http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060801/pl_afp/usiraqmilitary

US army 'degraded' by Iraq deployments: defense experts Tue Aug 1, 1:27 PM ET

A group of prominent US defense and national security experts sounded an alarm about the strain on US combat forces of lengthy deployments to Iraq, saying the problem has reached crisis levels.

The National Security Advisory Group, chaired by former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, alleged in a letter to top congressional Democrats that the US administration's underfunding of the army represents "a serious failure of civilian stewardship of the military."

"Two-thirds of the army's operating force, active and reserve, is now reporting in as unready," the group wrote in their letter to lawmakers.

"There is not a single non-deployed Army Brigade Combat Team in the United States that is ready to deploy.

The letter continued: "The bottom line is that our army currently has no ready, strategic reserve. Not since the Vietnam era and its aftermath has the Army's readiness been so degraded."

Members of the group comprise a Who's Who of moderate-to-liberal political thought in the United States, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former national security adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger, retired Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman John Shalikashvili, and retired four-star general and fomer presidential contender Wesley Clark.




Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.


Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

In this second defense budget tutorial on the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems a legal requirement to report future expenses in Iraq has been ignored by the administration and Defense Department. On the other hand, some in Congress are also happy to try to keep the public in the dark on related issues.

The first “tutorial” of this series can be found at http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?Do..._page=index.cfm

Straus Military Reform Project

August 1, 2006

Defense Budget Tutorial: Congress and the Pentagon, Co-Abusers of the War Budget

The Bush administration has circumvented a significant law, passed by Congress in 2004. The legislation required the president to report by January 2005 on the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the future years, 2006 to 2011.[1][1] On May 13, 2005, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reported that such a report was impossible to write for any fiscal year more than one year in advance.[2][2]

However, testimony at a July 18 hearing of Congressman Chris Shays’, R-Conn., Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee revealed that no one ever asked the responsible official in the Defense Department to estimate the likely costs of the war: neither before the war was begun (when senior officials were dismissing others’ estimates), nor in response to the statutory requirement.

There is a reasonable claim that costs for any future event is full of uncertainties, however, many have dealt with them in an analytically straightforward fashion. Using clearly articulated criteria for two different scenarios, CBO estimated the costs of future operations in Iraq.[3][3]

One scenario assumed U.S. military personnel in the Persian Gulf region would be reduced to 140,000 in 2007, and the deployments would end in 2009. The additional costs for that scenario came to $202 billion.

The second scenario would reduce forces to 170,000 in 2007 and 40,000 in 2010; U.S. deployments would end in 2016. Costs would be $406 billion, above the amounts already spent.[4][4]

What the Bush administration was unable, rather unwilling, to reveal - CBO has analyzed.

It remains to be seen what, if anything, Congress might do about the administration’s non-compliance with the statute.

Another important matter addressed at the July 18 hearing involved the timing and nature of executive branch requests for funding for the wars, such as they have existed. There are two issues; one attracted much attention at the hearing; the other attracted none.

Discussed at much length at the hearing was the administration’s habit of submitting budget requests for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are either too late or too little. The former come in the form of “supplemental” appropriations requests submitted in the middle of fiscal years. Congress often takes its own sweet time to enact these, and as a result the Defense Department has been forced to raid its own non-war accounts to transfer dollars needed immediately for war spending (called “cash flowing”). The “cash flowing” invariably causes the postponing or cancellation of regular DOD activities. This may be very ill-advised, especially if postponed training activities, are never rescheduled for units going to Iraq.

The other form of war funding comes in the form of “bridge funds,” which are provisions added to annual DOD appropriations bills to make money available at the start of a fiscal year. These funds are sometimes, but not always, requested by the president, and they are routinely inadequate to support combat operations for more than a few months. Also, like supplementals, bridge funds are accompanied by the scantest justification materials from the Defense Department, and sometimes none at all. Congress is left quite literally in the dark about what to provide funds for, a vacuum it is frequently happy to fill with favorite – but unnecessary even irrelevant – spending items (otherwise known as “pork”).

A pernicious element to both the supplementals and the bridge funds is that they are designated as “emergency” funds – a specific budgetary term that means the money is exempted from the spending “caps” that Congress imposes on regular annual appropriations. The “caps” are intended to restrain spending and keep annual deficits under control. Technically for spending that is not just urgent, but also “unforeseen, sudden, and not permanent” (as defined in OMB and congressional guidance for budget matters), “emergency” funding in effect provides an escape valve for big spenders on Capitol Hill and in the Pentagon.

In past years, the Pentagon has included in the “urgent, unforeseen, not permanent” emergency budget, requests of billions of dollars for programs that do not qualify: items such as the Army’s longstanding reorganization costs, known as “modularization.” Other Pentagon requests in war budgets have the same appearance, but because congressional oversight is so feeble in the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees the legitimacy or ill-legitimacy of these requests is tricky to identify.

Congress exploits “emergency” spending designations similarly. It transfers billions of dollars in non-emergency, non-war DOD programs from the “capped” regular DOD appropriations bills to the emergency war accounts. According to OMB, the House Appropriations Committee thusly transferred $2 billion in its new 2007 DOD Appropriations bill, and it looks like the Senate Appropriations Committee is transferring even more in its version of the same bill. These shady transfers permit two things:

1) Congress pretends it is cutting DOD appropriations bill and is being “frugal,” while it is really only transferring the spending from one account to another. (Doing so also has the negative consequence of displacing billions of dollars of spending intended for the wars with non-war programs transferred from the regular bill.)

2) Congress routinely also replaces some, but not all, of the money transferred away from the non-emergency, capped, annual spending bill with “pork.” Some amount of cutting is preserved so the pretense at savings can be made, while, in fact, spending is actually increased. (The net total of the transferred spending and the pork plugged back into the annual bill will exceed the amount Congress pretends that it “cuts.”)
Needless to say, it was the congressional abuse of emergency funding that attracted not a single word of comment at the July 18 hearing.

Conclusion

One might expect howls of protest that the Bush administration gave the back of its hand to a statutory requirement to estimate the future cost of the wars. But to expect any such protest, let alone enforcement of the law, is to misunderstand Congress as it currently exists. Today’s Congress is not the guardian of taxpayers dollars, assiduously watching how every pinched penny is being spent. Instead, Congress is happily joining the Pentagon as a co-abuser of its own appropriations process. There are some members of Congress who have the decency to notice and remark upon the transgressions. However, those erstwhile reformers can expect their lamentations to be completely ignored unless and until they decide to take action to give real meaning to their complaints.

Winslow T. Wheeler
Director
Straus Military Reform Project
Center for Defense Information @ www.cdi.org/smrp
202 797-5271 in DC
301 840-8992 in MD
301 221-3897 cell
winslowwheeler@comcast.net

LITTLE HAS BEEN LEARNED FROM THE LESSONS OF VIETNAM By Georgie Anne Geyer
Tue Aug 1, 6:04 PM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucgg/20060801/cm_u...HE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Washington, D.C. -- Common wisdom has it that adults, unlike children, lose their native ability to express surprise. As they grow in years, so too do they grow in cynicism, thinking they know everything when in fact they have lost only innocence.

We have been cursed in the Middle East these last few years not to have national leaders with mature wisdom. Instead, we see the naive surprise, not of innocent children, but of unversed and arrogant leaders expressing constant astonishment at what should, in fact, be palpably obvious.

Both Israelis and Americans have been endlessly "surprised" by Hezbollah's admittedly appalling attacks on Israel, and the rest of the world has been equally "surprised" at Israel's outbalanced counterreckoning. The American establishment is, after 3 1/2 years of disastrous meddling, "surprised" as Iraqis veer from insurgency against the always hated occupier to sectarian strife with their eternally despised neighbors and to all-out civil war among the Iraqi sects and sectors. Americans still believe, according to recent polls, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What can one say?

Most incredibly, the U.S. military, after these dangerous years of intervention in Iraq, characterized by an almost total lack of knowledge of the true culture of Iraqis, is now trying to glean lessons from Vietnam. Might one humbly suggest: "Finally!"

In a comprehensive and disturbing piece adapted from Thomas E. Ricks' book "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq," The Washington Post recently traced how the American military repeated all the same mistakes of Vietnam and even the Balkans.

They arrogantly thought that their "presence patrols" -- their mere presence -- would control the submissive population. "Few U.S. soldiers seemed to understand the centrality of Iraqi pride and the humiliation Iraqi men felt in being overseen by this Western army," Ricks wrote. "Foot patrols in Baghdad were greeted ... with solemn waves from old men and cheers from children but with baleful stares from many young Iraqi men."

Defense chief Donald Rumsfeld announced at one point, "I guess the reason I don't use the phrase, 'guerrilla war' is because there isn't one."

But later, as the incipient guerrilla war morphed into a full-blown insurgency and well beyond, it became clearer that the United States was waging a "conventional war" -- boots on the ground, full force ahead -- against a classically "unconventional" enemy.

And all these years since the humiliating defeat of American troops in Vietnam in 1975 against a similarly unconventional guerrilla enemy, the Viet Cong (along with traditional Vietnamese troops), American military schools today still do not teach a viable counterinsurgency doctrine.

The Israeli position is quite similar. Despite all proof to the contrary, Israel persists, like the U.S., in thinking it can terrorize its enemies into submission, instead of terrorizing them into ever more lethal and potent irregulars -- thus the Armageddonesque destruction of both Lebanon and Iraq by massive bombing.

But this attitude, as any even reasonably sensitive person should know, is, at the bottom, one of despising one's enemies (always a dangerous business), of believing that he would never react the way you do and thus creating more guerrillas, insurgents and suicide bombers through the humiliation thus inflicted.

