The Critics of Jim Haynes Aren't Incoherent

I will listen to retired high ranking military officers who were JAG lawyers; Sen. Graham, a current JAG lawyer, and John McCain before I would listen to conservative activists about the nomination of Jim Haynes. Why? Because all these men have been lawyers who deal with the law of war or in John McCain’s case a former POW.

Lindsey Graham’s block on the Haynes nomination is standing for a principle that we have always stood for; we do not torture. They should be unhappy about his role with regard to the treatment of GITMO detainees and what happened at Abu Ghraib becasue it is contrary to our values as a nation.

If a retired admiral says that Haynes was unwilling to listen to the opinion of the JAG lawyers then it has credibility becasue he worked inside with him. It also has credibility becasue there was a mini war between the civilian Defense Department attorneys and the JAGs. This battle over detainee treatment calminated in a report by the JAGs and an evntual rescinding of some of the original tactics by the Secretary of Defense. Haynes’ job was to advocate for the policy based on Defense Department standards not those of the Justice Department becasue the military fights the war and know its laws.

Haynes, as the chief lawyer for DoD, would have had exclusive control of the legal envirnment that led to abuses at Abu Ghraib. Signing memos that allowed for inhumane treatment of detainees and tactics short of death would have contributed to this situation. Sexual humiliation did not have to appear on the list of approved tactics becasue anything short of death was approved.

Some of the decisions were not made by Haynes, but he could have stood up as a lawyer and said to whoever wanted to do these things, such as keeping people inperpetuity, that it couldn’t and shouldn’t be done.

Haynes was obliged to make sure the policy did not end up as it was in the first place. If he had done this he would be confirmed no problem. He may be an independent judge, but his involvement in the torture scandal and the memos is enough to disqualify him. It is also his job as Defense Department Counsel to argue for policies weather from Justice or not that are in keeping with the rules set down in the UCMJ, statutes, and treaties. He doesn’t get off the hook that easily.

I am sorry, I will take the word of admirals before I take the word of a law professor who had an arranged meeting with the nominee to discuss these issues in particular. The admirals worked with him at the time of the policy debate and the memo writing so they would have deeper insight into his true intent and mind. It is easy to show concern after the fact when you know you are being looked at for a court seat, but he may have showed no such concern at the time.

Lindsey Graham has been trying to prevent a vote on the merits because of the policy and the interest of the JAG lawyers not being listened to during the policy debate. Their concerns were completely ignored until we were caught with the abuses. Lindsey Graham is right, Haynes deserves to be blocked.

Response to “The Incoherence of Jim Haynes’ Critics” by Paul at PowerLineBlog