June 06, 2006

Army Field Manual: It's Carve-Out Time!

The McCain Amendment (selected portion):

UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) IN GENERAL.--No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.

(b) APPLICABILITY.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to with respect to any person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense pursuant to a criminal law or immigration law of the United States.

(c) CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States.

Julian Barnes, in the LAT:

The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards...

...The detainee directive was due to be released in late April along with the Army Field Manual on interrogation. But objections from several senators on other Field Manual issues forced a delay. The senators objected to provisions allowing harsher interrogation techniques for those considered unlawful combatants, such as suspected terrorists, as opposed to traditional prisoners of war.

The lawmakers say that differing standards of treatment allowed by the Field Manual would violate a broadly supported anti-torture measure advanced by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). McCain last year pushed Congress to ban torture and cruel treatment and to establish the Army Field Manual as the standard for treatment of all detainees. Despite administration opposition, the measure passed and became law.

For decades, it had been the official policy of the U.S. military to follow the minimum standards for treating all detainees as laid out in the Geneva Convention. But, in 2002, Bush suspended portions of the Geneva Convention for captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Bush's order superseded military policy at the time, touching off a wide debate over U.S. obligations under the Geneva accord, a debate that intensified after reports of detainee abuses at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Among the directives being rewritten following Bush's 2002 order is one governing U.S. detention operations. Military lawyers and other defense officials wanted the redrawn version of the document known as DoD Directive 2310, to again embrace Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

That provision — known as a "common" article because it is part of each of the four Geneva pacts approved in 1949 — bans torture and cruel treatment. Unlike other Geneva provisions, Article 3 covers all detainees — whether they are held as unlawful combatants or traditional prisoners of war. The protections for detainees in Article 3 go beyond the McCain amendment by specifically prohibiting humiliation, treatment that falls short of cruelty or torture.

The move to restore U.S. adherence to Article 3 was opposed by officials from Vice President Dick Cheney's office and by the Pentagon's intelligence arm, government sources said. David S. Addington, Cheney's chief of staff, and Stephen A. Cambone, Defense undersecretary for intelligence, said it would restrict the United States' ability to question detainees.

The Pentagon tried to satisfy some of the military lawyers' concerns by including some protections of Article 3 in the new policy, most notably a ban on inhumane treatment, but refused to embrace the actual Geneva standard in the directive it planned to issue.

The military lawyers, known as judge advocates general, or JAGs, have concluded that they will have to wait for a new administration before mounting another push to link Pentagon policy to the standards of Geneva.

So let's see. John McCain fights the good fight to have the Executive Branch comply with Army Field Manual detainee treatment and interrogation doctrine that has stood this country in good stead for decades through various major conflicts. Cheney's reaction? After it was clear that arm-twisting even the dimmer Senatorial and Congressional players wouldn't work (given that even they realized what the Administration was proposing flew in the face of decades of best practices on these fronts), add a signing statement to the McCain Amendment (that the Administration so reluctantly agreed to, kicking and screaming really) to allow for 'flexibility' if necessity so required (a la best practices of the execrable John Yoo, the signing statement read that the McCain Amendment was to be interpreted in a "manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch").

But, of course, this didn't go quite far enough. We're playing for keeps here, and wouldn't want to rely on just a wobbly signing statement or such penumbra type interpretative guidance. So cometh Act II, to try to make things a bit more, shall we say, permanent. What, you say? Well, change the manual itself! Of course I'm not surprised. This is standard Cheney/Addington/Rumsfeld/Cambone MO. But hey, most of the masses seem happy to torture (sorry, 'humiliate') the brownie towel-heads anyway, most of the people who could call B.S. are in Manhattan too busy money-making to really care, and the legislative branch is supine in the extreme (save certain noble exceptions like McCain). So it's another lay-up for Cheney and Co., save a few nettlesome JAGs and Foggy Bottom folk!

