 2003, that while detainees at Guantánamo Bay might not qualify for international protections, "Will the American people find we have missed the forest for the trees by condoning practices that, while technically legal, are inconsistent with our most fundamental values?"

Brig. Gen. Kevin M. Sandkuhler, a senior Marine lawyer, said in a Feb. 27, 2003, memorandum that all the military lawyers believed the harsh interrogation regime could have adverse consequences for American service members. General Sandkuhler said that the Justice Department "does not represent the services; thus, understandably, concern for service members is not reflected in their opinion."

Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Romig, the Army's top-ranking uniformed lawyer, said in a March 3, 2003, memorandum that the approach recommended by the Justice Department "will open us up to criticism that the U.S. is a law unto itself."

The confidential government deliberations over permissible interrogation techniques that ranged from August 2002 to April 2003 were prompted by a request from officers at Guantánamo. They said traditional practices were proving ineffective against one detainee, Mohamed al-Kahtani, believed to have been the planned 20th hijacker on Sept. 11, 2001. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a series of techniques in December 2002, only to rescind them temporarily after military lawyers complained.

Mr. Rumsfeld ordered a study by the legal task force, led by Mary Walker, the Air Force general counsel. When the Walker task force issued its report on March 6, 2003, it largely adopted the Justice Department's view.

Senator Graham said, however, that Mr. Rumsfeld subsequently learned of the military lawyers' objections and that became a factor in his decision on April 16, 2003, to limit the permitted interrogation techniques.

Ex-Warden Tells of Use of Dogs

FORT MEADE, Md., July 27 (AP) - The former warden of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq testified Wednesday that he attended a meeting in which the commander of the Guantánamo prison recommended using military dogs for interrogation.

The former warden, Maj. David Dinenna, testified at the end of a preliminary hearing for two Army dog handlers accused of abusing Iraqi detainees. Major Dinenna said that at a meeting in September 2003, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, then the Guantánamo commander, talked about the effectiveness of using the dogs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/politics...agewanted=print

I understand where vfguenley is coming from. I have watched for months Vets on this board stalked and belittled by the career vets. It breaks my heart. I am a mother of a very high ranking highly decorated career military. With the exception of Afghanistan he has been involved with every major conflict this country has been in for twenty years. I love and respect him very much. In those twenty years he has not expeienced what those Vietnam Vets did in four years.

No vfguenley probably didn't attend those meetings. He was probably out dodging bullets and fighting for his survival. How can you judge another man's war? Unless you went on every mission, served under the same commander, served with the same soldiers, experienced the same atrocities, you can't. Have you had your best friends brains and body parts decorate the uniform you're wearing? Many of these vets have. No matter how many years you guys served in the military you have no right to marginalize thier service.

I've read the posts both here and top. They have been called anti American, Communists, Marxist, phycos,etc.

The sad thing is I think both groups love their country. The career guys believe what has been drummed into their brains all these years. You can't speak out against a war when you have soildiers dieing. When can you speak out? How many have to die before you can speak out? What if your government never decides enough have died? Do we allow them to die forever?

They believe their Government has lied to them and use the troops whose only value to that government is colateral damage. Why are they so vocal? They are fighting to keep other soldiers from from going through what they did. They want them home and in one piece. Why do they post the negative stuff? Because it exsists. They are trying to open your eyes.

Why do they have a problem with career military? Maybe because they treat them as lesser than. They belittle them. They constantly tell them they have no value. Want proof? Go back and read all your old posts. It's there.

Ignore the spelling. I'm upset.

Wow! Now that's one hell of a solid posting that comes from one's heart and soul! You really delivered the message square on wliberty!

