Where has this happened before?

The US House Judiciary Committee wanted to get some information from one of the Guantanamo prosecutors. He was all set to testify and then things changed.

In a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing today, Lt. Col. V. Stuart Couch, a former Guantanamo Bay prosecutor, was set to testify regarding another concern that has long troubled uniformed lawyers: Regardless of their accuracy, statements obtained under torture or certain other forms of duress are inadmissible in legal proceedings. Because most evidence against Guantanamo prisoners comes from detainee statements, convictions hinge on whether they can be used in court.

Asked last week to appear before the panel, Col. Couch says he informed his superiors and that none had any objection.

Yesterday, however, he was advised by email that the Pentagon general counsel, William J. Haynes II, "has determined that as a sitting judge and former prosecutor, it is improper for you to testify about matters still pending in the military court system, and you are not to appear before the Committee to testify tomorrow." Mr. Haynes is a Bush appointee who has overseen the legal aspects of the Pentagon's detention and interrogation policies since Sept. 11, 2001. The email was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Just say, Wow, for now. It gets better. Over here.

Couch was going to testify about the dilemma he faced as a prosecutor when he learned that a potential defendant against whom he was trying to build a case had been tortured. Couch was assured not to worry, the fact that the detainee had been tortured would be suppressed, so that the court would never learn about it. That would, of course, have entailed a conscious fraud on the Court—which appears to be standard Department of Defense operating procedure these days. But Col. Couch didn’t want to play that game.

Now take this little bit of information.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said it was Defense Department policy not to let prosecutors speak about pending cases.

Actually, Defense Department policy is not to permit prosecutors to talk about pending cases to the media.

That raises two items. Couch is no longer a prosecutor. He is a military judge. The case he was prepared to discuss was not pending and he had no further involvement in it.

And, he wasn't going to be speaking to the media; He was going to be given sworn testimony to a Congressional committee which had invited him to testify.

The objection here is really something different. It’s exposing the Pentagon’s practices authorizing torture and then lying about it. If Col. Couch were to embrace the Pentagon’s line, they’d have no problem with him speaking. The problem is that he was prepared to testify honestly about the torture program, and that was a show-stopper.

Then we have the history of William J. Haynes II.

Note that the determination was made by William (“Jim”) Haynes, Donald Rumsfeld’s lawyer, who continues to serve as general counsel after the Senate Judiciary Committee gave a thumbs-down to his nomination for a federal judgeship in the Fourth Circuit (“Over my dead body,” in the words of one Fourth Circuit Republican). Mr. Haynes is one of the prime torture conspirators, and the author of a December 2002 memorandum endorsed by Rumsfeld that has already provided the basis for two criminal indictments of the former Defense Secretary. Haynes is one of the Bush Administration officials most likely to be indicted for his role in the torture scandal when he steps down from office. Mr. Haynes has a strong reason to prevent Col. Couch from testifying, since almost anything he would have to say would be embarrassing to, and might even incriminate, Mr. Haynes.

So, how is it that a Pentagon official, totally skewing Defense Department policy, is allowed to interfere with Congressional oversight?

That rings of state-within-a-state.

Hat tip, Chris.