Yep, another depressingly poor decision by the White House, in a long string of them, when it comes to detainee policy. I can assure you the further sullying of our reputation in the international community because of Geneva Convention carve-outs in the Manual will greatly outweigh any supposed intelligence gains we will be able to secure because we'll be able to 'humiliate' or 'degrade' better. But, blogospheric eminences protest, we are dealing with an Arab male honor code/system here. If we can't humiliate Mohamed and Ahmed and gang, we won't be able to extract any good intelligence, and next thing you know, my Colorado condo is going to be blown to smithereens because some weenie intellectual, America-hating, anti-panty-hose-on-head-during-interrogation-cowardly-defeatist wanted to be soft with the terrorists.

Really? But the pre-existing Army Field Manual, which has served us well for decades, allows for tactics such as "Fear Up Harsh", "Pride and Ego Up," and "Futility"--all of which would allow for a US interrogator to call an Iraqi insurgent a girlie-man, or such, for not having the balls to have really planted an IED, to use a hypo making the rounds. The point is that our pre-existing doctrine is wholly up to the task of extracting actionable intelligence. And it had the benefit of providing clear standards to potential interrogators. As the (old?) Army Field Manual put it, very well:

While using legitimate interrogation techniques, certain applications of approaches and techniques may approach the line between lawful actions and unlawful actions. It may often be difficult to determine where lawful actions end and unlawful actions begin. In attempting to determine if a contemplated approach or technique would be considered unlawful, consider these two tests: 1) Given all the surrounding facts and circumstances, would a reasonable person in the place of the person being interrogated believe that his rights, as guaranteed under both international and US law, are being violated or withheld, or will be violated or withheld if he fails to cooperate; [and] 2) If your contemplated actions were perpetrated by the enemy against US PWs, you would believe such actions violate international or US law. If you answer yes to either of these two tests, do not engage in the contemplated action. If a doubt still remains as to the legality of a proposed action, seek a legal opinion from your servicing judge advocate.

This is America. A reasonable person test. A do unto others as you would have others do unto you. And if in doubt, don't do it. Or ask a lawyer. These are the kind of clean, bright lines needed near emotion fraught battle-zones where young men and women entrusted with our national security must gather intelligence amidst the exigencies of wartime. This makes pragmatic sense. This preserves our leading (if rapidly diminishing) role as avatar of international human rights, so critical, as who else will step up and do so on the international stage? Not the farcical UN Rights Commissions, that, in positively Orwellian fashion, fete Syrians or Libyans or such, and not the Indians or Italians or Romanians or Russians either. No, only we have the credibility, but we are squandering it. And for what? So we can "humiliate"? When we can already use "Pride and Ego Up" and "Fear Up Harsh" and other tried and true tactics? Instead we are in a brave new world of paradigm shifts, where the Geneva Conventions are quaint, and Rumstud manfully avers that he stands 8 hours a day, in the margins of a note documenting interrogation tactics at Gitmo. As Fareed Zakaria memorably wrote:

....when Rumsfeld read a report documenting some of the new interrogation procedures at Guantanamo in November 2002, including having detainees stand for four hours, he scribbled a note in the margin, "Why is standing limited to 4 hours?... I stand for 8 hours a day." (Rumsfeld probably does not stand for eight hours, scarcely clad and barely fed, with bright lights, prison guards and attack dogs trained on him.) The signal Rumsfeld was sending was clear: "Get tougher." No one at the top was outlining what soldiers should not do, which lines they should not cross, which laws they should remember to adhere to strictly. The Pentagon's own report after investigating Abu Ghraib, by Gen. George Fay, speaks of "doctrinal confusion ... a lack of doctrine ... [and] systemic failures" as the causes for the incidents of torture. In a 2 million-person bureaucracy, such calculated ambiguities will inevitably lead to something like Abu Ghraib [emphasis added]

We are now repeating the same errors, astonishing as this may seem, even after Abu Ghraib, and Camp Mercury, and Bagram, and Guantanamo. Yes, it beggars belief, although, it is true, we are no longer capable of being shocked. Yes, the Cambones and Addingtons and Cheneys and Rumsfelds are again contributing to the doctrinal confusion Zakaria describes, as compared to the bright lines of current Army Field Manual interrogation techniques, bright lines which are perfectly adequate to the task at hand, and have the added benefit of preserving our moral standing and public image. Are Addington and Co. bad, evil men? No, probably not, at the end of the day. As Alberto Mora, the former Navy GC, memorably put it:

These were enormously hardworking, patriotic individuals,” he said. “When you put together the pieces, it’s all so sad. To preserve flexibility, they were willing to throw away our values.”