When you said "They are trying to open your eyes" let me add this if I may. For myself, I am only trying to open the eyes of the sheeple who are buying into this propaganda being spread around. As for the ones who are spreading the progaganda, no, I am not trying to open their eyes at all.... for I know and understand where their brain matter is. It's too far gone... brainwashed.... locked step right behind the Bush regime policies. There's no changing of those minds, and not even worth the effort...my opinion. It's the sad sheeple that I worry about because when it all comes to a mean head one day, these poor sheeple will be totally lost in their own sadness and sorrow. Their faked out little worlds will come crashing down on them so hard.... it will hurt them badly. I do not worry so much about how hurt they become, but most of all... as I mean this with all my heart, but most of all, those sheeple have kids... and it is these kids who will only grow into young adults and faced with the many disasters that lay ahead. For me, that has been my duty here in this forum, to make aware of everything that I do know and what I learn, and pass it on to others who are willing to read and listen to my warning shots. Lies are not my bag.

Just as the Pentagon covers up so much information from the ppl of this country, while constantly pushing boat loads of propaganda to trick and fake them into following very poor advise into misguided situations, it is now up to us to open up as many eyes up as possible and try to reverse this so very wrong corrupt regime.

Your post wliberty gets a 5 star award. One should copy wliberty's post and frame it for it speaks of the pure raw truth with great common sense. This is what America used to be all about, not the fake propaganda version that many see here today. I'm very proud of wliberty for being what I know as an American and in sisterhood with those of us with true common sense.

My solid salute to you wliberty!

Your arrogance is astounding, this is what we’ve come to expect out of military.com and their ilk. It also goes directly to my point, what you are unable to do with me or any other vets of conscience is baffle the discussion with BS. You have supported Bush and his insane war from the get go, you are not willing to question this Whitehouse’s abilities or direction. You are still stuck in that brainwashed military mindset, never question orders or authority. You are taking this “Army of One” way to seriously.
You are talking stuff that you don’t know about, you are clueless as to my experiences, even though I’ve remained transparent to all here and elsewhere, ( I’ve nothing to hide). To try and make these readers believe that today’s military is operated without a SOP, a chain of command or even a set of general orders is not smart nor does it benefit our fellow forum members who might not understand the military mindset. They might get the idea that they can be an Army of One, and by doing so they could be self supervised, and they could create their own rulebook to work off of. What, in my absence they did away with the UCMJ? By the way, boot is a marine or someone else, in the 60’s "Army" it was “basic”, we were called “troop”, since you are so well informed you should have know that huh. Something else you don’t know is my families history with the military, it makes interesting reading, going back several generations. I’ve been in intimate contact with the Army all my life, as have most of the men in my family going back to the “Civil War”. At thanksgiving dinner we will have more awards for valor sitting at the table than a regiment of Cavalry, and you want to talk like you really know me and my experience. Did you know that my brother, an Armor 1st Lt. In 69, (one tour, two purple hearts, a silver star and two bronze stars with his 7 months in the boonies with the 3d of the 4th Cav, 25th Infantry), he and I served in the same unit together for 5 months of my second tour in the Nam, bet you don’t know his story either. While I’m on the subject, I’ve got two 1st cousins and an uncle who also served in Nam. I’ve got one nephew and a second cousin serving in Iraq, doesn’t make me any smarter, just more concerned that what we do is right and for the right reason.
Your comment here says who you are and what you are all about, and well defines your right wing attitude and unquestioning support of Bush and his war on Iraq. We are sorry that you are frustrated and things aren’t going so well for your Iraqi war, if you and others would help this Whitehouse understand their mistakes, they might do the right thing and get out of Iraq and get back into the war on terror. You could be using the effort spent here on trying to help the Pentagon understand where they are goofed up instead of trying to persuade readers that today’s military is operated like a rock concert.

bro vfq

I just read your fine post and I also just happen to have in my pocket another 5 stars, of which you rightfully deserve for your posts.

I would participate more deeply in this thread which concerns the actions of our bushconic Pentagon, but I think after what we have already stated, it really says it all. I will simply salute you as well and caution you to where you step.... booby traps have followed us home back from the 'nam.

Carry on GI