Paul Gigot, editor of The Wall Street Journal’s deeply, archly
conservative editorial page — he’s known in the trade as Paul Giggly, or in some quarters as
Paulie Giggles aka Paul Gidget — is probably gnashing his teeth over a
reporting staff that keeps turning out uncomfortable stories that run counter
to the editorials.
In a stunner reported this morning by the
Journal, the five U.S. military lawyers designated to represent the
Guantanamo detainees in the first U.S. military tribunals since World War II “have launched a
surprisingly vigorous assault on the system that hired them.”
Allying themselves with human-rights groups, the five members of the Advocate General’s
Corps — JAGs as the military lawyers are called — “have attacked the tribunals [authorized by the
Bush administration] as inherently unfair, contrary to international law and susceptible to political
influence,” Jess Bravin reports in a front-page article.
Ultimately, the JAGs are expected to challenge virtually every aspect of the
administration’s policies on Guantanamo detainees, from the denial of protections of the Geneva
Conventions to the interrogation methods used in extracting statements. As the first trials draw
near, the JAGs’ approach could force the administration either to answer in open court or risk
undercutting its longstanding promise that the tribunals will be “full and fair.”
Unless you pay a pricey subscription fee, you don’t usually get a chance to read The Wall
Street Journal’s articles online, especially not its top stories. But you can read this one by
going here.