No, these are not necessarily the actions of malicious rogues hell-bent on imperiling US democracy, but rather of short-sighted men overwhelmed by events--to the point of jeopardizing some of our bedrock values by their over-reactions. It's small, in a way. Regardless, I suspect this LAT story was purposefully leaked so that an eleventh hour action can be waged against it, and I'd be particularly curious to know if one of the Senators complaining has been McCain. But you know what? These are lame ducks now. Yes, they are clutching to their ill-advised policies, but I am hopeful the next Administration (as some military JAGs evidently hope too) will overturn these so misguided, unfortunate decisions. I guess we've got a bit over two years before the Field Manual is put back into shape, if they prevail this round. So let the lame ducks scurry with their cheap, dangerous games. The country will do the right thing in 2009, I am cautiously optimistic, whether a Republican or Democratic President comes into power.

As for the President, lest I be castigated for just beating up on the Tsar's attendants, let us recall he stood next to Tony Blair just several weeks ago and declared: "...the biggest mistake that's happened so far, at least from our country's involvement in Iraq, is Abu Ghraib. We've been paying for that for a long period of time." But this man is not a leader capable of putting serious, remedial action behind his sentiments. He is, ultimately, a mediocrity elevated to great power via dynastic politics, and his leading advisors scurry behind his back in rear-guard actions that give the lie to the broad direction of his pronouncements, some of them apparently merely designed for public consumption. This too, is sad. For him, and for us. So yes, we desperately need today in this country, political leaders endowed with real courage married to high intelligence. But where are they?

MORE: As often, Zathras in comments puts it better than I:

The elder Bush, a lifelong ticket-puncher who before being chosen to ride on Ronald Reagan's coattails had filled a number of prominent posts just long enough to say he had been there, was a mediocrity. Except at personal networking, at which he was a whiz. Otherwise he was better than some, worse than others, ordinary, so-so, mediocre.

People are always doing this, using "mediocrity" to describe someone completely out of his depth. In fact, the younger Bush is an exceptionally talented and disciplined campaigner, not only (or even primarily) because of he has the traditional politician's people skills but also because he has mastered the mechanics of the modern American campaign. It is remarkable how seldom, during one of his campaigns for public office in the last 12 years, he has put a foot wrong; he has nearly always known what he had to do, when he had to do it. No national politician I can think of has gotten more electoral success relative to his skill at statecraft than Bush has. You can't call him (or, really, anyone who serves two terms in the White House) a mediocre politician.

On the other hand history will record Bush as a wretched President: ignorant, lazy, unprincipled, deeply entitled, careless of the dignity of the office, easily rattled and anxious to hide it, disrespectful of those outside his circle, helplessly dependent on an exceptionally small group of subordinates on whom he relies not to accomplish specific tasks but to just to keep his administration functioning, contemptuous of all who preceeded him in the White House and indifferent to all who will come after -- and, of course, much more interested in campaigning than governing. For over 200 years no American President ever let his Vice President be much more than a respectable ornament; this President can allow his Vice President to block efforts to rationalize policy on detainee treatment just so he won't have to surrender any previously-won bureaucratic turf. I would never use the word "mediocre" to describe George W. Bush as a statesman.

Yes, mediocrity was likely the wrong word. Read Z's entire comment, here.

Posted by Gregory at June 6, 2006 04:05 AM | TrackBack (0)
Comments

You're slowly coming around. I encourage you to continue your current path. This sort of activity is old news.

Posted by: sunship at June 7, 2006 02:25 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

The elder Bush, a lifelong ticket-puncher who before being chosen to ride on Ronald Reagan's coattails had filled a number of prominent posts just long enough to say he had been there, was a mediocrity. Except at personal networking, at which he was a whiz. Otherwise he was better than some, worse than others, ordinary, so-so, mediocre.

