There's speculation that Phillip Carter will be appointed Deputy Assistant Sec. Def. in charge of detainee affairs. (H/T:
OK@VC) As someone who has known Phil for now 5 years, I couldn't be happier--both for Phil and for the country. I hope the Senate moves with quick confirmation to allow him to face the unenviable tasks ahead. The blurb I linked above gives you a good outline of Phil's background. But I want to add some depth to that picture.
If the rumor is true, then Phil is about to take on a position "that holds in the balance"* the reputation of the United States, the safety and security of American forces, relations with the Islamic world and beyond, the guarantees of fundamental rights, and a whole host of other delicate matters. I cannot think of a person better equipped to tackle these enormously weighty issues.
[* Vincent LaGuardia III, "My Cousin Vinny"]
Phil's a Bruin through and through (head start at SMC but finished with a BA '97 and a JD '04). That alone should end the discussion. Bruin pride aside, Phil is also a pretty damn good journalist and blogger (Intel Dump has gone through a few iterations:
1.0;
2.0; and
3.0). But that's not why I think we need Phil in this position.
I got to know Phil through a cool program offered by UCLA Law School where 3Ls teach a seminar course (under the supervision of law faculty) for undergraduates (Memo to DE: Boalt needs a program like this, especially if law students
can't get loans). In return, the university waived the 3Ls fees for that semester. The course was American Law and Terrorism. While classroom discussions raged, Phil carefully offered counterarguments to all sides. But his view of the Bush administration's handling of Guantanamo was
clear:
The administration has made a determination that they qualify as enemy combatants, but we know nothing about how this determination was made. It may or may not be a "competent tribunal" in accordance with the Convention. Ironically, thousands of detainees have had their status adjudicated by Art. V tribunals in Iraq, yet we refuse to institute them at Gitmo. That just doesn't make sense to me. Given the spotlight on Gitmo, we ought to be more careful about the way we do things there, not less so.
Phil, added in another
post:
I know that change is often incremental and evolutionary (as opposed to revolutionary) in large bureaucracies like the Army. But unfortunately, merely telling the Army intelligence community that it must adhere to the rules isn't enough. These new rules don't apply to the other services, to some special operations units, and to the Central Intelligence Agency. And as the article points out, these rules only apply to Iraq -- not Gitmo, Bahrain, Qatar, Diego Garcia, or anywhere else that the U.S. has prisoners detained right now. I know there's a balance to be struck between tough interrogations that produce actionable intel, and torture sessions that resemble the rack. But this just seems like window dressing, and I think a lot more needs to be done to comply with international law here.
Phil also
did not spare the DOJ and DOD lawyers who authored certain memos.
A year later, in the summer of 2005, Phil told me over lunch that he had been activated from the IRR and would deploy with the 101st to Iraq as an adviser to the Iraqi Police. Following the Abu Ghraib scandals, do you think the Army needed more officers with military police and civil affairs training, along with a UCLA law degree? Yeah, I think so too. Aside from his professional competence as a soldier and lawyer, Phil represented a new kind of officer. Before setting foot in Iraq, he went on
a quest to learn about the dominant religion of the area and other facets of the culture. After his return, he continued to
keep tabs on informative literature that the newly deployed soldiers and Marines should read. In short, he's
something of a John Nagl.
More importantly, after returning from his tour in Baqubah, Phil's views dropped nearly any pretense of equivocating. He
openly criticized Rummie's leadership (as well as the generals who put their careers before the lives of those they command by failing to speak out). This was not because of
some partisan disagreement, but the same reason why a lot of the military hated Rummie--he harmed these institutions' long-term ability to protect the United States. Phil's writing crisply pointed out how the previous administration continued to stick to a failing strategy while overburdening the Army and the Marine Corps. Here's a
sampling:
The president's strategic picture of the war on terrorism is like a photo negative -- the exact opposite of reality. Bush argues that "Iraq is the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century." But that's not really accurate -- Iraq is the cause and the accelerant of these threats to America, the main reason we are losing the global fight for hearts and minds.
Once the two major candidates emerged,
Phil began working for Obama as his national director of veteran's outreach or something along those lines. Again, I'm pretty sure this was not because Phil is Democrat. But the contrast between the two candidates proved too much. One of them, a veteran no less, wanted to continue the status of quo of a failed strategy that senselessly put more and more American lives at risk (perhaps continuing the policy of his predecessor to apply the
lessons of Vietnam?). The other wanted to save those lives and strengthen the military, law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic capabilities to actually effectively fight our enemies.
Like his articulated position on torture, detainees, using force to win the War in Iraq, and a whole host of other issues, I think Phil picked the right side. Now, Phil will have his chance to protect American lives with a sensible and effective detainee policy.
Insh'allah, he will succeed.
