ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Balkinization

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal Commentary

: Balkinization

The Real Headline from Yesterday's SASC Hearing

By Jack M. Balkin

ADVERTISEMENTS
I haven't been able to find a video or transcript, but this jumped out from Pam Hess's account:

Air Force Colonel Steve Kleinman, a military interrogation expert, witnessed abuses in interrogations in Iraq in September 2003. So "Kleinman said he called his now retired commander, Col. Randy Moulton, to express concern about the methods being used. He said Moulton checked with his superiors and called him back to say the harsh techniques had been specifically approved by the Pentagon's general counsel, William "Jim" Haynes or higher. Moulton also said he had been told the prisoners were terrorists who were not protected by the Geneva Conventions, Kleinman said. . . ."
An earlier version of Hess's article added that Moulton himself "later told investigators that he understood that the Pentagon's general counsel or higher had approved the measures, and that the prisoners were considered terrorists and were not protected by the Geneva Conventions."

This confirms earlier accounts that, notwithstanding current Administration representations that "Geneva applied in Iraq," in fact DOJ and DOD concluded in 2003 that "unlawful combatants" in Iraq were not entitled to Geneva protections (see Point No. 2 here), and, more importantly, DOD was working on the assumption, reflected in the April 2003 Working Group Report, that military interrogators, even in Iraq, could ignore federal statutes such as the UCMJ, the federal assault statute, and the torture act, with impunity.

Has anyone seen the hearing? What, if anything, did Moulton himself say in his testimony about what legal instructions he had received? Who were the "superiors" with whom he checked? And has anyone asked him why they thought federal statutes, such as the UCMJ, the assault statute, and the Torture Act, were not applicable?

Full post as published by Balkinization on September 26, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0124 secs (new cache)