People are always doing this, using "mediocrity" to describe someone completely out of his depth. In fact, the younger Bush is an exceptionally talented and disciplined campaigner, not only (or even primarily) because of he has the traditional politician's people skills but also because he has mastered the mechanics of the modern American campaign. It is remarkable how seldom, during one of his campaigns for public office in the last 12 years, he has put a foot wrong; he has nearly always known what he had to do, when he had to do it. No national politician I can think of has gotten more electoral success relative to his skill at statecraft than Bush has. You can't call him (or, really, anyone who serves two terms in the White House) a mediocre politician.

On the other hand history will record Bush as a wretched President: ignorant, lazy, unprincipled, deeply entitled, careless of the dignity of the office, easily rattled and anxious to hide it, disrespectful of those outside his circle, helplessly dependent on an exceptionally small group of subordinates on whom he relies not to accomplish specific tasks but to just to keep his administration functioning, contemptuous of all who preceeded him in the White House and indifferent to all who will come after -- and, of course, much more interested in campaigning than governing. For over 200 years no American President ever let his Vice President be much more than a respectable ornament; this President can allow his Vice President to block efforts to rationalize policy on detainee treatment just so he won't have to surrender any previously-won bureaucratic turf. I would never use the word "mediocre" to describe George W. Bush as a statesman.

Greg's last question prompts another one: how typical among modern American politicians is George W. Bush? I would argue that for the most part what differences there are differences of degree, not kind. American politics as it is currently practiced rewards a relentless focus on the permanent campaign. It does not reward conspicuous success as a legislator or even as a governor; the lack of such success is no bar to a try at national office and may actually aid in the crafting of a Presidential candidate's public image. It does not reward courage, defined as the willingness to be seen working for worthy ends that are not universally popular. It does not reward independence. It does reward repetition of claims to have courage and independence.

American politics is not a physical edifice. It is instead a living reflection of the American people, of the kind of leaders they want or are at least comfortable with. Absent a certain level of self-examination, reflection and reform by the American people the only way they will get themsleves leaders capable of more than the small men who have occupied the White House for the last 17 years or so is by getting lucky.

Posted by: Zathras at June 7, 2006 06:38 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Greg,

"So yes, we desperately need today in this country, political leaders endowed with real courage married to high intelligence. But where are they?"

I don't think we will ever get such political leaders again. Our political system has been corrupted too much for a real leader to even make it to the level of presidency. Both parties right now are only interested in two things: 1. destroy the other party, and 2. save their own butts. The moment a candidate from one side or the other appears, shadowy, secret combination groups such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, come out to do all they can to drag that individual down. These groups have no morals and no ethics. And also no accountability. They will destroy the character of any individual to approach the office of presidency as a whole and noble leader. I'm afraid that for the time being, America's future is this.

Perhaps it is time for a revolution in America to clean out the corruption in the system.

Posted by: Daniel at June 7, 2006 02:20 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Daniel, note that there was no Swiftboaters against Bush. And none against Bush Senior. None against Bob Dole.

So we can get a whole, noble leader, provided it's a republican that the swifboaters and their sponsors support.

Posted by: J Thomas at June 7, 2006 03:14 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"only we have the credibility"

Credibility with who exactly ?

The notion that the USA can be considered as the " avatar of international human rights"is quite laughable..

Posted by: kb at June 7, 2006 06:23 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

"If your contemplated actions were perpetrated by the enemy against US PWs, you would believe such actions violate international or US law. "


Let's see. We fight a war against X-stan. The president of X-stan suspends the Geneva Convention for that certain US forces. Members of those forces are 'stressed', to the point where they sing like birds. A number of US citizens passing through or near X-stan are grabbed, and 'stressed' to the point where some of them attempt suicde.

The members of the X-stani government and military are put on trial for violations of the Geneva Conventions. Does anybody think for one second that a US court would accept that suspension of the Geneva Conventions as anything other than a war crime?

