It's Miller Time
Just in case we weren't antagonizing the Arab world enough this week. Guess who got a Distinguished Service Medal for "commendable service in a position of great responsibility.?" No really, guess. It's the same thing again - the Administration views its choices in isolation, never thinking through the impact of everything as seemingly mundane as a medal award ceremony. I'm curious -- folks in the military must have been displeased with this, no?
Advertisement
I am stupified.
Everytime I think this administration could not find anything more idiotic to do, somehow they come up with something that just is just a little further off the rails.
We don't condone torture we simply reward those who order it, and punish those who report it or try to stop it.
August 1, 2006 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don’t think I can be dumbfounded anymore at the hubris of these reprobates. I wonder if John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who were so appalled at the Abu Ghraib hearings, attended the cermony. Alberto Gonzalez is scrambling to get Congress to quietly amend the War Crimes Act under which officials and high-ranking personnel like General Miller could receive a different kind of award. It parallels the deal that Arlen Specter was trying to work out granting the administration amnesty for illegal spying.
The media repeats the supposition that only low-level scapegoats will ever be prosecuted because the DoD and DoJ will not bring charges. Besides, there were legal findings and executive orders based on those findings and signing statements that endorsed the illegal activities and covers their asses. It doesn’t matter that it was Gonzalez himself (and Woo, et al.) and the lawyers at DOD who wrote those findings.
I honestly can’t see how an administration can say we can do anything we want in time of war because we choose to interpret it that way and are icovered by the fact it is our interpretion. In other words, they interpret the Constitution as giving the Commander in Chief the authority to contravene the Constitution. When finally told, “No, you cannot violate the Constitution or laws you were elected to uphold” they answer, “Okay, but since we thought we could (and put that in writing), we did nothing wrong.”
August 1, 2006 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm trying to read in a bit regarding how this was done with respect to the military culture. Does anyone know definitively if it was the Army Distinguished Service Medal or the Defense DSM? A decoration on retirement is fairly standard and not taken all that seriously in the military, unless it's the Medal of Freedom at the high end, or something lower than would normally be expected, such as the Legion of Merit. While the Defense DSM is technically a bit higher than the Army DSM, if he got the Defense one, there could be a bit of a message of the Army not considering him one of their own.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 1, 2006 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you elaborate on what is being proposed about the War Crimes Act?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 1, 2006 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
[duplicate deleted]
August 1, 2006 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This WaPo article from Friday gives a good summary:
Senior officials have responded by drafting legislation that would grant U.S. personnel involved in the terrorism fight new protections against prosecution for past violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996. (...) Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has spoken privately with Republican lawmakers about the need for such "protections," according to someone who heard his remarks last week.
The War Crimes Act was passed by Republicans in ’96 after listening to a former POW who could take no action against his former Viet Cong captors. It “affords access to civilian courts for abuse perpetrated by former service members and by civilians.” Under the WCA, violations of the Geneva Conventions and Common Article 3 are criminal offences (the death penalty can be assessed if a detainee has died from abuse). Since Hamden basically said that the admin was bound by laws like UCMJ and Geneva, it is another statute under which they could be held accountable (in regular courts). They are trying to adjust the language like they tried to do with the Geneva and Common Art.III regarding “inhumane” and “degrading” treatment (“torture lite”) in particular.
August 1, 2006 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go to http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/08/02/cronin/?source=newsletter There is an article about the soldier who actually got this law passed in 1996. He is a republican who no longer supports Bush. According to the article, the changes that are proposed are hush-hush, and will provide a legal escape route for Gonzales, Bush, et al if anyone ever gets the cajones to charge them with the crimes they have committed.
Jan Knaus
August 2, 2006 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the retching reminder of malignant "leadership" metastasized throughout this administration. Some held hope the military was immune. They aren't, never were.
N.B. The Distinguished Service Medal awarded to Miller was the US Army DSM, the Army's 3rd highest in order of precedence following the Medal of Honor and Distinguished Service Cross. [cf. Miller pinned w/DSM at retirement ceremony]
Past recipients include Grant, Pershing, Doolittle, Bradley, MacArthur, Patton, Eisenhower; more recently, Schwartzkopf, Powell, Clark; most recently, among others, 2 Texans -- Franks and now Miller.
From Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller retires after 34 years; Army Public Affairs; August 1, 2006:
"Our Army asked him to tackle two of the toughest jobs on the global war on terror, both at the nexus of international law, national policy and military strategy," Cody said.
In 2002, Miller took command of Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he ran detention facilities known as Camp X-Ray, Camp Delta and Camp Echo. In 2004, Miller was appointed deputy commanding general for detainee operations for Multi-National Force - Iraq.
"The last five years have offered me the opportunity to help this nation win the global war on terror, leading a joint task force in Guantanamo Bay, where great Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen and the Coast Guard – and our dedicated civilians – do one of the most difficult missions," Miller said. As the commander of Task Force 134, Miller said he served "with a great group of Soldiers willing to do the heavy lifting of detaining suspected insurgents and developing critical intelligence to help win the war."
Secretary of the Army, Military Awards Branch, Institute of Heraldry, US Army Awards, Decorations, Campaign & Service Medals:
Description.
The Coat of Arms of the United States in Gold surrounded by a circle of Dark Blue enamel, 1 ½ inches in diameter, bearing the inscription "FOR DISTINGUISHED SERVICE MCMXVIII". On the reverse is a scroll for the name of the recipient (which is to be engraved) upon a trophy of flags and weapons. The medal is suspended by a bar attached to the ribbon.
Ribbon.
The ribbon is 1 3/8 inches wide and consists of the following stripes: 5/16 inch Scarlet 67111; 1/16 inch Ultramarine Blue 67118; 5/8 inch White 67101; 1/16 inch Ultramarine Blue; and 5/16 inch Scarlet.
Criteria.
The Distinguished Service Medal is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity with the United States Army, has distinguished himself or herself by exceptionally meritorious service to the Government in a duty of great responsibility. The performance must be such as to merit recognition for service which is clearly exceptional. Exceptional performance of normal duty will not alone justify an award of this decoration.
August 3, 2006 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink