Whitewash Bitches!
From the NYT:
I'd sure like to know exactly why the judge decided to not allow this evidence in. It seems like it would be entirely relevent to the case and the article doesn't say why it was kept out, so I can only guess. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that this evidence might prove a bit embarrassing for Dummy and the rest of the administration. I mean, if you could force yourself to believe that all the torture memos were merely "hypothetical" in nature then your powers of self deception are just amazing. But at the point that you've got the torture memos in conjunction with detailed conversations about the tactics being carried out it just gets so much harder.
Whatever.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 22 - A military judge on Friday rejected efforts by two
soldiers charged in the Abu Ghraib scandal to obtain testimony from military
intelligence officers about whether the soldiers were ordered or encouraged to
take part in abuse of detainees.
The judge ordered the soldiers, Specialist
Charles Graner and Sgt. Javal Davis, to stand trial in Baghdad early next year.
Lawyers for the two men had sought immunity grants for officers, including Col.
Thomas Pappas, the head of the military intelligence brigade at the prison, in
an effort to show that their clients had been acting under orders.
"He
reasonably and honestly believes he had been acting lawfully," said one of Mr.
Graner's lawyers, Guy Womack. "The orders had been given to him by his superiors
in the military police chain of command, military intelligence and civilian
intelligence."
The judge, Col. James Pohl, rejected those requests. He also
rejected an effort by Mr. Davis's lawyers to interview Defense Secretary Donald
H. Rumsfeld and Stephen Cambone, the under secretary of defense for
intelligence. One of Mr. Davis's lawyers, Paul Bergrin, said interviews
of four generals, including Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former American
commander in Iraq, showed they had had detailed conversations with Mr. Rumsfeld
and Mr. Cambone about interrogation tactics
I'd sure like to know exactly why the judge decided to not allow this evidence in. It seems like it would be entirely relevent to the case and the article doesn't say why it was kept out, so I can only guess. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that this evidence might prove a bit embarrassing for Dummy and the rest of the administration. I mean, if you could force yourself to believe that all the torture memos were merely "hypothetical" in nature then your powers of self deception are just amazing. But at the point that you've got the torture memos in conjunction with detailed conversations about the tactics being carried out it just gets so much harder.
Whatever.
posted by Barwise at 8:15 PM
<< Home