![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Miller in the hot seat?
My father sent me a story from the WaPo this morning. A better wake up than coffee and chocolates it was.
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, a central figure in the U.S. detainee-abuse scandal, this week invoked his right not to incriminate himself in court-martial proceedings against two soldiers accused of using dogs to intimidate captives at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, according to lawyers involved in the case.
The article goes on to say he chose not to because he's already answered those questions. It also points out that Col Pappas, who was the commander at Abu Ghraib has been ordered to testify, with a grant of immunity [I'll come back to what I see as an implication in that, in just a moment].
Miller invoked his Art. 31 rights (the UCMJ parallel to the Fifth Amendment. All in all, if I were not-guilty of a crime, I'd rather have a court-martial than a civilian trial. We get more protections) in response to a demand that he testify in proceedings against two of the dog handlers.
[Harvey] Volzer, who represents Sgt. Santos A. Cardona, one of the military dog handlers charged with abuse, said he believes the grant of immunity to Pappas will essentially clear his client, because Pappas already has admitted in administrative hearings that he improperly ordered the use of dogs. Volzer said he believes that Pappas was taking direction from Miller, and that Miller was acting on instructions from Defense Department officials. Cardona and Sgt. Michael J. Smith are scheduled to be tried in separate courts-martial in February and March.
This whole thing is the sort of thing we might start to see more of, because one of the side effects of the McCain amendment (as I look at it) is that so long as the FM controlling interrogations (which is now a "legal controlling authority", or some such pompous phrase) isn't changed, "I was only following orders," is an afirmative defense.
Which means shit will start rolling uphill. If the commander convinces the soldier it was a reasonable order, the soldier is free and clear (apart from the dreams) but the commander is now in the dock, unless he can show a reasonable case for having been convinced it was a legal order.
If the Amendment is retroactive cover, the argument that no one in the command structure new about it will have to be proven, as opposed to merely taken on faith.
We might just be able to get some light into dark corners yet.
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, a central figure in the U.S. detainee-abuse scandal, this week invoked his right not to incriminate himself in court-martial proceedings against two soldiers accused of using dogs to intimidate captives at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, according to lawyers involved in the case.
The article goes on to say he chose not to because he's already answered those questions. It also points out that Col Pappas, who was the commander at Abu Ghraib has been ordered to testify, with a grant of immunity [I'll come back to what I see as an implication in that, in just a moment].
Miller invoked his Art. 31 rights (the UCMJ parallel to the Fifth Amendment. All in all, if I were not-guilty of a crime, I'd rather have a court-martial than a civilian trial. We get more protections) in response to a demand that he testify in proceedings against two of the dog handlers.
[Harvey] Volzer, who represents Sgt. Santos A. Cardona, one of the military dog handlers charged with abuse, said he believes the grant of immunity to Pappas will essentially clear his client, because Pappas already has admitted in administrative hearings that he improperly ordered the use of dogs. Volzer said he believes that Pappas was taking direction from Miller, and that Miller was acting on instructions from Defense Department officials. Cardona and Sgt. Michael J. Smith are scheduled to be tried in separate courts-martial in February and March.
This whole thing is the sort of thing we might start to see more of, because one of the side effects of the McCain amendment (as I look at it) is that so long as the FM controlling interrogations (which is now a "legal controlling authority", or some such pompous phrase) isn't changed, "I was only following orders," is an afirmative defense.
Which means shit will start rolling uphill. If the commander convinces the soldier it was a reasonable order, the soldier is free and clear (apart from the dreams) but the commander is now in the dock, unless he can show a reasonable case for having been convinced it was a legal order.
If the Amendment is retroactive cover, the argument that no one in the command structure new about it will have to be proven, as opposed to merely taken on faith.
We might just be able to get some light into dark corners yet.