Hezbollah, after all, did not exist before Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 and stayed for 22 years. Hamas was originally formed with Israeli encouragement to stand up against the PLO. With Iraq, the United States ever so helpfully dismantled the one great enemy of Iran, which kept that imperious and ambitious nation in check. With the same naive destructiveness inside Iraq at the very same time, the American presence was creating new and dangerous insurgent groups -- the Shiite Mahdi Army, the al-Qaida spinoffs, and too many more to mention.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Meanwhile, these self-indulgent policies, which refuse to take into consideration the cultural realities of other peoples and groups, are changing the Middle East still further. Old movements are already morphing into new and more dangerous ones.

The New York Times recently wrote about the new war between nations, like the United States and Israel, and "networks," like Hazbollah and al-Qaida, which are simply an advanced form of the classic guerrilla movements of history. At the same time, radical Islamist groups from Lebanon to Somalia to Iraq, and potentially even the moderate Arab regimes, are now gaining power through electoral legitimacy.

And on every level, the American presence in the region is serving to create a new "retribalization" that is destroying what is left of the secular Arab states.

This is not at all to say that these groups are innocent, desirable or unsusceptible to violent confrontation -- far from it. It IS to say that there are intelligent ways to confront them, and to defeat them, other than indiscriminately bombing them to smithereens.

The intelligent policy would be the old middle ground: to address their real grievances, to negotiate and mediate confidently even with difficult governments like Syria's and Iran's and, while using military power prudently, to work on diffuse levels to gradually change the structures of power.

But it's so much easier to drop bombs, even if they only create exactly what you set out to destroy.

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 85
August 2, 2006

Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/


** OF LEAKS AND WHISTLEBLOWERS
** MISSILE DEFENSE DEPLOYMENTS "SECRET FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES"
** HOUSE BILL WOULD OPEN UP INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT
** SOME RECENT CONGRESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS
** DOD ANNUAL REPORT ON COUNTERPROLIFERATION
** STEALTH SATELLITE SOURCEBOOK
** CRS ON INDIA AND PAKISTAN


OF LEAKS AND WHISTLEBLOWERS

Senator Christopher Bond (R-Missouri) introduced legislation today
to criminalize the unauthorized disclosure of classified
information.

"We need to send a message that leaks will not be tolerated and
give prosecutors a modern and appropriate tool to go after those
who do leak," he said.

The new Bond bill is identical to the controversial anti-leak
legislation sponsored by Senator Richard Shelby in the FY 2001
Intelligence Authorization Act that was vetoed by President
Clinton in November 2000.

See "Bond Legislation Targets Intelligence Leaks," August 2:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2006/08/bond080206.html

Meanwhile, a new U.S. intelligence policy on unauthorized
disclosures of classified information is pending, the Director of
National Intelligence said last week in a progress report.

"The DOJ and ODNI are ... working closely on leaks issues," he
wrote. "In March 2006 the ODNI issued policies to consolidate IC
reporting of leaks and is now preparing to issue a Community-wide
directive on [unauthorized] disclosures." See (at page 8):

http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/prog072706.pdf

The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition disclosed last week
that former NSA employee Russell Tice had been summoned to appear
before a grand jury investigating the unauthorized disclosure of
classified information. See related background, including a copy
of the grand jury summons, on the Coalition web site here:

http://www.nswbc.org/

Mr. Tice and other national security whistleblowers testified
before the House Committee on Government Reform last February, and
the record of that hearing has just been published.

See "National Security Whistleblowers in the post-9/11 Era: Lost in
a Labyrinth and Facing Subtle Retaliation," February 14, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/whistle.html


MISSILE DEFENSE DEPLOYMENTS "SECRET FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES"

The names of foreign countries that are being considered for
deployment of U.S. missile defense systems are unclassified but
nevertheless should be kept secret, the Missile Defense Agency
ordered last year.

"There are many operational and political sensitivities that
require varying levels of protection as we consider possible
deployments," wrote MDA Deputy Director Gen. Marvin K. McNamara.

"Therefore, I am requiring that potential host nations being
studied or considered by MDA for operational deployments not be
identified by country or city name in any form on Unclassified
computer systems....."

The November 22, 2005 MDA memorandum on "Protection of Information
Regarding Operational Deployments" was obtained by Nick
Schwellenbach of the Project on Government Oversight and is
available here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/mda112205.pdf

In an email message also obtained by POGO, an MDA security manager
paraphrased the policy this way: "Information regarding
operational deployments should be treated as 'Secret' for
political purposes and, for that reason, the information is to be
sent encrypted or by SIPRNET."

What is at issue here, explained Victoria Samson of the Center for
Defense Information, is the location of the third site for the
Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, which is still under
conideration.

But not everyone got the word.

In a March 20, 2006 briefing by MDA Director Gen. Trey Obering,
obtained by Ms. Samson, three countries are identified as possible
candidates for the third ground-based site: the United Kingdom,
the Czech Republic, and Poland. See "Missile Defense Program
Update" (at slide 35):

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/mda032006.pdf

Official controls on unclassified information have mushroomed in
recent years. An interagency task force that conducted an
inventory of so-called Sensitive But Unclassified control markings
recently identified 164 distinct marking systems for controlling
unclassified information, according to Grace Mastalli, who
co-chaired the task force.


HOUSE BILL WOULD OPEN UP INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT

A bipartisan bill introduced in the House would require the House
Intelligence Committee to disclose information on intelligence
activities to other congressional committees, as long as such
disclosure did not reveal sensitive intelligence sources or
methods.

"In order to exercise proper oversight, House committees need all
pertinent information and, unfortunately, that process isn't
functioning as it was intended to," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ),
who introduced the bill.

"We should not have to rely on the morning paper to learn about
secret government programs, particularly when we sit on committees
that are charged with overseeing such programs," said Rep. Adam
Schiff (D-CA), a co-sponsor.

See the "Intelligence Oversight Act" (H.R. 5954) here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/hr5954.html

In a move that may enhance its legislative prospects, the bill has
been referred to the House Rules Committee rather than to the
House Intelligence Committee, UPI's Shaun Waterman reported.


SOME RECENT CONGRESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS

Some noteworthy congressional documents that have recently been
published include the following.

"The Need to Know: Information Sharing Lessons for Disaster
Response," House Committee on Government Reform, March 30, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2006/infoshare.html

"Plane Clothes: Lack of Anonymity at the Federal Air Marshal
Service Compromises Aviation and National Security," House
Judiciary Committee investigative report, May 25, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2006/plane.pdf

"The Terrorist Threat from Shoulder-Fired Missiles," House
Committee on International Relations, March 30, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/manpads.pdf


DOD ANNUAL REPORT ON COUNTERPROLIFERATION

The Department of Defense recently published its annual report on
counterproliferation, an overview of U.S. government programs to
detect, prevent and counter the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.

See "Report on Activities and Programs for Countering Proliferation
and NBC Terrorism, Counterproliferation Program Review
Committee," Volume I, Executive Summary, May 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nbcterror2006.pdf

See also the related "Department of Defense Chemical and Biological
Defense Program, Annual Report to Congress," March 2006 (8.5 MB
PDF):

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/cbdp2006.pdf


STEALTH SATELLITE SOURCEBOOK

Published sources on stealthy satellites were compiled in "A
Stealth Satellite Sourcebook" by independent researcher Allen
Thomson, available here:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/stealth.pdf

An earlier compilation on the French GRAVES space surveillance
system, also by Mr. Thomson, may be found here:

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/graves.pdf


CRS ON INDIA AND PAKISTAN

New reports of the Congressional Research Service, not readily
available to the public, include the following:

"India-U.S. Relations," updated July 31, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33529.pdf

"Pakistan-U.S. Relations," updated July 27, 2006:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33498.pdf

Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html
email: saftergood@fas.org
voice: (202) 454-4691

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060802/pl_af...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Marine files defamation suit against congressman in Haditha case 1 hour, 23 minutes ago



A marine sergeant filed defamation suit against a US congressman who charged that marines deliberately killed 24 civilians in Iraq "in cold blood," lawyers said.

The suit filed by Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich alleges he was defamed by Representative Jack Murtha, an anti-war Democrat who said in May that investigators would conclude that the marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" at the town of Haditha November 19.

A lawyer for Wuterich, one of the marines under investigation in the killings, said the suit "talks about Murtha calling them cold blooded killers without sufficient evidence."

"We're seeking a retraction, an apology," said Neal Puckett. "It's not about money, it's not about politics. We're seeking an explanation for why he would do this thing without evidence to support what he said."

A criminal investigation was opened in March after Time magazine reported that witnesses and local officials said maraines deliberately killed unarmed civilians, including women and children, after a fellow marine was killed in a roadside explosion.

The military opened a separate investigation into an apparent coverup of the deaths, which the marines originally said were caused by the insurgent bombing.

The investigation into the alleged coverup has been completed and is being reviewed by the commander of US forces in Iraq, General George Casey, and the commander responsible for marine forces in the Middle East, Lieutenant General John Sattler, officials said.

Pentagon and marine spokesmen would not comment on the status of the criminal investigation by the Navy Criminal Investigative Service except to say that it was still open.

Puckett said the NCIS report was expected to be concluded sometime this month, but said he had received no word on either its findings or any charges against marines.




Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.


Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6080101334.html

White House Proposal Would Expand Authority of Military Courts

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A04

A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the reach and authority of such "commissions" to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court's jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more individuals than previously expected before military juries, officials and independent experts said.

The draft proposed legislation, set to be discussed at two Senate hearings today, is controversial inside and outside the administration because defendants would be denied many protections guaranteed by the civilian and traditional military criminal justice systems.

Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.

Detainees would also not be guaranteed the right to be present at their own trials, if their absence is deemed necessary to protect national security or individuals.

An early draft of the new measure prepared by civilian political appointees and leaked to the media last week has been modified in response to criticism from uniformed military lawyers. But the provisions allowing a future expansion of the courts to cover new crimes and more prisoners were retained, according to government officials familiar with the deliberations.

