During a fruitless search to find out the upshot of the motion to disqualify Col. Brownback from sitting in the first Guantanamo 'trial', I found this gem in the New Zealand Herald, regarding a byplay in the Salim Ahmed Hamdan proceeding:
Asked by the defence whether he believed the orders establishing the military commission were lawful, Colonel Brownback paused, and to the surprise of some observers, said: “I choose not to answer that question at this time.” Asked again by the military prosecutor, Commander Scott Lang, Colonel Brownback replied that he had “a duty to comply” with any order, even if it was “questionable”.
Does this mean anything, or just that he's learned to be cagey?
Col Brownback did sort of answer the question since he isn’t obligated to obey an illegal order. At least I hope he knows that much law!
A bit off topic, but I thought it was interesting that there don’t seem to be any material witnesses in the latest Israeli spy investigation. As you noted earlier, Abdullah al Kidd was jailed for two weeks and had his movements restricted for 16 months because he supposedly knew something about somebody else’s visa violation (although he was never deposed or called to testify at trial and the other person wasn’t convicted). I think it’s odd, given prevailing standards, that the two American Israel Public Affairs Committee staff members who allegedly received the classified material from an Israeli spy in the Defense Department haven’t been jailed as material witnesses. Anybody know why the discrepancy?
I agree, this is all very suspicious. As soon as Kerry takes the oath of office his first act should be to have Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rice, Cheney, Ashcroft and Rove rounded up and held incommunicado on material witness warrants. Dufus would not be included since having fried his brain with cocaine (or was it LSD) he cannot be expected to remember anything.