At http://tinyurl.com/274uz
The head of the New York bar association has stated that a number of high ranking military lawyers came to him complaining that they were shut out of the drawing up of the rules for interrogation in Iraq. The only motivation for this that I can think of is the fear that the military lawyers would point out that the expansion of the rules would be illegal. Instead, according to the story, civilian "political" laywers were used. As far as I am concerned, the administration is looking worse and worse in this. When all is said and done, they may be seen to have caused more damage to the armed forces of the US than anyone one else over the last 20 years. <quote> A group of senior military lawyers were so concerned about changes in the rules designed to safeguard prisoners during interrogation that they sought help outside the Defense Department, according to a New York lawyer who headed a recent study of how prisoners have been treated in the war on terrorism. The military lawyers were part of the Army Judge Advocate General's office, which in the past has played a role in ensuring that interrogators did not violate prisoners' rights. "They were extremely upset. They said they were being shut out of the process, and that the civilian political lawyers, not the military lawyers, were writing these new rules of engagement," said Scott Horton, who was chairman of the New York City Bar Assn. committee that filed a report this month on the interrogation of detainees by the U.S. <end quote> As always, I am open to additional information and interpreation. I'd be happy to see that things are not as bad for the US as I now think. I'll argue, of course; but I am actually trying to understand. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