The military lawyers received the draft after the rest of the government had agreed on it. They have argued in recent days for retaining some routine protections for defendants that the political appointees sought to jettison, an administration official said.

They objected in particular to the provision allowing defendants to be tried in absentia, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to describe the deliberations. Another source in contact with top military lawyers said, "Their initial impression is that the draft was unacceptable and sloppy." The source added that "it did not have enough due-process rights" and could further tarnish America's image.

The military lawyers nonetheless supported extending the jurisdiction of the commissions to cover those accused of joining or associating with terrorist groups engaged in anti-U.S. hostilities, and of committing or aiding hostile acts by such groups, whether or not they are part of al-Qaeda, two U.S. officials said.

That language gives the commissions broader reach than anticipated in a November 2001 executive order from President Bush that focused only on members of al-Qaeda, those who commit international terrorist acts and those who harbor such individuals.

Some independent experts say the new procedures diverge inappropriately from existing criminal procedures and provide no more protections than the ones struck down by the Supreme Court as inadequate. John D. Hutson, the Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000, said the rules would evidently allow the government to tell a prisoner: "We know you're guilty. We can't tell you why, but there's a guy, we can't tell you who, who told us something. We can't tell you what, but you're guilty."

Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general during the Reagan administration, said after reviewing the leaked draft that "the theme of the government seems to be 'They are guilty anyway, and therefore due process can be slighted.' " With these procedures, Fein said, "there is a real danger of getting a wrong verdict" that would let a lower-echelon detainee "rot for 30 years" at Guantanamo Bay because of evidence contrived by personal enemies.

But Kris Kobach, a senior Justice Department lawyer in Bush's first term who now teaches at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, said he believes that the draft strikes an appropriate balance between "a fundamentally fair trial" and "the ability to protect the effectiveness of U.S. military and intelligence assets."

Administration officials have said that the exceptional trial procedures are warranted because the fight against terrorism requires heavy reliance on classified information or on evidence obtained from a defendant's collaborators, which cannot be shared with the accused. The draft legislation cites the goal of ensuring fair treatment without unduly diverting military personnel from wartime assignments to present evidence in trials.

The provisions are closely modeled on earlier plans for military commissions, which the Supreme Court ruled illegal two months ago in a case brought by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni imprisoned in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. "It is not evident why the danger posed by international terrorism, considerable though it is, should require, in the case of Hamdan, any variance from the courts-martial rules," the court's majority decision held.

No one at Guantanamo has been tried to date, though some prisoners have been there since early 2002.

John Yoo, a former Justice Department lawyer who helped draft the earlier plan, said Bush administration officials essentially "took DOD regulations" for the trials "and turned them into a statute for Congress to pass." He said the drafters were obviously "trying to return the law to where it was before Hamdan " by writing language into the draft that challenges key aspects of the court's decision.

"Basically, this is trying to overrule the Hamdan case," said Neal K. Katyal, a Georgetown University law professor who was Hamdan's lead attorney.

The plan calls for commissions of five military officers appointed by the defense secretary to try defendants for any of 25 listed crimes. It gives the secretary the unilateral right to "specify other violations of the laws of war that may be tried by military commission." The secretary would be empowered to prescribe detailed procedures for carrying out the trials, including "modes of proof" and the use of hearsay evidence.

Unlike the international war crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the commissions could rely on hearsay as the basis for a conviction. Unlike routine military courts-martial, in which prosecutors must overcome several hurdles to use such evidence, the draft legislation would put the burden on the defense team to block its use.

The admission of hearsay is a serious problem, said Tom Malinowski, director of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch, because defendants might not know if it was gained through torture and would have difficulty challenging it on that basis. Nothing in the draft law prohibits using evidence obtained through cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment that falls short of torture, Malinowski said.

The U.S. official countered that a military judge "would look hard" at the origins of such evidence and that defendants would have to count on "the trustworthiness of the system."

To secure a death penalty under the draft legislation, at least five jurors must agree, two fewer than under the administration's earlier plan. Courts-martial and federal civilian trials require that 12 jurors agree.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6080101345.html
Marine Names Murtha in Defamation Suit
Congressman Discussed Killings Involving Serviceman's Squad in Haditha, Iraq

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A05

A Marine Corps staff sergeant who led the squad accused of killing two dozen civilians in Haditha, Iraq, will file a lawsuit today in federal court in Washington claiming that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) defamed him when the congressman made public comments about the incident earlier this year.

Attorneys for Frank D. Wuterich, 26, argue in court papers that Murtha tarnished the Marine's reputation by telling news organizations in May that the Marine unit cracked after a roadside bomb killed one of its members and that the troops "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Murtha also said repeatedly that the incident was covered up.

Marine Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich has maintained his innocence. (Family Photo - Family Photo)

Murtha argued that the questionable deaths of 24 civilians were indicative of the difficulties and overpowering stress that U.S. troops are facing. The congressman, a former Marine, has been a leading advocate for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

In the court filing, obtained by The Washington Post, the lawyers say that Murtha made the comments after being briefed by Defense Department officials who "deliberately provided him with inaccurate and false information." Neal A. Puckett and Mark S. Zaid, suing for libel and invasion of privacy, also wrote that Murtha made the comments outside of his official scope as a congressman.

Telephone calls yesterday to Murtha's office in Washington were referred to his district office in Pennsylvania, and calls there were not returned. A Marine Corps spokesman declined to comment yesterday on the Haditha investigation or the lawsuit.

The suit could have interesting legal ramifications because Wuterich and the other members of his squad have not been charged and have not received any official investigative documentation about the Nov. 19 incident. A Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigation is expected to determine possible charges this summer, said officials familiar with the case.

Zaid said the filing is designed partly to force Murtha to disclose what information he received from the Defense Department and the Marine Corps commandant to form his opinion, essentially trying to speed up the discovery process in a potential criminal trial.

"This case is not about money; it's about clearing Frank Wuterich's name, and part of that is to identify where these leaks are coming from," Zaid said in an interview. "Congressman Murtha has created this atmosphere that has already concluded guilt. He's created this environment that really smells, and he's the only one who has done that."

The move by Wuterich is rare, as statements made by members of Congress generally are protected under the "speech or debate" clause in Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution. But legal experts said the clause grants immunity only for what lawmakers say in legislative proceedings and does not apply to news releases, speeches and other public comments.

Rodney A. Smolla, dean of the University of Richmond Law School and a libel expert, said yesterday that Wuterich would have the burden of proving that he is innocent and that Murtha's statements were false, but he added that the quotations appear to be actionable in court. He said the suit shows that Wuterich probably thinks he did nothing wrong.

"Part of the subtext of this is it's a showing of confidence and a preemptive strike of sorts," Smolla said. "The congressman's statement does not sound as if it is merely hyperbole or opinion or name-calling. Instead, it conveys the idea that the Marines violated professional standards and perhaps the law."

Wuterich, through his attorneys, has maintained his innocence and has said that the Marines killed two dozen people that day because they were engaged in a firefight with suspected insurgents. He told his lawyers that he and other Marines used grenades and rifles to clear two houses they thought were hostile. Another Marine's detailed account of the incident, obtained by The Post, corroborates Wuterich's version.

Donald Ritchie, associate historian in the Senate Historical Office, said that such defamation suits happen from time to time but that they tend not to go anywhere because of the constitutional protections members have. He said the most famous case was in 1979, when the Supreme Court ruled that Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.) was not protected when he made defamatory statements to constituents in a newsletter.

"The Supreme Court has suggested that speech and debate has limits to it, and that makes people vulnerable in certain areas," Ritchie said.

Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060802/ap_on_...aditha_timeline
Timeline: The Haditha investigation
By The Associated Press
Wed Aug 2, 11:31 AM ET



A timeline of events surrounding the alleged massacre at Haditha, Iraq, based on a June 1 White House account and other details compiled by The Associated Press:

___

Nov. 19: A roadside bomb goes off at Haditha, killing a U.S. Marine and injuring two other members of his battalion. In the following hours, a number of Iraqis die. Subsequent press reports say the Iraqi death toll was 24. The military sends a team to investigate and document the scene.

Nov. 20: The Marines release a preliminary report saying 15 Iraqis had been killed by an IED, or improvised explosive device.

Feb. 10: Time magazine raises questions with military sources in Baghdad about the circumstances of the Iraqi deaths.

Feb. 14: Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, commander of Multi-National Corps in Iraq, appoints an Army colonel to lead an investigation into the case.

March 3: A preliminary report is completed and recommends further investigation.

March 9: Chiarelli receives the initial findings of the preliminary investigation and directs further review.

March 10: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are notified of the case.

March 11: President Bush is told of the case for the first time by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

March 12: Marine Maj. Gen. Richard C. Zilmer, commanding general of the Multinational Force-West, appoints a Marine colonel to investigate reporting of information at all levels of the chain of command. Zilmer also requests a Naval Criminal Investigative Service inquiry.

March 13: The Naval Criminal Investigative Service team arrives in Haditha.

March 19: Time magazine reports the first public account of the case. Chiarelli appoints Army Major General Eldon A. Bargewell to investigate the training and preparation of Marines before Haditha killings, along with the reporting of information concerning the case at all levels of the chain of command.

May 17: Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), an Iraq war critic, says the Pentagon probe will show that Marines killed more than a dozen innocent Iraqi civilians "in cold blood" in Haditha.

June 3: Murtha expresses concern that there may have been an attempt by some in the military to hide information about the killings.

June 7: Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine commandant, says any Marine found to have violated standards of behavior will be held accountable but that he'll wait until criminal investigations are completed before he removing any commanders from their posts

June 10: Neal A. Puckett, lawyer for a sergeant who led a squad of Marines during the incident, says the unit followed military rules of engagement, did not intentionally target any civilians and did not try to cover up what it had done. Puckett says his client, Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told him several civilians were killed when his squad pursued insurgents firing at them from inside a house after the bombing.

