Military Lawyers Warned that Interrogation Techniques were Illegal

Today's New York Times has published a story documenting the firm dissent that military lawyers registered against the interrogation techniques that this administration's civilian lawyers were approving for use at Guantanamo Bay.

Here are a few paragraphs from an article that is nauseatingly full of evidence of criminal malfeasance:

The documents include one written by the deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force, Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, advising the task force that several of the "more extreme interrogation techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic criminal law" as well as military law.

General Rives added that many other countries were likely to disagree with the reasoning used by Justice Department lawyers about immunity from prosecution. Instead, he said, the use of many of the interrogation techniques "puts the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusations abroad."

. . .

Rear Adm. Michael F. Lohr, the Navy's chief lawyer, wrote on Feb. 6, 2003, that while detainees at Guantánamo Bay might not qualify for international protections, "Will the American people find we have missed the forest for the treesby condoning practices that, while technically legal, are inconsistent with our most fundamental values?"

Brig. Gen. Kevin M. Sandkuhler, a senior Marine lawyer, said in a Feb. 27, 2003, memorandum that all the military lawyers believed the harsh interrogation regime could have adverse consequences for American service members. General Sandkuhler said that the Justice Department "does not represent the services; thus, understandably, concern for service members is not reflected in their opinion."

Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Romig, the Army's top-ranking uniformed lawyer, said in a March 3, 2003, memorandum that the approach recommended by the Justice Department "will open us up to criticism that the U.S. is a law unto itself."

Top lawyers from all four branches of the military objected to the proposed interrogation techniques. What more would be necessary for civilians to recognize they were crossing a moral and legal boundary?

Why aren't the people who approved the illegal techniques used at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graihb being brought to justice?

The silence on this issue from the "values" voting Religious Right is deafening.