The Pentagon's top uniformed lawyers took issue Thursday with a key part of a White House plan to prosecute terrorism detainees, telling Congress that limiting the suspects' access to evidence could violate treaty obligations.
Their testimony to a House committee marked the latest time that military lawyers have publicly challenged Bush administration proposals to keep some evidence--such as classified information-- from accused terrorists. In the past, some military officials have expressed concerns that if the U.S. adopts such standards, captured American troops might be treated the same way. Read on...
Republicans such as John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner have also raised issues with the White House's desire to essentially hold "kangaroo courts." But predictably, Bill Frist was quick to step up and put party before country and back Bush's desire to ignore the Pentagon, the military and the Geneva Conventions.
It begs the question: who will be the first to voice outrage and condemn some other country if they prosecute one of our soldiers the way Bush wants to prosecute his suspected terrorists? Will it be acceptable for Iraq or Afghanistan to violate the Geneva Conventions and hold trials without telling our soldiers what they are charged with or letting them see the evidence against them? Will it be considered fair for them to fly our soldiers to secret prisons and torture confessions out of them?
