'Just World News' with Helena Cobban

Sad JAGs and "Snow" jobs

Posted by Helena Cobban at September 15, 2006 10:29 AM

In today's WaPo, Charles Babington and Jonathan Weisman have a little more on the back-story behind the sad little pro-administration letter that high-ranking JAGs from the four services and a legal advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs sent to Congressional leaders on Sept. 13. (As noted here yesterday.)

The WaPo reporters write this:

The Pentagon letter immediately generated controversy. Senior judge advocates general had publicly questioned many aspects of the administration's position, especially any reinterpreting of the Geneva Conventions. The White House and GOP lawmakers seized on what appeared to be a change of heart to say that they now have military lawyers on their side.

But the letter was signed only after an extraordinary round of negotiations Wednesday between the judge advocates and William J. Haynes II, the Defense Department's general counsel, according to Republican opponents of Bush's proposal. The military lawyers refused to sign a letter of endorsement. But after hours of cajoling, they assented to write that they "do not object," according to three Senate GOP sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were divulging private negotiations.

[Dissident Senate ASC member Sen. Lindsey] Graham, a former Air Force judge advocate general, promised to summon the lawyers to a committee hearing and to ask for an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the letter.

One of the military lawyers, Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr., reiterated yesterday that he still has reservations about the administration's proposal, just not in the areas discussed in the letter. He said he was not forced to sign.

"I made my several personal objections to the administration's proposal clear in my [House] testimony," Dunlap said. "This matter was not among them."

And then, Babington and Weisman have this extremely disturbing description of how White House snow-job-maker-in-chief Tony "Snow" tried to belittle the distinguished professional experience on the basis of which Colin Powell came out publicly against the administration's proposal:

At a feisty briefing, Snow said critics have misconstrued the administration's intent, which he said is to define the Geneva Conventions' ban on cruel and inhumane treatment, not to undermine it.

"Somehow I think there's this construct in people's minds that we want to restore the rack and start getting people screaming, having their bones crunching," Snow said. "And that's not at all what this is about."

He said Powell did not discuss the issue with the White House before releasing his letter.

"They don't understand what we're trying to do here," he said of Powell and retired Army Gen. John W. Vessey Jr., who wrote a similar letter. Asked if Powell is "confused," Snow said, "Yes."

Snow's biography makes no mention of him ever having served in the military or had any responsibility for the making of national-security decisions.

So the reason we should take his argumentation on this whole issue seriously is--- ?