Pentagon blocks ex-Gitmo prosecutor from testifying.
Pentagon blocks ex-Gitmo prosecutor from testifying.
Yesterday, ThinkProgress noted that Air Force Col. Morris Davis resigned his position as the chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay after he was placed under the command of torture advocate William Haynes. During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this morning, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) revealed that the Pentagon had blocked Davis from testifying before the committee. “The Defense Department has ordered him not to appear,” said Feinstein. Watch it:
Calling it a shame, Feinstein said that she had “to conclude” that the administration is trying to stop a fair and open discussion about the legal rights of detainees at Guantananmo.
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday that Davis “planned to say that he considered information obtained through” waterboarding to be “unreliable and that he had ordered his staff to exclude such evidence from their cases.”
UPDATE II: In November, the Pentagon blocked another former Guantanamo prosecutor, Lt. Col. Stuart Couch, from testifying about “enhanced” interrogation techniques.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
No kidding Diane. And YOU helped make all this possible.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:50 pmTrying to stop? Until the dems grow a pair, this administration will succeed in stopping any fair and open discussion.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:50 pmDoD has standing to make that order??? When was Martial Law declared???????????
December 11th, 2007 at 1:50 pmFeinstein is terribly “disappointed” and “wishes” that the administration had chosen otherwise. Sounds like a typically tepid response from Feinstein. Now she’ll do what she always does–she’ll continue to enable the administration’s illegal behavior, with barely a whimper in defiance.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:51 pmIf you had stood up to them at the beginning, Feinstein, maybe now they wouldn’t be thinking that they can just run right over you with impunity.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:51 pmA shame?!? No, forgetting to buy milk when you’re at the store is a shame. Aiding and abetting torture is a crime.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:52 pmWhat could possibly be their explanation for NOT wanting the prosecutor to testify? If they have done nothing wrong, I would think the Bush Admin. would look to this prosecutor to vindicate them? If anyone would have a good understanding of what they are doing, I think it would be the chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. So why bar him from testifying?
December 11th, 2007 at 1:53 pmFeinstein said that she had “to conclude†that the administration is trying to stop a fair and open discussion about the legal rights of detainees at Guantananmo.
Brilliant deduction Dianne! Now could you explain why you yourself seem to pull a Sphinctor & cave in each time something really important was about to be decided.
Kettle, meet Dianne. Do you have Nancy’s table?
December 11th, 2007 at 1:53 pmThere have been NO consequences for any actions taken by this administration up to this point. Why continue to act surprised when they thumb their noses at you again?
December 11th, 2007 at 1:54 pmTHIS COUNTRY IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED MILITARY, NOT A MILITARY CONTROLLED CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT!!
Sorry, but this requires shouting!
December 11th, 2007 at 1:55 pmMakes me sick…
December 11th, 2007 at 1:56 pmNo shit, Dianne. You just tumbled to this fact…?
December 11th, 2007 at 1:56 pmHow about Cheney’s impeachment bill, Dianne?
Not a word from the MSM on that bill. These so called Dems can whine all they want about the WH & DoD. The Cheney bill gave them a tool, thanks to Kucinich, that would at least bring public attention to the Big Dick, but no action to date on this at all.
Priorities, Dianne. I guess yours must be all wrapped up in that oil & big pharma stock, eh?
December 11th, 2007 at 1:57 pmCan the Pentagon actually “block” someone from appearing? My understanding was that Congress can require anyone to appear (as long as the request is reasonable), but that the witness can claim executive privilege or whatever on each individual question as they see fit.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:03 pmYour move, Dianne. We’re waiting. All they did was move one piece. You’re not going to resign the game after one move, are you?
December 11th, 2007 at 2:03 pmHeh, kinda like a banana republic where the military tells the civilian government to shove it.
I can’t wait till we start with the mass roundups and public executions in stadiums.
Then the neo-con cream-dream will be complete.
-GSD
December 11th, 2007 at 2:03 pmZimzone-
Don’t forget all the new telecom, PNAC and AIPAC friends the Dems have been making. All these heavy hitters around DC need to start hedging their bets. They know the Repubs will soon be out and there’s plenty of scratch to send the Dems way to make sure it’s business as usual in ‘08.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:05 pmAnd that will be the end of his input. Rest assured.
There is only one side to any discussion in Washington, the bush side.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:06 pmA Patriot Acting,
Sadly enough, you’re right.
Corporate greed knows no bounds, morality or allegiance to anything but money. PNAC, AIPAC, they’re all the same. Rich people planning to sustain, increase or steal their next fortune.
Why is Corporate Citizenship granted more access to Congress than the American people? That would be a good place to start…
December 11th, 2007 at 2:07 pmwhat a harsh statement from difi? Stifle discussion?
December 11th, 2007 at 2:09 pmfrom someone that has voted to allow the fascist manifesto to get a little closer with each crisis in a teacup.
what has happened to the CA demo ladies? one acknowledges she is senile and can’t recall her job, one that she likes the WB a lot, but doesn’t really know if she should think it is illegal or torture, can she get back to us?, and another that speaks so harshly about free speech, you would think she had protected it recently.
I can only imagine the shit that we’re going to find when the Bush is out of office.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:11 pmTHIS COUNTRY IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED MILITARY, NOT A MILITARY CONTROLLED CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT!!
Sorry, but this requires shouting!
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian — December 11, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
But this is a Time of War PLC! A “Long War”. Apparently when you’re in the middle of a Long War the military takes precedence over EVERYTHING!
/snark
December 11th, 2007 at 2:14 pmI certainly wish we had real patriots in congress that would do their job for the good of the country instead of these bought out corporate flunkies.
