I suggested a few weeks back that one of the tangible results from the backlash against Newsweek for the 'flushed Koran story' was that the factual sources for future stories of this nature were going to become more concrete and more damning. This is the only way that the media is going to be able to overcome the current syndrome of crucifying the messenger because we don't care to hear the message.

 

The story below got about as much attention as the Downing Street Memo (= next to none) when it was released yesterday. Importantly, it notes that there were top Pentagon officials who back in 2002 were very concerned about the legality of the Guantanamo interrogation techniques. It also shows that there was an awareness by Pentagon legal counsel that top brass could face criminal prosecution under US anti-torture laws.

 

Clearly, Alberto Mora was the Alberto the Administration SHOULD have been listening to.

 

And, I wonder why the Pentagon lawyers never got that 'get out of jail free' letter signed by Bush that they decided they needed. Wait. No I don't.

 

June 15, 2005

The interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in 2002 triggered concerns among senior Pentagon officials that they could face criminal prosecution under U.S. anti-torture laws, ABC News has learned.

 

Notes from a series of meetings at the Pentagon in early 2003 - obtained by ABC News - show that Alberto Mora, general counsel of the Navy, warned his superiors that they might be breaking the law.

 

During a January 2003 meeting involving top Pentagon lawyer William Haynes and other officials, the memo shows that Mora warned that "use of coercive techniques… has military, legal, and political implication… has international implication… and exposes us to liability and criminal prosecution."

 

Mora's deep concerns about interrogations at Guantanamo have been known, but not his warning that top officials could go to prison.

 

In another meeting held March 8, 2003, the group of top Pentagon lawyers concluded - according to the memo - "we need a presidential letter approving the use of the controversial interrogation to cover those who may be called upon to use them."

 

No such letter was issued.

 

Full story: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=852458&page=1

I wouldn't be too quick to condem anyone based on an attorney wishing to cover his ass, or what would be a prudent discussion regarding the treatment and techniques. I am certain that there have been other discussions wondering about the legality that turned out to be legal.