So, just what does it take for Rumsfeld to maybe, kind of, sort of change his mind about something? And, who is standing in the way of the DoD's consideration of possible military tribunal reforms? All roads lead to one man.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Department of Defense is mulling changes to the military tribunals established by the administration of President George W. Bush to prosecute foreign terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including strengthening the rights of defendants.
Citing "military and administration officials," the The New York Times newspaper said the military's proposed changes come after the tribunals have weathered "widespread criticism" from federal courts, foreign governments and human rights groups.
"Widespread criticism". Good to know. I would have labeled it "massive international pressure", but that's just me. The word, "mulling" seems a tad discouraging too, doesn't it?
more...
Who's driving the bus loaded with status quo, no-rights for any detainees defenders?
However, the report said the Bush administration's willingness to change the tribunals remains "unclear." The article pointed out that Vice President Dick Cheney has opposed changes to the tribunal process in the past.
"There are a number of folks who would like to make changes," one Pentagon official said of the current rules governing the military commissions.
But, the official added, "Cheney is still driving a lot of this."
At a high level government meeting earlier this month, the paper reported, Cheney's counsel, David Addington, "rebuffed" the question of possible modifications to the tribunal process.
Cheney? Quel surprise! Mr "I eat babies for breakfast". He is just the quintessential, representative symbol of compassion after all, isn't he?
And, there's one of those nice words again: "rebuffed". I suspect Mr Abbington actually said: "No f*cking way! Are you f*cking insane?? Who made this GD report anyway?? Bastards!". I don't know the guy, but I think my rephrasing is probably closer to the actual truth in this case. How about you?
The proposed changes, many of which are detailed in a 232-page draft manual for the tribunals that has been circulating among Pentagon lawyers, also include establishing more independent judges to lead the panels and barring confessions obtained by torture, the unnamed officials told the Times.
Circulating? What's to circulate? That sounds like adhering to international law to me but, then again, I'm one of those annoying people who doesn't consider the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" and "obselete", so I may be a bit off base here...
The proposals gained some momentum following discussions late last year between officials at the Pentagon, the office of the White House counsel and the National Security Council.
The proposals would generally move the tribunals, formally known as military commissions, more into line with the judicial standards applied to the US military in traditional courts-martial, officials said.
The Office of the White House Counsel? Gonzales' office? The proposals actually gained momentum with him involved? I seriously doubt it.
The draft manual would bar any "confession or admission that was procured from the accused by torture," according to portions of a draft read to a reporter.
The definition of torture in the draft is fairly broad, the Times said, covering any act "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain and suffering."
Okay. That sounds right. So, why hasn't this report been made public? What are they afraid of? Oh, don't answer that! We all know the answer. The truth.
Maybe it's just me, or all reasonable people like me, but I frankly don't see much there to be "mulling" over. After all of this time, Cheney and Rumsfeld still feel the need to "mull" over the realities of torture? That is the truth they are indeed so afraid of.
Link:
Yahoo! article (quoted above)
Update [2005-3-28 2:9:24 by catnip]: Diary title changed in the hopes of creating more interest in the story...