It’s baffling that ABC and CBS haven’t responded to demographic, economic, and cultural shifts at the pace that MSNBC seems to be doing. I don’t get it.

Bob in HI

Armies, especially, depend on rigid rules and structures. It’s what allows their chain of command to survive the vagaries of talent, experience, training, aptitude and the holes punched into it during the heat of battle.

Thanks EOH.
When the news of Abu Gharib was first made public, I happened to run into an acquaintance who’s retired Army officer, and he was just beside himself with frustration and outrage. He described Abu Gharib as a, “complete breakdown of Command and Control”. Its absence was a very worrying sign that’s proven prophetic.

Leen @ 58 – I don’t think the media intentionally try to ‘avoid’ the Senate hearings. I think there are a cluster of factors, but the lack of meaningful reporting on yesterdays network outlets struck me as inexcusable. EW makes a good point — the hearings provided a great deal of info to absorb. Ideally, other news outfits will follow McClatchy’s lead and create a series of reports once they’ve absorbed the key revelations and had time to respond.

Wm O @82, hmmmmmmm… interesting.

“Illegal enemy combatants”, I believe, is not so much a new category, but one bent wildly out of its legal shape. Ordinarily, it’s a status accorded, eg, to spies and saboteurs during wartime. The imagery is one of enemy forces in disguise, behind the lines, bent on surreptitiously rather than openly exacting death and destruction. Pirates. Useful political imagery for a catch-all category CheneyBush meant to use not for the rare exception, but for the masses caught caught up in renditions, the fringes of open war, and combined police/intelligence dragnets at home.

The possible motivations for this were blatantly telegraphed in yesterday’s Senate hearing. The false notion that lawyers were “strangling” effective responses to dangerous new circumstances. That’s a corollary to the irrational resentment the neocons still harbor over the forty-five year old string of cases, such as Miranda, that accord suspects their legal rights. As Reagan’s one time Attorney General, Ed Meese, probably still says, “The police wouldn’t have arrested them if they weren’t guilty.” Except of course when they’re corporate polluters, well-heeled tax evaders, and senior administration officials obstructing justice.

“Illegal enemy combatants”, bloated beyond recognition, was the cover for lawless treatment of the enemy, and anyone suspected of being the enemy. Responsible politicians, anyone deserving the designation of “citizen”, would have openly advocated their concerns and sought (and after 9/11, readily obtained) new legislative authority to deal with legitimately novel issues. But as they did in lying us into war, Cheney and Bush live in a world of certitude and absolutes, but certitude only available to the initiated, the faithful and the fantasist. Hence, they circumvented public government. They still are.

Which is what makes the Democrats caving on FISA so corrupt. It is an attempt to close the door on the past so that we can’t go back. It’s obvious why CheneyBush would do that: they don’t want to go to jail for war crimes. But why the Democrats? Because they drove the getaway car?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361458/

In extensive interviews with MSNBC.com, former leaders of the Defense Department’s Criminal Investigation Task Force said they repeatedly warned senior Pentagon officials beginning in early 2002 that the harsh interrogation techniques used by a separate intelligence team would not produce reliable information, could constitute war crimes, and would embarrass the nation when they became public knowledge.

The investigators say their warnings began almost from the moment their agents got involved at the Guantanamo prison camp, in January 2002.

emph added

Which just happens to coincide with Gonzales issuing a Jan 2002 opinion that the best way to beat the wrap on future war crimes trials for things already done and contemplated for the future would be to make up this “illegal enemy combatant” label and pretend it means you can apply that label with no proof and use those so labelled as lab rats for human experimentation and venting.

“I thought they’d stop me if I was wrong because it wasn’t my area of expertise.”

“Everyone involved knew what the conditions were for [interrogations?].”

“I don’t recall being aware of that at the time.”

“My understanding was that this had been approved.”

“The Geneva Conventions didn’t apply.”

“Meyers signature was not on the memo.”

“I didn’t think it was necessary to point out the illegal portions on the memo signed by SecDef…”

“It was understood that humane conditions always applied to detainees.”

“I wanted an open brainstorming session on how to improve our interrogation approach to high value detainees.”

“I wasn’t in the room.”

“I wasn’t aware there was a Constitutional prohibition there.”

“I am not a patsy for the cabal.”

“I just can’t remember whether or not I was aware of that then.”

“I love Islam.”

“I love terrorist threats.”

Webb’s roots lie in exactly the area in which Obama has shown his greatest weakness so far—in the Appalachian region. Though both are freshman senators, Webb combines substantial government service with close knowledge of the military and the world. One drawback is Webb’s inexperienced staff, which may not be up to the challenges he faces. (Politicians are in part judged by the press and others on the quality of their staffs; word gets around, and the effects usually show.)