Posted by: Barry at June 7, 2006 06:31 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Greg and Zathras, I agree fundamentally with your analysis of Bush 43's Presidential skill set. I also agree, Zathras, that the difference between Bush and other politicians is just one of degree. To my mind, Bush 43 is Ronald Reagan without the rhetorical skills and the freshly-minted neoconservative foreign policy. Taking a look back at Reagan's approach to domestic policy in particular, Reagan was a master of saying what people wanted to hear and sounding convincing, but at the same time doing things that belied the stirring moral vision of America to be found in his rhetoric.

Bush 41 might have been a political mediocrity, but part of what made him a mediocrity also made him better than Reagan. That is to say, Bush 41 was incurious about a lot of things and lacked strong convictions about others, but he struggled about some other things and didn't have the political skills to cover it up. Bush's presidency stands out in my mind as relying on fewer hollow gestures and moral absolutes than Reagan's or Bush 43's.

I've written on this recently; if you're interested, feel free to take a look (just click on my name).

Posted by: Brian at June 7, 2006 09:28 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Zathras,

I disagree with your notion that Bush is a skilled politician. Without the corrupt and supine MSM, Bush would have been revealed for the empty vessel that he is. Had he been subjected to the same scrutiny as Clinton, Gore, and Kerry he would not be in our White House.

Posted by: islander at June 7, 2006 09:51 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

This is absurd! They CAN'T simply omit the Article 3 portion of Geneva as if it doesn't exist and as if that gives them the freedom to violate THE LAW OF THE LAND! No matter how the Pentagon or Cheney wriggle, they cannot opt out of the Geneva Accords, including Article 3 and including all the provisions of The Conventions Against Torture and Inhumane Treatment (which applies to ALL prisoners, regardless of military status). The Constitution doesn't give an out here. It clearly and unequivocally states that treaties (such as Geneva and the Torture Conventions) are the Law of the Land. No out. No quibbling.

What the Pentagon/Cheney are doing is setting up virtually every soldier that follows a new Field Manual that includes patently illegal procedures in it of being rightfully and patently liable for warcrimes prosecution. The manual isn't a magic bullet. The law of the land is the law of the land. The Pres, and in particular, the Vice Prez (the nothing position in government) has no power to abrogate the law of the land. The Constitution clearly states that such treaties are not only the law of the land, but that they apply without respect to anything else in the Constitution (that means no Article II bullshit argument can be used to trump it).

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates at June 7, 2006 09:58 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

What many people do not seem to understand here is that Bushco is doing EXACTLY what they intend, which is to destroy the govt in all but name by the time they leave.

When they are all gone, their corporate buddies will take them in and the govt will be powerless to stop them, no matter who is in charge of the govt.

They are destroying the essential trust in the govt by its citizens without which the govt can do nothing to stem the corporations rapacious lusts.

You can see it in the poll results where people grade both parties as equally bad on corruption and trustworthiness. Sure those polls are slanted by the corporate media, but just talking to people on both sides of the spectrum will illustrate the point that people are nearly at the point where they do not trust the govt to do ANYTHING right. I wish I could say that the Democrats coming into power now will fix it, but there are so many corporate lickspittles among them and the fact that they totally cooperated with the Rethugs in redistricting where the pols pick the voters instead of the voters picking them has brought me to the point that I no longer have confidence that enough good people can take over now at the verge and stop it.

The framers tried really hard to stop this experiment from going astray and they were so brilliant in that task that it did well for almost two hundred years before it went too far. They could not stop a COMPLETELY INTENTIONAL attempt to literally break the system forever. Eisenhower warned about the military industrial complex, and it has now performed the slowest motion coup in history.

God help us all.

Posted by: Mike at June 7, 2006 10:08 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I couldn't agree more with most of your post. I do take exception however to one statement: "Are Addington and Co. bad, evil men? No, probably not, at the end of the day."