June 16: Bargewell, the Army general investigating a possible cover-up in the deaths, says his report has been completed.

June 21: The Los Angeles Times reports that Bargewell's investigation concludes that senior military personnel in Iraq did not follow up on potential inaccuracies in early accounts of the deaths.

July 7: A U.S. military official says Chiarelli agrees with Bargewell's report that errors were made in the reporting and follow-up of initial allegations after the killings.

Aug. 2: In a federal lawsuit, Wuterich accuses Murtha of defaming him in public comments about the case.

Aug. 2: Pentagon officials say evidence collected in the Haditha probe supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children. Marine and Navy prosecutors will review the evidence and determine whether to recommend criminal charges.



Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6080101334.html

White House Proposal Would Expand Authority of Military Courts

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A04

A draft Bush administration plan for special military courts seeks to expand the reach and authority of such "commissions" to include trials, for the first time, of people who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and are not directly involved in acts of international terrorism, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military court's jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more individuals than previously expected before military juries, officials and independent experts said.

The draft proposed legislation, set to be discussed at two Senate hearings today, is controversial inside and outside the administration because defendants would be denied many protections guaranteed by the civilian and traditional military criminal justice systems.

Under the proposed procedures, defendants would lack rights to confront accusers, exclude hearsay accusations, or bar evidence obtained through rough or coercive interrogations. They would not be guaranteed a public or speedy trial and would lack the right to choose their military counsel, who in turn would not be guaranteed equal access to evidence held by prosecutors.

Detainees would also not be guaranteed the right to be present at their own trials, if their absence is deemed necessary to protect national security or individuals.

An early draft of the new measure prepared by civilian political appointees and leaked to the media last week has been modified in response to criticism from uniformed military lawyers. But the provisions allowing a future expansion of the courts to cover new crimes and more prisoners were retained, according to government officials familiar with the deliberations.

The military lawyers received the draft after the rest of the government had agreed on it. They have argued in recent days for retaining some routine protections for defendants that the political appointees sought to jettison, an administration official said.

They objected in particular to the provision allowing defendants to be tried in absentia, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to describe the deliberations. Another source in contact with top military lawyers said, "Their initial impression is that the draft was unacceptable and sloppy." The source added that "it did not have enough due-process rights" and could further tarnish America's image.

The military lawyers nonetheless supported extending the jurisdiction of the commissions to cover those accused of joining or associating with terrorist groups engaged in anti-U.S. hostilities, and of committing or aiding hostile acts by such groups, whether or not they are part of al-Qaeda, two U.S. officials said.

That language gives the commissions broader reach than anticipated in a November 2001 executive order from President Bush that focused only on members of al-Qaeda, those who commit international terrorist acts and those who harbor such individuals.

Some independent experts say the new procedures diverge inappropriately from existing criminal procedures and provide no more protections than the ones struck down by the Supreme Court as inadequate. John D. Hutson, the Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000, said the rules would evidently allow the government to tell a prisoner: "We know you're guilty. We can't tell you why, but there's a guy, we can't tell you who, who told us something. We can't tell you what, but you're guilty."

Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general during the Reagan administration, said after reviewing the leaked draft that "the theme of the government seems to be 'They are guilty anyway, and therefore due process can be slighted.' " With these procedures, Fein said, "there is a real danger of getting a wrong verdict" that would let a lower-echelon detainee "rot for 30 years" at Guantanamo Bay because of evidence contrived by personal enemies.

But Kris Kobach, a senior Justice Department lawyer in Bush's first term who now teaches at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, said he believes that the draft strikes an appropriate balance between "a fundamentally fair trial" and "the ability to protect the effectiveness of U.S. military and intelligence assets."

Administration officials have said that the exceptional trial procedures are warranted because the fight against terrorism requires heavy reliance on classified information or on evidence obtained from a defendant's collaborators, which cannot be shared with the accused. The draft legislation cites the goal of ensuring fair treatment without unduly diverting military personnel from wartime assignments to present evidence in trials.

The provisions are closely modeled on earlier plans for military commissions, which the Supreme Court ruled illegal two months ago in a case brought by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni imprisoned in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. "It is not evident why the danger posed by international terrorism, considerable though it is, should require, in the case of Hamdan, any variance from the courts-martial rules," the court's majority decision held.

No one at Guantanamo has been tried to date, though some prisoners have been there since early 2002.

John Yoo, a former Justice Department lawyer who helped draft the earlier plan, said Bush administration officials essentially "took DOD regulations" for the trials "and turned them into a statute for Congress to pass." He said the drafters were obviously "trying to return the law to where it was before Hamdan " by writing language into the draft that challenges key aspects of the court's decision.

"Basically, this is trying to overrule the Hamdan case," said Neal K. Katyal, a Georgetown University law professor who was Hamdan's lead attorney.

The plan calls for commissions of five military officers appointed by the defense secretary to try defendants for any of 25 listed crimes. It gives the secretary the unilateral right to "specify other violations of the laws of war that may be tried by military commission." The secretary would be empowered to prescribe detailed procedures for carrying out the trials, including "modes of proof" and the use of hearsay evidence.

Unlike the international war crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the commissions could rely on hearsay as the basis for a conviction. Unlike routine military courts-martial, in which prosecutors must overcome several hurdles to use such evidence, the draft legislation would put the burden on the defense team to block its use.

The admission of hearsay is a serious problem, said Tom Malinowski, director of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch, because defendants might not know if it was gained through torture and would have difficulty challenging it on that basis. Nothing in the draft law prohibits using evidence obtained through cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment that falls short of torture, Malinowski said.

The U.S. official countered that a military judge "would look hard" at the origins of such evidence and that defendants would have to count on "the trustworthiness of the system."

To secure a death penalty under the draft legislation, at least five jurors must agree, two fewer than under the administration's earlier plan. Courts-martial and federal civilian trials require that 12 jurors agree.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060802/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
U.S. military academies welcoming Iraqis
By RAWYA RAGEH, Associated Press Writer

The Iraqi Defense Ministry announced Wednesday that it will begin accepting applications from Iraqis who want to attend U.S. military academies.

Iraqis between the ages of 18 and 22, who are fluent in English and in good physical condition can apply to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado and the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., said Brig. Gen. Mohammed al-Askari.

"For over 40 years we've been cut off from the world and from technology," al-Askari said. "And due to the unstable situation in the country right now, it's hard to establish efficient training institutions. So, we welcome this cooperation with our friend and ally," the United States.

A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad did not have details, but said it was "common practice for the military academies to select foreign students from among our allies."

"This is a long-standing program intended to build bridges between the United States military and those nations we work with for security around the world," Lt. Col. Barry Johnson said.

High school and college graduates as well as students who are currently enrolled in Iraqi military colleges and are within the specified age range can apply. However, active members of the Iraqi forces are not eligible, al-Askari said.

It was not immediately clear how many positions would be open to Iraqis at the academies. However, al-Askari said, "It is going to be a very competitive process, they have to be very qualified. We're not going to be accepting just anyone."

Upon graduation, the students will become officers in the Iraqi military and must serve for a minimum of 10 years.

In June, West Point welcomed its first cadet from Iraq, a 19-year-old identified only by his first name, Jameel, because of security concerns for him and his family. The Air Force Academy also is taking an Iraqi cadet this year.




Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20060802.html
Military Commissions Redux
By JOANNE MARINER
----
Wednesday, Aug. 02, 2006

Last week, the press was leaked a draft copy of the "Enemy Combatant Military Commissions Act of 2006": a White House proposal that, if passed by Congress, would authorize military commissions to try suspected terrorists.

Thirty-two pages long, containing fifty-two separate sections, the proposed bill was drafted in response to the Supreme Court's recent decision in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. In a stunning rebuke to claims of unilateral presidential power, the Court held that the existing military commissions were illegal under both domestic law and the Geneva Conventions.
But if Hamdan was a defeat for the Executive, the draft legislation that the White House is discussing shows thinly-veiled contempt for the Court. While the proposed bill accepts the Court's holding that Congress must authorize military commissions, it ignores or evades just about every other aspect of the Hamdan ruling. Simply put (and to avoid a more colorful metaphor), it's the law equivalent of a sneer.

Not only would the proposed legislation revive - in barely altered form - the military commissions that the Supreme Court struck down in Hamdan, but it would also extend congressional authorization to the whole Guantanamo package. The draft bill would allow the administration to detain people indefinitely without charge, obviating any need to bring them to trial.

Compared to authorizing indefinite preventive detention, the military commissions themselves are a secondary issue: the tail of the draft legislation wagging the dog. Only ten detainees have been charged, while several hundred others have been held without charge on Guantanamo.

But even though the trials are less meaningful in numerical terms, they remain important as a matter of principle. And judged on basic principles, the Administration's draft proposal falls far short. While the proposal's due process failings are many, I'll focus in this column on one: its section on hearsay evidence.

Hearsay Evidence

Few trial rights are as basic as the right to confront one's accusers. Unless a defendant is able to challenge the source of statements that incriminate him, he is unable to expose lies, exaggerations, or innocent misstatements.

In crafting its proposed legislation on military commissions, the Administration would deny defendants this basic right. The draft bill would allow in hearsay evidence - out-of-court statements meant to prove the defendant's guilt - unless the military judge presiding over the commission found such evidence to be unreliable or lacking in probative value.

Column continues below ↓
Unfortunately, the record shows that military commissions' likely reliance on hearsay is no mere conjecture. Already, the administrative proceedings (called Combatant Status Review Tribunals, or CSRTs) that have assessed the status of Guantanamo detainees have been heavily tainted by hearsay. Since the alleged terrorism links to be examined by the proposed commissions are much the same as those asserted in the CSRTs, it is logical to assume that the government will largely seek to rely on the same sorts of evidence.

