That's right, the dynamic duo of George W and John "torture memo" Yoo are at it again, and they've nearly slipped under the dKos radar today. Let's not let that happen.
The pair who brought us waterboarding, Abu Ghraib, and Gitmo have been thinking about what went wrong, and they've found at least one answer: too much resistance from military lawyers (JAGs) with consciences or even just sufficient knowledge of the law.
Their solution: put the JAGs under the direct control of the President by ensuring that he has authority over their promotions. This would in effect make the military's lawyers accountable to the President rather than to the law, eliminating a vital check on both the administration and the military alike. The best way to get away with torture? Make sure there's no one there with the courage to say it happened.
This story broke on the front page of today's Boston Globe, reported by Charlie Savage - the heroic journalist who won a Pulitzter this year for shedding light on W's mindboggling abuse of signing statements. Read over the fold for why this should alarm us...
First a disclaimer: this was diaried well earlier today by Unstable Isotope, and I'm writing more about it because my attempt to pimp his diary in the open thread has been somewhat futile, and because I think the story deserves more attention than his diary, for reasons that escape me but that may have something to do with Iowa, was able to garner this morning.
So why does this matter? To begin with, because this is the next little step down the road to getting rid of the difference between honorable soldiers and the US-funded mercenaries ("contractors") who have been raping and pillaging their way through a loophole in American and Iraqi law. A politicized JAG corps would be the first little pinprick in a similar gutting of the law. So much for theory - here are some more facts:
The outcome of W's plan would be to put JAG promotion under the control of one of Bush's appointees at the Pentagon, thus politicizing the position. Under the current system, this decision is made by a board of military officers, and their decisions are subject to only nominal (rubber-stamp) rather than interventionist civilian oversight.
Bush's proposal follows hard on the heels of a recent article by John ("and the horse he rode in on") Yoo, best known for advising W that the Geneva Conventions were in fact merely conventional. Savage reports:
... former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo recently coauthored a law review article sharply critical of the JAGs' unwillingness to endorse the legality of the administration's treatment of wartime detainees.
Yoo ... called for some kind of "corrective measures" that would "punish" JAGs who undermine the president's policy preferences.
Why should the Bush administration be concerned about JAGs? While many of the JAGs have gone along with administration policies, a few of the braver ones have spoken out publicly against them - and that makes for some seriously bad publicity. The Bushies are no doubt sick of people like Stephen Abraham:
Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a 26-year veteran of military intelligence who is an Army reserve officer and a California lawyer, said military prosecutors [at Gitmo] were provided with only "generic" material that didn't hold up to the most basic legal challenges.
Despite repeated requests, intelligence agencies arbitrarily refused to provide specific information that could have helped either side in the tribunals, according to Abraham, who said he served as a main liaison between the Combat Status Review Tribunals and the intelligence agencies.
And they're tired of resistance from people like Matthew Diaz, who took an extraordinary risk in trying to release the names of detainees at Gitmo, a requirement under international law that the administration had not met:
Now, Diaz knew he was crossing a line. For nearly two weeks after printing the list, he kept it locked inside the safe in his office. On another late night, he carefully trimmed the pages down to the size of large index cards. Then, on Jan. 14, the last night of his tour, he went back to the office one more time. While his colleagues were getting ready for his farewell dinner, he slipped the stack of paper inside a Valentine’s Day card he had bought at the base exchange. It was an odd touch. The card showed a cartoon puppy with long ears and bubble eyes and the greeting, "Hope Valentine’s Day is just your style." Diaz would later say that he chose it because it was big enough to hold the list. He also hoped the lipstick-red envelope might pass unscrutinized through the Guantánamo post office.
Diaz sent the names to the Center for Constitutional Rights; when this was discovered, he was court-marshalled - in spite of the fact that the names were made public by the government shortly after his action.
Why did Diaz, who had served the ably and faithfully for 19 years, take such an extraordinary risk??
Diaz had seen his share of prisons, both military and civilian. But he had never seen anything like the wire-mesh cages at Guantánamo. The prisoners looked more sad than fearsome, Diaz said. In Camp 4, where more-compliant detainees lived in barrackslike quarters, Diaz came upon an older prisoner shuffling along with a walker. "This is what I’d been told were the worst of the worst?" he recalled thinking. One detainee stuck out his hand as Diaz walked up. He took it without thinking, and the guards shot each other looks. "I thought, O.K., I shouldn’t do that."
The Bush administration hasn't known how to deal with the consequences of responses like this reaching the public, and they still don't. But they think they have found a way to keep this from ever happening again.
What should we do to prepare? In a comment in Unstable Isotope's diary, teacherken recommended contacting Senator Webb, who will understand immediately why this is so critical. Webb's DC phone is 202-224-4024, and following the link will take you to an email contact form.
We should also prepare ourselves for the spin. One argument that the Bushies will use is that this proposal is in harmony with the goal of civilian control over the military. But in effect it means control via the executive branch, not by the government (which includes the Congress) and certainly not by the people.
And while Bush will no doubt find some minor Petraeus to sing to the cameras about what a good idea this is, we should first listen to the truth from someone who gave his career to the profession in question:
Retired Rear Admiral Donald Guter, the Navy's top JAG from 2000 to 2002, said the rule would "politicize" the JAG corps all the way "down into the bowels" of its lowest ranks.
"That would be the end of the professional [JAG] corps as we know it," Guter said.