The New York Times Reports That JAG Leaders "Would Agree Only To Say
That They Could Not Find Anything Illegal About The Specific Issue Of
Amending Common Article 3." (Kate Zernike, "Rebuff For Bush On Terror
Trials In A Senate Test," The New York Times, 9/15/06)
JAG Leaders Affirmatively Say The Administration's Common Article 3
Provisions Would Be "Helpful"
According To The JAG Lawyers' Letter: "Indeed, We Think These
Provisions Would Be Helpful To Our Fighting Men And Women At War On
Behalf Of Our Country." TEXT OF LETTER: "We do not object to section 6
of the Administration proposal, which would clarify the obligations of
the United States under common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and
section 7 of the Administration proposal, which would address crimes
under the War Crimes Act. Indeed, we think these provisions would be
helpful to our fighting men and women at war on behalf of our Country."
(Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army, Judge Advocate General, Major
General Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., U.S. Air Force, Deputy Judge Advocate
General, Rear Admiral Bruce Macdonald, U.S. Navy, Judge Advocate
General, Brigadier General James C. Walker, Staff Judge Advocate To The
U.S. Marine Corps, Colonel Ronald M. Reed, U.S. Air Force, Legal Counsel
To The Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff, Letter To Sen. John Warner
And Rep. Duncan Hunter, 9/13/06)
In August 2 Hearing, Military JAGs Support Bringing Definition To Common
Article 3. SEN. FEINSTEIN: "Admiral MacDonald and Admiral Black -
excuse me, General Black - you both speak about Common Article 3 in your
written comments, the prohibition - Admiral MacDonald - you say 'Common
Article 3's prohibition upon "outrages (up)on personal dignity" is not
well defined.' How would you suggest we define it?" GEN. BLACK: "In its
current formulation, it's entirely too vague, and it puts - as you
mentioned before - our service members at risk, our own service members
at risk." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 8/2/06)
Gen. Rives Welcomes "Congressional Efforts To Better Define" Common
Article 3. GEN. RIVES: "We welcome congressional efforts to better
define which 'outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating
and degrading treatment,' amount to serious breaches worthy [of]
classification as felonies. Such efforts would serve our men and women
fighting the global war on terrorism by providing clearly delineated
limits. ... Congressional efforts to better define these terms for
Common Article 3 purposes will provide needed clarity to the rules of
conduct for our military forces." (Committee On The Judiciary, U.S.
Senate, Hearing, 8/2/06)
In August 2 Hearing, Military JAG Lawyers Note They Have Been "Consulted
Fairly Extensively" About Common Article 3. SEN. GRAHAM: "To the judge
advocates, have you been consulted fairly extensively about military
commissions and Common Article 3 by the administration?" GEN.: "Yes,
sir, we have." GEN.: "Particularly of late, sir." GEN.: "Yes, sir."
(Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 8/2/06)