Commander James Crisfield, a judge advocate general who acts as legal adviser to the CSRTs, has underscored the tribunals' reliance on hearsay. As he complained about one of the tribunal's rulings: "the evidence considered persuasive by the tribunal is made up almost entirely of hearsay evidence recorded by unidentified individuals with no firsthand knowledge of the events they describe."

Worse, the ultimate sources of these statements are people in U.S. custody who could easily be brought to testify at trial. In some cases, they are other detainees held at Guantanamo; in others, they are thought to be detainees in CIA custody.

CIA Detainees

Last April, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte publicly acknowledged that the CIA is holding some three dozen al Qaeda suspects in secret prisons abroad. An ugly fact that he left out, however, has been repeatedly leaked to the media: Some of these detainees have been subject to torture.

Under coercion, the CIA's prisoners are said to have provided abundant information about the workings of al Qaeda, but at least some of this information has proved unreliable. A particularly notorious case is that of detainee Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, arrested in late 2001, handed over to Egypt for a time, and later returned to CIA custody.

According to several U.S. officials cited in the Washington Post, al-Libi's statements provided the basis for the Bush Administration's prewar claim that Osama bin Laden had collaborated with Iraq. Although he was later said to have recanted his statements, the damage was already done.

Access to CIA prisoners like al-Libi has been an issue in more than one federal trial. Both Zacarias Moussaoui and Uzair Paracha, two defendants ultimately convicted of terrorism, requested that alleged September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others be brought to court to provide evidence in their defense. But the Administration has refused to allow any of the CIA detainees into court, and no court has successfully challenged this position.

Incriminating Hearsay

With the commissions, however, the Administration proposes to go an important step farther than it has in federal court. At issue is not just possibly exculpatory evidence, but incriminating evidence as well.

The commissions' proposed rules would allow for a CIA interrogator or government expert to tell the court that a detainee -- say, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi - has implicated the defendant in a crime. And because of the commissions' restrictions on the defendant's access to classified information (again like the CSRTs), the defendant might not even obtain al-Libi's name.

Faced with hearsay accusations from an unknown source, the defendant might be unable to discredit even the most blatantly false claims. Such trials were once characteristic of the Inquisition; they are not justifiable now.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,107762,00.html
Air Force Reservists Lead Trauma Care Advances
Air Force Print News | Lt. Col. Bob Thompson | July 31, 2006
Balad AB, Iraq - As coalition forces fight to help Iraq transition to democracy, Air Force surgeons here are fighting to save lives with new surgical knowledge that may benefit military and civilian medical care for years to come.

Finishing his third tour in combat, Air Force reservist Col. (Dr.) Jay A. Johannigman has performed surgery on about 900 patients, saving hundreds of lives.

"In every major conflict, military trauma surgeons have pushed the envelope," he said. "It's been a long time since Vietnam. The military medic has re-emerged as a leader and innovator, leaning forward and taking home important medical lessons."

When?Colonel Johannigman returns to his civilian job as the director of trauma at Cincinnati's University Hospital in Ohio, he'll take with him three significant surgical lessons for his civilian counterparts.

"Throughout the theater, doctors use 'shunts' -- a plastic tube?-- as a quick repair to bridge together the two ends of a torn blood vessel," he said. "That is unheard of in the states."

Also, he said combat has proven to him the importance of using tourniquets.

"Out here, every Soldier carries a tourniquet in his medical kit," he said. "This has clearly saved the lives of numerous Soldiers?who have come through here. It remains a harsh combat statistic that 10 percent of our combat casualties bleed to death from wounds to the arms or legs. Tourniquets can prevent this."

He said that he will push the civilian medical community to make sure all paramedics back home carry tourniquets to stop excessive bleeding.

The third lesson is the value of using whole blood when replenishing a wounded service member whose own supply has dipped dangerously low.

"This is a lesson we've had to relearn," he said. "Whole blood is a tremendous asset which provides all the components necessary to stop bleeding and carry oxygen for the injured patients."

He said combat surgeons often rely on "the walking blood bank" of co-workers and fellow military troops who donate blood which is immediately transfused into a wounded patient.

Continuing Colonel Johannigman's work as vice commander of the Air Force Theater hospital is fellow reservist Col. Mike Yaszemski who helped fine tune aeromedical evacuation procedures as the mobilization assistant to the Air Mobility Command surgeon general.

"The No. 1 advancement I've seen during this conflict is en-route care," Colonel Yaszemski said. "In Vietnam, from the time of injury till the patient was able to get back to the states averaged 43 days. Today, we're getting wounded troops back to the states oftentimes within 48 to 72 hours."

"When an urgent trauma patient is being transported,?(his or her)?condition can go bad in a heartbeat," said the spine surgeon from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. "Now we have critical care air transport teams that are like an intensive care unit in the sky."

As part of an annual workshop, the colonel streamlined what the airborne medics carry, trimming their equipment from 750 to 550 pounds. Also, he ensured that each of the teams, consisting of a flight surgeon, flight nurse, respiratory therapist and medical technician, follow the same duty and crew-rest standards that other aircrew use.

Sixty percent of the aeromedical evacuation mission is done by Air Force Reserve Command. Since the beginning of operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, the Air Force has transported thousands of patients and only one has died en route, a Soldier with unsurvivable burns.

"When we build the critical care air transport teams, we ask, 'What would we like onboard the aircraft if we were a very sick troop lying on a stretcher?'" Colonel Yaszemski said.

The Air Force Theater Hospital averages about 750 patients a month. According to records, about 96 percent of the trauma patients treated here survive to move on to the next stage of care. This is the best rate in military medical history.

"I'll always remember the young Marine who came here on Father's Day and required 248 pints of blood and three operations on his first day with us," Colonel Johannigman said. "The team effort of our medics was successful in helping this wounded hero make it back alive to the states where he continues to recover from his wounds.

"It is a unique privilege to care for these military men and women," he said. "We strive to give the very best care to everyone that comes to our door."
Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.


Copyright 2006 Air Force Print News. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,108201,00.html

Hearing for 4 Soldiers Begins
Associated Press | August 02, 2006
TIKRIT, Iraq - The U.S. Army opened a hearing Tuesday to determine whether four American Soldiers must stand trial for allegedly murdering three Iraqis during a raid where they claimed they were under orders to "kill all military-age males."

Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker, Pfc. Corey R. Clagett, and Spc. Juston R. Graber are accused of murder and other offenses in the May 9 shooting deaths near Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad.

Girouard, Hunsaker and Clagett are also accused of obstruction of justice for allegedly threatening to kill another Soldier if he told authorities what happened.

All four are members of the 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division and have been jailed in Kuwait since they were arrested in June. They were moved to Tikrit, the division headquarters, for the Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding.

The hearing, which is expected to last several days, opened with testimony from two investigators who questioned the Soldiers when the allegations surfaced last month.

Under cross-examination from Girouard's lawyer, Capt. Shaun Lister, special agent Billy Higginson said someone approached him on June 14 with information regarding a "potential conspiracy."

Higginson said he began questioning Soldiers who might have knowledge of such a conspiracy on the same day. He said Graber displayed an "unresponsive" look when asked about a conspiracy but confirmed there was one 15 minutes into the interview.

The investigator acknowledged that he and his colleagues sometimes resort to "lies, trickery or deceit" to extract confessions.

Clagett's civilian lawyer, Christopher Bergrin, told investigating officer Lt. Col. James P. Daniel that he intended to call the brigade commander, Col. Michael Steele, to testify during the hearing.

Steele was not present in the hearing room Tuesday. Daniels said the commander had signed a statement "invoking his right not to testify."

As a captain, Steele took part in the ill-starred 1993 battle in Mogadishu, Somalia, that killed 18 U.S. troops - the basis for the "Black Hawk Down" book and movie - and led to the failure of a U.N. peacekeeping mission there two years later.

Officers from their unit initially cleared the four Soldiers of wrongdoing. Charges were filed when witnesses changed their testimony after repeated interviews with Army investigators, Bergrin said last week.

Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Hillary_...ce_at_0802.html
Clinton asks Rumsfeld to testify at open hearing, not closed

RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday August 2, 2006

In a letter dated today and obtained by RAW STORY, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) wrote to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asking him to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee tomorrow.

"You will not be joining Generals Pace and Abizaid despite a formal invitation..." notes Clinton. "Instead, you will appear at a closed briefing open only to Senators later in the day."

In closing the letter, Clinton Clinton wrote "at this critical time in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the Committee and the American people should hear not only from our military’s uniformed leaders but also from you as the top civilian leader."

Complete text of the letter follows...

#
The Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense United States Department of Defense The Pentagon Suite 319 Washington, D.C. 20301

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I write to urge you to reconsider your decision to decline testifying at a public hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

As you know, on Thursday the Committee will hold a hearing to receive testimony on Iraq, Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism. General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and General John Abizaid, the Commander of Central Command, are scheduled to testify. According to the notice of the hearing posted by the Armed Services Committee, you will not be joining Generals Pace and Abizaid despite a formal invitation extended to you by the Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman and Ranking Member. Instead, you will appear at a closed briefing open only to Senators later in the day.

As the Senate Committee with primary jurisdiction over the United States military, the Armed Services Committee plays a critical role in conducting oversight over our operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Recent events in both Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate that our forces face difficult challenges in defeating committed insurgencies, providing greater security and helping to foster stable governments.

