LobeLog on Facebook   LobeLog on Facebook











Trump’s Iran Policy Is More about Rollback than Nukes

by Joshua Landis The renewed US offensive against Iran is not so much about its...

Message no image

Published on June 28th, 2007 | by Jim Lobe

0

The Pentagon’s “Early Bird” Changes…

The Pentagon’s “Early Bird”, a computerized daily compilation of dozens of defense- related articles from the U.S. and some from the foreign press that is widely distributed across the national-security bureaucracy, appears to be in a state of serious transition from the Rumsfeld era to that of Robert Gates.

Articles from the Murdoch press are becoming somewhat more sparse, and the selections from the Likudnik Jerusalem Post (formerly owned by Conrad Black) seem to have disappeared altogether.

So has the “Corrections” section – an apparent attempt to embarrass newspapers like the NYT deemed unsympathetic to the administration — that began leading off the “Early Bird” in the latter part of the Rumsfeld period or the outraged “letters to the editor” by Rumsfeld’s long-time spokesman (and former Heritage fellow), Lawrence di Rita, and his even more-aggressive successor, Dorrance Smith, who apparently qualified for the job in part for his publication in the Wall Street Journal of an op-ed in which he accused the broadcast networks and the cable news networks of being in “partnership” with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Smith was out the door virtually the minute Rumsfeld resigned.

It was Wednesday’s “Early Bird” first edition, however, that really caught my eye to the changes in the publication’s regime. At the edition’s very end – the space reserved for op-eds and almost never any letters – appeared four blistering letters to the editor published in the NYT in reaction to an article by an op-ed by the chief prosecutor in the Defense Department’s Office of Military Commissions, Morris D. Davis, entitled “The Guantanamo I Know.” The column was a paean to the prison and the commission process, concluding:

Guantánamo Bay is a clean, safe and humane place for enemy combatants, and the Military Commissions Act provides a fair process to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of those alleged to have committed crimes. Even the most vocal critics say they do not want to set terrorists free, but they scorn Guantánamo Bay and military commissions and demand alternatives. The facts show the current alternative is worth keeping.”

The letters — from Jennifer Daskal, the senior Counter-Terrorism Counsel at Human Rights Watch; Marc Falkoff, an assistant professor of law at Northern Illinois University; J. Wells Dixon and Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, staff attorneys at the Center for Constitutional Rights; and Priti Patel, an associate attorney at Human Rights First – were blistering, to say the least – and their appearance strategically placed as the coda to the morning’s “Early Bird” suggested, at least to me, that Gates really does want to close down the prison and doesn’t think much of Col. Davis’ military commissions either.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


Comments are closed.


About the Author

avatar

Jim Lobe served for some 30 years as the Washington DC bureau chief for Inter Press Service and is best known for his coverage of U.S. foreign policy and the influence of the neoconservative movement.



Back to Top ↑
  • Named after veteran journalist Jim Lobe, LobeLog provides daily expert perspectives on US foreign policy toward the Middle East through investigative reports and analyses from Washington to Tehran and beyond. It became the first weblog to receive the Arthur Ross Award for Distinguished Reporting and Analysis of Foreign Affairs from the American Academy of Diplomacy in 2015.

  • Categories

  • Subscribe

    Enter your email address to subscribe to our site and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Popular Posts

  • Comments Policy

    We value your opinion and encourage you to comment on our postings. To ensure a safe environment we will not publish comments that involve ad hominem attacks, racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory language, or anything that is written solely for the purpose of slandering a person or subject.

    Excessively long comments may not be published due to their length. All comments are moderated. LobeLog does not publish comments with links.

    Thanks for reading and we look forward to hearing from you!