Inherent contempt charges are in order here, get your Sargent of Arms and go get them. Either that or just burn down congress, because you are useless to our country and it’s people.
Bush/Cheney/Congress
Hague Trials ‘09
Buck Fush
December 11th, 2007 at 2:16 pm22… I don’t just want to find this shit out–I want them to be able to prove it in a court of law! And I want the criminals to pay for their crimes. But the evidence is being “lost” “misplaced’ or “inadvertently erased”. In the end all that will be left are plausible denials.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:16 pm“Why is Corporate Citizenship granted more access to Congress than the American people? That would be a good place to start…”
-Zimzone
Maybe term limits is the place to start. Barring former legislators from profitting from lobbying would also be a good idea. Unfortunately for the average American the game is and has been rigged against us for a long time. No doubt the system is broke but nobody on the Hill is going to do a damned thing about it. Power, money and influence. The new Liberty and Justice for all. The only thing we’re good for in their eyes is a vote and our tax money. Otherwise we could all just go to Hell.
Sorry for the OT, folks. I will say that this whole filthy thing is going no where until a special prosecutor is brought in.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:17 pmSo, the pentagon invoked, what, Military privelege???? Is that “executive privelege” for “all the King’s men”???
There is a constitutional remedy for abuse of power by the executive branch. If not now, WHEN?????
December 11th, 2007 at 2:22 pmCongress can require anyone to appear
Yeah, but how are you going to enforce that request? *chuckle*
Comment by Frank M — December 11, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
And when are you going to stop *chuckling* about a serious threat to our own military personnel, chucklehead? And when are you going to insist that YOUR party get on board with insuring that the U.S. be the moral leader in the world?
December 11th, 2007 at 2:25 pmCongress can require anyone to appear
Yeah, but how are you going to enforce that request? *chuckle*
Comment by Frank M — December 11, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
And Frank, you think that’s funny…?
Incontrovertible proof that you, sir, are a complete MORON.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:26 pmUntil Congress decides they have a duty to perform, they might just as well authorize W to write the checks himself and go home.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:28 pmDianneFrank’MStein *chuckle*
December 11th, 2007 at 2:30 pmThe Pentagon is only allowed to speak when it reinforces the White House message (see Petraeus, David). This was one of Rummy’s lasting gifts to us. MERRY CHRISTMAS!
December 11th, 2007 at 2:42 pmYou know, given the job that congress has been doing, they should all just pack up and go home.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:50 pmI have an idea….
Subpoena the no show. Then when he doesn’t show up, arrest him.
HEY DEMS, START EXERCISING THAT POWER WE GAVE YOU!!!
December 11th, 2007 at 3:00 pm35 –
I’m not “insecure” or “dead”, so what are you even talking about???
I see you’re somewhat insecure, but you’re clearly alive.
Anyone else? Insecure? Dead?
I don’t get it.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:01 pmRight after we’re secure and alive. Then we can start thinking about things like moral higher ground.
Comment by Frank M — December 11, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
Holding the moral high ground is part of being able to hold the high physical ground and being secure and alive. When you begin to understand the reciprocal nature of human nature, perhaps you will begin to understand that circular causality is what defines human interaction dynamics. Until then, you will only see the very limited “us vs. them” perspective and be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:02 pmSo, when are the Democrats going to get mad or disgusted enough to DO SOMETHING?
I heard Thom Hartmann say, today, that Nanci Pelosi and the others can’t talk about the meeting because they are bound by the secrecy arrangements. Well, I think they have every right to talk about those meetings since the Bush Administration has leaked the information, it is no longer secret and they are no longer bound by secrecy. Unfortunately their silence seems to confirm that they did know and did nothing about it.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:02 pmCongress can require anyone to appear
Yeah, but how are you going to enforce that request? *chuckle*
Comment by Frank M
It’s called Inherent Contempt Francine. Unfortunately our Democratic leaders are too chicken to use it. If they did, they would be arresting Bolton, Meiers and others and putting them into the jail cell in the Senate Office Building and then holding a trial.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:06 pmFrank M,
You said – “Right after we’re secure and alive. Then we can start thinking about things like moral higher ground.”
Good things our founders didn’t see it this way. They declared they would not be like the other guys anymore. They were going to do it right. They would sacrifice their own security in order to live in a free society.
“Give me liberty or give me death.” This statement means he’d rather die a free man, in a society where people’s human rights are recognized, then live safe and sound in a country where they abuse the rule of law in the name of that security.
You are no patriot. You haven’t got the courage.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:13 pmFrank M,
You said – “Good. Our men and women who serve on the frontlines of the War on Terror do not need a second front.”
I’ll fix it for you. It should say “Good. Our men and women who serve on the front lines of the War on Terror should not have to worry about the rule of law. Just like Scooter Libby, what’s most important is Party over country.”
Your welcome.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:19 pmThe Pentagon is not “blocking a fair and open discussion,” Nancy. They are covering up criminal activities. Lead or step aside.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:23 pmHas anybody in Congress read the Constitution?
December 11th, 2007 at 3:30 pmArticle 1 section 8: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
They make the rules, not the Defense Department.
Pentagon Says Yes to Canadians, No to U.S. Senate
12.11.07 — 11:58AM By David Kurtz
So the Pentagon ordered Col. Morris not to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning, but it’s okay for him to write an op-ed in today’s LA Times and do an interview with CBC Radio One’s The Current that aired this morning?
[Thanks to Canadian Reader GK for the tip.]
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060798.php
December 11th, 2007 at 3:38 pmIf one is no longer in the service, how can the Pentagon continue to order him around?
Morris Davis sounds like someone who would GLADLY testify before Congress; and would be prepared to answer Lindsey Graham’s question…..
December 11th, 2007 at 4:34 pm