Since the last time you testified at a public hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee was February 7, 2006 – nearly six months ago – a public appearance before the committee is long overdue. As the top official at the Pentagon, you are responsible for implementing the President’s Iraq and Afghanistan policies, and for making recommendations to the President as to future plans in both theaters. With approximately 130,000 troops currently serving in Iraq and 20,000 troops serving in Afghanistan in increasingly more dangerous circumstances, the Committee, and more importantly, the American people should hear directly from you.

In our democracy, our military comes under civilian control and policy decisions are made by the civilian leadership. At this critical time in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the Committee and the American people should hear not only from our military’s uniformed leaders but also from you as the top civilian leader.

I hope you will reconsider your decision not to testify before the Committee on Thursday.

I look forward to your response and thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14150687/

Source: Haditha evidence implicates Marines
Investigators reportedly finish initial review in deaths of 24 civilians

Aug. 2: NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski reports from the Pentagon that charges in the Haditha inquiry are expected within a month.
MSNBC
Updated: 2:36 p.m. ET Aug 2, 2006
WASHINGTON - Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.

Agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service have completed their initial work on the incident last November, but may be asked to probe further as Marine Corps and Navy prosecutors review the evidence and determine whether to recommend criminal charges, according to two Pentagon officials who discussed the matter on condition of anonymity.

The decision on whether to press criminal charges ultimately will be made by the commander of the accused Marines’ parent unit, the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton, Calif. That currently is Lt. Gen. John Sattler, but he is scheduled to move to a Pentagon assignment soon; his successor will be Lt. Gen. James Mattis.

Investigators conducted a wide range of interviews but did not obtain permission to exhume the bodies of the 24 who were killed, one official said.

‘In cold blood’
The case is one of several involving alleged unjustified killings of Iraqi civilians that have emerged this year, damaging the military’s reputation for humane treatment of civilians and triggering calls by some Iraqi leaders to end the arrangement under which U.S. troops are immune from prosecution by Iraqi authorities.

The Marines initially reported after the Nov. 19, 2005 killings at Haditha that 15 Iraqi civilians had been killed by a makeshift roadside bomb and in crossfire between Marines and insurgent attackers. Based on accounts from survivors and human rights groups, Time magazine first reported in March that the killings were deliberate acts by the Marines.

A criminal investigation was then ordered by the top Marine commander in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer.

A parallel investigation is examining whether officers in the Marines’ chain of command tried to cover up the events. The probe, which has not been made public, faults some officers for failing to pursue obvious discrepancies in the initial reports about what happened in Haditha and for not launching an early investigation.

Defamatory statements?
Public attention on the Haditha case grew after Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a former Marine, asserted publicly on May 17 that he had learned from Marine Corps officials that innocent Iraqis had been killed “in cold blood.”

Lawyers for Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, one of the Marines under investigation, argued in a lawsuit filed Wednesday in federal court that Murtha falsely accused Wuterich of murder and war crimes.

The suit maintains that Pentagon officials “who have briefed or leaked information to Mr. Murtha deliberately provided him with inaccurate and false information” and that the congressman subsequently “has made repeated statements .... that are defamatory” to Wuterich and his fellow Marines.

Among the other cases of alleged deliberate killings of Iraqi civilians, seven Marines and one Navy corpsman have been charged with premeditated murder and other criminal acts in connection with the killing of an Iraqi man in Hamdania on April 26. Also, five soldiers and a former soldier have been charged in the March 12 rape-slaying of a young Iraqi woman and the killings of her relatives in Mahmoudiya.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Democrats hit Rumsfeld for missing US Iraq hearing
By Will Dunham

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Wednesday he will not testify publicly on the Iraq war to a key Senate committee due to a busy schedule, drawing sharp criticism from prominent Democrats.

Rumsfeld, known for frosty relations with some lawmakers, denied he was reluctant to face senators in public, and suggested critics were playing politics.

Rumsfeld will not testify on Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, charged with overseeing the Pentagon. He said he will meet with senators in a closed session with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and two generals.

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) blasted Rumsfeld.

"Avoiding a congressional hearing may take the sting out of the process for Secretary Rumsfeld, but it does nothing to reassure the American people or our men and women in uniform that we have a viable policy in Iraq," Kennedy said.

Clinton noted during another hearing before the committee that more than 2,500 U.S. troops have died in Iraq. "And this secretary of defense, I think, owes the American people more than he is providing."

Democrats in November elections will try to regain control of Congress from Republicans. Rumsfeld has been one of the Democrats' prime targets for criticism over the handling of the three-year-old Iraq war.

Testifying at Thursday morning's hearing will be Army Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, and Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, the top U.S. military officer.

Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), the committee's chairman, and the panel's top Democrat wrote Rumsfeld on July 26 "to confirm your invitation to testify" at the hearing on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Warner said on Wednesday "at no time did he refuse to come up here," adding the Senate Republican leadership preferred having Rumsfeld, Rice, Pace and Abizaid brief in private.

Clinton noted Rumsfeld's "interference, second-guessing and over-ruling" of top military officers.

"And I for one am deeply disturbed at the failures -- the constant, consistent failures -- of strategy with respect to Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere."

At the Pentagon, Rumsfeld said that "my calendar was such that to do it in the morning ... would have been difficult."

Without mentioning anyone by name, Rumsfeld added, "Let's be honest. Politics enters into these things. And maybe the person raising the question is interested in that." Clinton is a possible 2008 Democratic presidential candidate.

Rumsfeld has not testified publicly to the panel since February.

Democrats have used these committee hearings to savage Rumsfeld. At a 2005 hearing, Kennedy asked Rumsfeld, "Isn't it time for you to resign?" And Sen. Robert Byrd (news, bio, voting record) of West Virginia objected to Rumsfeld's "sneer," and said, "So get off your high horse when you come up here."




Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.


Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060802/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
Rumsfeld snub of war hearing draws fire
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said he essentially was too busy to testify at a public hearing on the Iraq war, raising a new furor on Capitol Hill over the three-year-old conflict.

Speaking to Pentagon reporters Wednesday, Rumsfeld said he thought it was enough for him to attend a private briefing with the entire Senate on Thursday. Citing his crowded calendar, he declined the Senate Armed Services Committee's request to testify publicly on Thursday morning.

Rumsfeld's decision drew protests from committee Democrats who said much had changed in the six months since he last testified and took questions from the committee. The request for his appearance came from the committee chairman, Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., and the top Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan.

Rumsfeld suggested that complaints about his decision could be politically motivated.

"Let's be honest: Politics enters into these things, and maybe the person raising the question is interested in that," said Rumsfeld, without identifying anyone. The defense secretary said he had testified in the past and was not reluctant to face off against some of the committee's more vocal war critics, including Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass.

"America is in deep trouble in Iraq, yet Secretary Rumsfeld refuses to explain and defend his policies in full public view tomorrow," Kennedy said.

"Avoiding a congressional hearing may take the sting out of the process for Secretary Rumsfeld, but it does nothing to reassure the American people or our men and women in uniform that we have a viable policy in Iraq," he said.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., wrote Rumsfeld on Wednesday, urging him to change his mind.

"The American people should hear directly from you," said Clinton, who has criticized the administration's handling of the war. Unlike Kennedy, she has not called for Rumsfeld's resignation.

Rumsfeld's relations with Congress have been testy at times and he has occasionally resisted testifying publicly on controversial subjects, including the debate over whether high-level officials should be held accountable for the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, were to testify Thursday.

Rumsfeld last appeared before the committee on Feb. 7, when he and Pace were questioned about the war's strain on the military.

In the six months since, the number of U.S. troops in Iraq has dipped but now is back up to about 133,000, as part of an effort to quell the violence in Baghdad. The total could exceed 135,000 in the weeks and months ahead.

In other comments, Rumsfeld and Pace, citing intelligence concerns, sidestepped a question about whether they have seen evidence that Iran is supporting Hezbollah in its fight against Israel.

Rumsfeld said it is evident that Hezbollah is using Iranian weapons, adding, "Hezbollah's a terrorist organization, and Iran's their principal financial and military supplier and supporter. The linkage is tight."

Rumsfeld also offered an explanation for why as many as two-thirds of the Army's brigades and many National Guard units are rated not ready for combat. He said the Pentagon is wrestling with standards that would best describe the condition of the units. And he noted that highly experienced units coming home from Iraq leave a lot of equipment behind, and as a result are considered not combat ready.

"The Army today is vastly better than it was two, four, six or eight years ago," he said. "It has much more equipment, much better equipment, and it's better trained and more experienced."

He and Pace also said that funding to address the National Guard's needs — which equal about $21 billion through 2011 — has been included in budget plans over the next five years.

___

Associated Press writer Devlin Barrett contributed to this report.



Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080206R.shtml

The "Band of Brothers" Unravels
By Martin Bashir
ABC News

Wednesday 02 August 2006

Soldier accused of civilian murders defends actions.
Pfc. Corey Clagett believed that the matter had been resolved.

After two internal inquiries evaluating a mission that had taken place in northern Iraq on May 9, the 22-year-old and three other soldiers from the 3rd Battalion of the 101st Airborne Division expected to return to their duties without a stain on their characters.

Within a month, however, three of the four had been arrested, accused of premeditated murder, and placed in a US military jail in Kuwait.

On Tuesday, the four appeared before an Article 32 hearing that would determine whether they should be court-martialed. If found guilty, they could face the death penalty.

From "Hero" to Prisoner

Speaking by telephone from his prison cell, in an exclusive interview with "Nightline," Clagett defended his actions and expressed anger toward the military for pressing charges against him.

"I was trained to do the right thing," he said, "and I did do that. And it's like I was a hero one day - and I was being treated like that one day - and now I'm in a prison facility in Kuwait."

The transition became all the more astounding when it emerged that his accusers were not from the Iraqi populace, but from his own battalion - the tightly knit and fiercely loyal "band of brothers."

Clagett, along with Sgt. Raymond Girouard and Spc. William Hunsaker - all members of the Fort Campbell, Ky.-based 3rd Battalion - have been accused of deliberately releasing three Iraqi men they had captured, in order to kill them.