Yes, they are. They fit the very definition of evil. The troops on the front line, the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib, etc, can be given the benefit of the doubt. They are put in a harsh situation, far from home, under fire, totally out of the world of reality. They can be forgiven lapses in judgement. But Addington, Cheney, et al? These are privileged, wealthy men sitting safe in the confines of America. Society has given them all the advantages in life. And they calmly, coolly, over long periods of time, developed policies and procedures to systematically torture other human beings in pursuit of some twisted notion of safety. That's nothing more than cowardice and evil, and it's left to the people of the United States to pay the price for their actions.

Posted by: DD at June 7, 2006 10:14 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Bush and Rove are typically overrated as campaigners. It may be difficult to conceive of this, but once upon a time incumbent Presidents didn't squeak by with 50.5% of the national vote, a number that itself seems to have been bolstered quite a bit by, um, creative vote tabulation.

Ronald Reagan was a gifted campaigner. Bush is a divider and a hack.
His two political tricks are to slime any opponent far beyond their expectations (the continued low expectations of his dirtiness boggle the mind) and to pander to his base. The net result is that he's cemented his support among 30% of the nation and has alienated independent voters.

Bush has benefitted greatly from the GOP machine that dominates the corporate media. But as a politician he is little more than a placeholder.

Does anybody doubt that Bill Clinton would mop the floor with him in a head-to-head contest?

Posted by: RickD at June 7, 2006 11:46 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Is DoD Directive 2310.01 part of the Army Field Manual? Because that's all that the LA Times is saying that's changed. They never explicity say that the Army Field Manual was changed to remove Article 3, but they do say that the Directive was changed. Help me out, here, to understand the article!

Posted by: Chung at June 8, 2006 01:00 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

If the DoD Directive was changed, and the Army Field Manual has procedures that are not in alignment with the directive, then the Army Field Manual would need to be changed as it is the Army's instrument which carries out the guidance.

Field Manuals and Regulations are merely the administrative tools the services use to set policy, provide procedure, and comply with the law.

Posted by: Martin at June 8, 2006 12:38 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

It is difficult to fathom how the Cheney-Rumsfeld Gang resolves the apparent cognitive dissonance between the assumed American moral exceptionalism they flaunt at every opportunity and their own eagerness to sanction official state behavior that most of civilization has previously codified as beyond the pale. How do they do it? There is some mechanism that allows them to actually believe that America embodies that high-minded moral stuff and at the same time to cynically use it as cover for acts that are repugnant to what it all purports to stand for. Is this psychotic? Is it evil? Or do they simply not connect our pretensions to our actions in the real world? American moral exceptionalism has become detached from the things America actually does. It is of a different order than policy and behavior. It is more like the Declaration of Independence, a symbol or a relic. We worship it but we do not let it get in the way of how we live. Sometimes we may have to pawn it to make our way in the world, maybe even risk it on a high-stakes wager. Feeling lucky?

Posted by: Brent Wiggans at June 8, 2006 04:04 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Values based diplomacy is a sham if it doesn't recognize the difference between values and behavior. Our values determine the nature of our responses to consequences, but by themselves, values do not create context independent behaviors. It is context that gives rise to real actions or behaviors. Some say these US officials are good men applying consistent and good values, but in different and unique circumstances. Others say they are bad men, with values falling short of what they profess.

Americans don't question that our founders embraced individual liberty and human rights as core values. Yet from their actions it was clear that their concept of humanity was limited to their own bretheren. Not the native Americans. Not the African slaves. Have our values evolved over two centuries to accept a greater circle of humanity? I thought so. I still hope so. Or has our context merely evolved; with our increasing national strength and confidence allowing us to behave differently?

Perhaps the apparent weakening of support for the Geneva Convention indicates that our current leaders don't feel as strong or as confident any more. Whether it is their values or their circumstance, their inability to take a clear stance on the torture issue certainly makes them look weak.


Posted by: JimA at June 11, 2006 09:46 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

About Belgravia Dispatch

Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization.


More About the Author
Email the Author
Recent Entries
Search



The News
The Blogs
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Law & Finance
Think Tanks
Security
Books
The City
Epicurean Corner
Archives
Syndicate this site:
XML RSS

Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by:
www.vikeny.com

Powered by