Another soldier, Spc. Juston Graber, has admitted to carrying out the "mercy killing" of one of the detainees after the initial shooting.

Clagett, Girouard and Hunsaker, however, vigorously deny the charges, saying that they only fired after the Iraqis broke free and started to attack them.

Rules of Engagement: "Kill All Military-Age Males"

The truth of what happened on that morning in May has become the subject of bitter dispute between former comrades who will find themselves on opposite sides of the ongoing military court proceedings.

The mission itself, like most combat tasks in remote areas of Iraq, was dangerous and intense.

According to Clagett, the briefing was clear.

"I was told that we were going into an al Qaeda and an anti-Iraqi force training area. And that when we were coming in, I was to expect fire.... Before we got on the ground, they were gonna shoot at the birds. They said we were gonna go in hot."

In their sworn affidavits, the three accused soldiers, along with others in the unit, say they received unusual but unequivocal rules of engagement for the task ahead. They say that they were given repeated and explicit orders to "kill all military-age males."

From his prison cell, Clagett explained how they prepared for the mission.

"We did rehearsals on the 8th of May and.... It got passed down to my lieutenant commander and he told us and then my platoon leader and my lieutenant he told us, then the platoon sergeant told us, then the squad leader told us. It was just relayed through chain of command."

What were they told?

"We were told that everybody on this island was hostile," Clagett said. "They were known al Qaeda insurgents, and we're going to kill all military-aged males, so be prepared."

Nightline: So you were told specifically to kill all military-age males?

Clagett: Correct.

Nightline: Were you ever told on any other mission that you were to kill all military-age males? Did that ever happen prior to this event?

Clagett: No.

Nightline: Never?

Clagett: Never.

When the soldiers first landed, close to the Syrian border, they encountered no resistance whatsoever - the place seemed empty.

Eventually they came upon a house where a man was looking out of the window. He was shot immediately.

They then advanced to a second property where they found three men hiding, using women and children as human shields.

According to Clagett, the male detainees were eventually separated. Zip ties were attached to their wrists. As Clagett tried to reinforce their cuffs, however, he says he was attacked by one of the detainees.

"I just got blindsided on my left side, and I just got hit in the face.... I spun around, staggered a little, spun around. I lost my vision.... Came back to and I saw this guy running and I just picked up right in between both of them and I just fired.... He did [have] hostile intent towards me."

"Because he just attacked me and all that ran through my head for those couple of seconds. So I engaged his target. With his hostile intent [this] gave me authorization to kill this guy. Then I know for Hunsaker, when I checked him out, he was cut on the face and on the arm and he received hostile action so that gave him [the] right to kill that guy."

For about four weeks after the killings in May, this was the account on record. Last month an entirely different version of events was given after three soldiers swore new affidavits.

One of them, Sgt. Leonel Lemus, a member of the 3rd Battalion, said that he had witnessed a deliberate plot to kill the three Iraqis and that the only cuts sustained by members of his division were self-inflicted in order to bolster their story.

In his statement he says that he didn't initially tell the truth because of "peer pressure, and I have to be loyal to the squad."

Lemus also recalled Clagett suffering a form of post-traumatic stress days after the killings.

"Three days later he told me he couldn't stop talking about it. As if it bothered him.... He was really stressed because when he slept the few hours he did, he dreamed about it over and over."

We put this to Clagett during our telephone interview.

Nightline: Do you recall telling him that you couldn't stop thinking about the shooting? And that you felt ill as a result?

Clagett: Yes, I did.

Nightline: Why did you tell him that?

Clagett: Well, I'm human. I'm not one of these guys who is like, 'Oh, I killed someone.' I felt bad because even though he did attack me and I had a right to shoot him, I still felt bad because I had to take two guys' lives and that affected me in my head because I am a really caring person. And with the thought of me killing two people that hurt me even though it was for the right reason, it hurt me.

Nightline: Is it possible that you are really feeling deeply guilty about it and that's why you couldn't stop thinking about it?

Clagett: No, I definitely did not feel guilty.... I did not feel guilty because [of] what he did. I just acted accordingly of what he did to me.... So I mean I just followed my original rule of engagement.

Other soldiers have also come forward to challenge Clagett's account.

Spc. Micah Bivins has said that "the cuts on Hunsaker's face were fishy and awkward. They could have been done with a paper clip," supporting the allegation that the injuries were self-inflicted and part of a conspiracy.

Graber, the fourth accused soldier, says Hunsaker told him that he wanted to "kill the detainees."

There is one aspect of the division's conduct that both sides appear to agree on: that there is a competition between battalions as to how many Iraqis can be killed.

Bivins, in his statement responding to a question about whether the rules of engagement had anything to do with the large number of killings, said, "Yes, because there is a list. The high value target list has persons on it who are confirmed bad guys and they are to be killed on sight, after confirmation it is actually them."

Again, we put the question to Clagett.

Nightline: Is it true that amongst certain divisions of American personnel in Iraq there is a list, a tally, of how many high value targets are killed in Iraq. Is that true?

Clagett: Yes. It is true.

Nightline: Do you think having a list like that is helpful? Doesn't that generate a sense of competition?

Clagett: Yes, it does. There pretty much was a competition. Everyone is saying there wasn't but there was.

The scene is now set for a legal showdown between men who, until recently, were comrades on the battlefield.

The tight cords that once maintained discipline and an absolute commitment to the division have begun to unravel among the "band of brothers."

-------

Report to suggest Marines shot unarmed Iraqi women and children :

Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...cs/15180243.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0201652_pf.html

Top Military Lawyers Oppose Plan for Special Courts

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 3, 2006; A11



The military's top uniformed lawyers, appearing at a Senate hearing yesterday, criticized key provisions of a proposed new U.S. plan for special military courts, affirming that they did not see eye to eye with the senior Bush administration political appointees who developed the plan and presented it to them last week.

The lawyers' rare, open disagreement with civilian officials at the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the White House came during discussions of proposed new rules for the use of evidence derived from hearsay or coercion and the possible exclusion of defendants from the trials in some circumstances.

The administration has said such juries -- to be established within a new system of military "commissions" tailored for trying war crimes in an age of terrorism -- are the only appropriate forum for bringing to justice members or associates of terrorist groups and those accused of anti-U.S. acts in conjunction with such groups.

The draft legislation debated yesterday would create military commissions to replace the ones struck down in June by the Supreme Court, which ruled that an earlier plan, imposed by the Defense Department without congressional authorization, was unconstitutional. The new proposal seeks to expand the authority of the courts by including defendants who are not members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and not directly involved in acts of international terrorism.

Some independent experts and human rights groups have criticized the plan because defendants would be denied many protections guaranteed by the civilian and traditional military criminal justice systems.

The proposed legislation has not been formally released because of the administration's inability to persuade the military lawyers to accept it, even after two meetings with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

The basis for the lawyers' concerns about administration policy, which they first articulated in private memos in 2002 and 2003 for top Defense Department political appointees, is that weak respect for the rights of U.S.-held prisoners eventually could undermine U.S. demands for fair treatment of captured U.S. service personnel.

"The United States should be an example to the world, sir," Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, judge advocate general of the Army, told Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. "Reciprocity is something that weighs heavily in all of the discussions that we are undertaking as we develop the process and rules for the commissions, and that's the exact reason, sir. The treatment of soldiers who will be captured on future battlefields is of paramount concern."

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a reserve Air Force appellate judge who has repeatedly expressed support for the military lawyers' viewpoint, elicited the affirmations of general dissent when he asked the lawyers if "there are still areas of disagreement" with provisions in the administration's working draft.

Perhaps the sharpest point of disagreement concerned a provision that would allow a military judge to decide that classified evidence could be used at the trials by providing it to a military defense lawyer but not to defendants. Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, the Air Force's judge advocate general, said: "It does not comport with my ideas of due process for . . . defense counsel to have information he cannot share with his client." The other lawyers agreed with Rives.

Black also suggested that lawmakers consider eliminating a provision that would establish a new system of appeals for defendants convicted by the military commissions. Under the provision, a special military court -- staffed by military lawyers appointed by the secretary of defense -- would be empowered to review only legal issues, not the validity of a defendant's sentence.

An appeal could then go only to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a conservative bench that has sided twice with the government in detainee cases in the past two years and has been overruled by the Supreme Court.

Black said that keeping the existing appellate process for military courts-martial, which allows for an earlier review of a defendant's sentence, is "certainly worth considering," adding, "We have extraordinarily competent and talented judges at our appellate levels throughout the services." Navy Rear Adm. Bruce McDonald said the existing process could be kept, although Rives and Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Kevin M. Sandkuhler indicated that they favor the proposed method.

Black also took issue with a provision in the draft that would allow the use of evidence collected during coercive interrogations. "Sir, I don't believe that a statement that is obtained under coercive -- under torture, certainly, and under coercive measures should be admissible," he told Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

McDonald, Rives and Sandkuhler each separately said they agreed. But they said later that they could accept a procedure in which a presiding military judge would decide whether coercion occurred.

The administration's plan, in contrast, is to let the judge decide whether to admit evidence obtained by coercion by considering whether it is reliable and necessary to prove a point. Gonzales embraced this more flexible approach at an Armed Services Committee hearing on the same topic yesterday when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked whether statements obtained through "illegal, inhumane treatment should be admissible."

Gonzales said: "The concern that I would have about such a prohibition is what does it mean [and] how you defined it. I think if we could all reach agreement about the definition of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, then perhaps I could give you an answer. . . . Depending on your definition of something as degrading, such as insults, I would say that information should still come in."

McCain called this "a radical departure" from past U.S. practice.

Gonzales also confirmed a report last week in The Washington Post that the administration plans to include language in the legislation designed to protect service personnel and civilians from domestic war-crimes prosecutions for any violations of the international laws of war that are committed under administration policies that have been withdrawn or ruled illegal.

"It seems to us it is appropriate for Congress to consider whether or not to provide additional protections for those who've relied in good faith upon decisions made by their superiors," Gonzales said.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Iraq Moving Toward Civil War, Top U.S. Commanders Say

By William Branigin and Mary Jordan

The top U.S. commander in the Middle East told a Senate panel today that the recent wave of sectarian violence in Iraq threatens to push the country toward an all-out civil war.

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...er=emailarticle

In Ramadi, Steel Nerves Needed for Night Ride

By Ann Scott Tyson

RAMADI, Iraq -- A red sun sinks behind a dusty row of tents at Camp Ramadi, and another shift begins for the dogged crew of soldiers and Marines who nightly scour this city's streets for bombs.

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...er=emailarticle

Soldier Testifies About Comrades' Threats

By Andy Mosher

BAGHDAD, Aug. 2 -- An American soldier testified Wednesday that comrades threatened to kill him if he disclosed their roles in the slaying of three Iraqi detainees in May in northern Iraq.

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...er=emailarticle

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/washingt..._r=1&oref=login

White House Asks Congress to Define War Crimes
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: August 3, 2006
WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales pressed Congress on Wednesday to refine the definition of war crimes prohibited under the Geneva Conventions, as the Bush administration and lawmakers continued to debate the rules for treatment and trials of terror suspects.

Administration proposals on how to bring suspects to trial had moved closer to what key senators have said they will demand, but two hearings on Capitol Hill on Wednesday foreshadowed a fight over the definition of coercive interrogation tactics.

And administration lawyers and senators continued to clash over evidence obtained through coercion or hearsay and how to deal with classified evidence.

The Supreme Court ruled in late June that terror suspects must be extended the protections outlined in a provision of the Geneva Conventions that prohibits “outrages upon personal dignity, and in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”

Mr. Gonzales argued that the language of the provision was too vague. And because the federal War Crimes Act passed a decade ago makes it a felony to violate that provision, he said that troops could be prosecuted for interrogation tactics considered too harsh. Congress, he said, could “help by defining our obligations” under the provision, known as Common Article Three.

Mr. Gonzales, publicly discussing the administration’s new proposal for detainee trials for the first time since the court’s ruling, said it would offer legislation that included a proposal to change the War Crimes Act, to bring “clarity” in defining which violations of Common Article Three rise to the level of war crimes.

“The surest way to achieve that clarity and certainty, in our view, is for Congress to set forth a definite and clear list of offenses serious enough to be considered war crimes,” he said.

But senators said Congress should not endorse any treatment it would not want used on American soldiers..

“We must remain a nation that is different from, and above, our enemies,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona.

The differences between the administration and the Senate were most pronounced when Mr. McCain asked Mr. Gonzales whether statements obtained through “illegal and inhumane treatment” should be admissible. Mr. Gonzales paused for almost a minute before responding.

“The concern that I would have about such a prohibition is, what does it mean?” he said. “How do you define it? I think if we could all reach agreement about the definition of cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment, then perhaps I could give you an answer.”

Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, said that using illegal and inhumane interrogation tactics and allowing the evidence to be introduced would be “a radical departure” from longstanding United States policy.

The court ruled in June that the military tribunals that President Bush had established for suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, violated international law and were not authorized by federal statute.

Lawyers from the Defense and Justice Departments initially tried to persuade Congress simply to approve the tribunals. By Wednesday’s hearings, the administration had changed its position. “What we are considering now is a better product,” Mr. Gonzales said.

He said the administration proposed enacting a new code of military justice modeled on court-martial procedures.

The new proposal departs from the initial tribunals in several ways. The presiding officer would be a military judge, for example, and would rule on evidence but not participate in the final verdict. The jury would have 5 members, instead of 3, with 12 in death penalty cases. Conviction would require two-thirds of the jury to agree, and unanimity in death cases.

But the proposal also departs from court-martial procedures, in that suspects would not be entitled to Miranda warnings, or to Article 32 proceedings, which are similar to a grand jury. It would allow the introduction of hearsay evidence that the judge ruled “reliable” and would share classified evidence with the defense counsel, but not necessarily the defendant.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said it would “not serve us well” to ignore the military rules against hearsay.

But Mr. Graham supported a move to refine what kind of treatment violated the War Crimes Act, under which, he said, a slap could be a crime.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060803/pl_nm/...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Haditha killing reports under review : senator Thu Aug 3, 10:38 AM ET

U.S. Marine Corps officials are reviewing findings of investigations into the killing of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha, and those results should be delivered to Congress in September, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said on Thursday.

Without mentioning the word Haditha, Republican Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia said results of two separate but related probes into the suspected involvement of Marines in those killings were now under review by the Marine Corps and will be sent to Army Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command.

Warner, at a committee hearing, said Abizaid told the committee's top lawmakers the Pentagon would deliver the findings to Congress after his review, likely in September.

U.S. Marines have been accused of killing unarmed Iraqis in Haditha in November 2005. It is just one of many cases in which U.S. troops are suspected of killing civilians.

Two investigations were initiated into the Haditha case -- a murder inquiry and a probe into the Marines' procedures following the killings.

"There is a convergence of the criminal investigation together with the chain-of-command investigation," Warner said.

Under the murder inquiry, military criminal investigators have reviewed evidence indicating Marines deliberately shot to death the Iraqi civilians, a defense official said. The investigation into the military's response found Marine officers failed to respond properly to the conflicting reports of the killings, an official has said.




Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.


Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/opinion/edit-3-thu.html

Dishonorable Service


Published: August 3, 2006
What happens to a general who turns a military detention camp into a center for the torment of prisoners, and then keeps exporting those vile practices to other U.S. prisons until their exposure sickens the world? If the general works under President Bush, he is whitewashed of any blame, protected from even the mildest reprimand, and, finally, retires honorably with the military’s highest noncombat medal pinned to his chest.

By now, we shouldn’t be all that surprised at the treatment of Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the Guantánamo Bay commandant who helped organize interrogation centers in Afghanistan and at Abu Ghraib.

After all, Mr. Bush has promoted the civilians who formulated the policies behind illegal detention and prisoner abuse. And he awarded the highest civilian honor to George Tenet, who either bungled the intelligence on Iraq or helped the White House hype it, and Paul Bremer, whose post-invasion mismanagement helped foment the bloody chaos in Iraq.

But there was something especially appalling about the ceremony on Monday in which General Miller got the Distinguished Service Medal in — of all places — the Pentagon’s Hall of Heroes. The medal is for “exceptionally meritorious service to the government” beyond the performance of duty.

We hope the Pentagon had something in mind beyond putting prisoners into painful positions for hours or threatening them with German shepherds. Surely they were not thinking of naked men in pyramids or posed with electric wires on their genitals.

This sorry tale dishonors the real heroes. If the Pentagon wanted to honor them, it could have chosen the military lawyers who tried to stop the Bush administration from scrapping the Geneva Conventions and trying to put places like Guantánamo Bay beyond the rule of law. Or it could just look to the front line in Iraq, where heroes put their lives on the line every day — and all too often lose them.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,108515,00.html

Pentagon Sending 82nd to Afghanistan
Associated Press | August 03, 2006
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon announced Wednesday that a combat brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, N.C., will deploy to Afghanistan late this year as part of the next rotation of forces.

The deployment, to include the 82nd Airborne headquarters staff and various unidentified support units, will total about 11,000 soldiers, the Pentagon said. The announcement gave no indication that this would represent either an increase or a decrease in U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, which currently stand at about 22,000.

At a Pentagon news conference, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that based on his visit last week to Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan he is optimistic about progress in Afghanistan.

Regarding troops levels, Pace said, "The U.S. contribution has stayed stable and will remain stable."

Late last year the Pentagon said U.S. troop levels would be reduced by 3,000 this year, but that has not happened, mainly because the Taliban armed resistance has stepped up its attacks, particularly in the volatile southern areas.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,108518,00.html

Hezbollah: We'll Bomb Tel Aviv
Associated Press | August 03, 2006
BOURJ AL-MULOUK, Lebanon - Israel renewed airstrikes on Beirut's southern suburbs Thursday, and Hezbollah retaliated by firing more than 130 rockets at northern Israel, killing at least seven people in Acre and Maalot. It was the bloodiest day in Israel since eight people were killed July 16 near a train maintenance depot.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said his group would fire rockets into Tel Aviv if Israel strikes Beirut proper. Israeli warplanes have repeatedly bombarded Hezbollah strongholds in southern suburbs of Beirut.

"If you bomb our capital Beirut, we will bomb the capital of your usurping entity... We will bomb Tel Aviv," he said in a taped televised speech.

Nasrallah also said that his guerrillas are "fighting until the last breath and last bullet." But he offered to stop firing rockets on Israeli cities if Israel stops attacks on Lebanese towns.

Three weeks into the conflict, six Israeli brigades - roughly 10,000 troops - were locked in fighting with hundreds of Hezbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon, and the battle looked likely to be long and bitter.

Defense Minister Amir Peretz told top army officers Thursday to prepare to push Israeli control 18 miles into south Lebanon to the Litani River, senior military officials said.

Launching the next phase of the operation would require further approval by Israel's Security Cabinet.

The army said that it already had taken up positions as far as five miles inside Lebanon.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said more than 900 people had been killed and 3,000 wounded, but he did not say whether the new figure - up from 520 confirmed dead - included people missing.

More than 1 million people, a quarter of Lebanon's population, have been displaced, he said, adding that the fighting "is taking an enormous toll on human life and infrastructure, and has totally ravaged our country and shattered our economy."

At the United Nations, France circulated a revised resolution calling for an immediate cessation of Isra