function PrivoxyWindowOpen(){return(null);}The Washington Monthly function OpenComments (c) { PrivoxyWindowOpen(c, 'comments', 'width=610,height=480,scrollbars=yes,status=yes,resizable=yes'); } function OpenTrackback (c) { PrivoxyWindowOpen(c, 'trackback', 'width=480,height=480,scrollbars=yes,status=yes,resizable=yes'); } function Pop_Go(){return} function PopMenu(a,b){return} function OutMenu(a){return}
Email address
Powered by: MessageBot
From Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo:

In this new piece, Fred Kaplan hits on key point in the unfolding prison abuse scandal -- one that is, oddly, easy to overlook with all the daily revelations.

Set aside, for the moment, the underlying claims and misdeeds. Right out of the gate, multiple officials at the White House and the Pentagon pretty clearly lied about their own roles in putting in place the policies that led directly to what was taking place in those photos and went along with trying to pin the whole thing on these half dozen jokers whose pictures we've now seen again and again.

The whole progression of the story has an odd doubled-up quality. On the one hand we have repeated claims from top officials insisting that the abuses were the isolated work of a few miscreants. Then, simultaneously, we have numerous stories showing specific policy decisions (often confirmed on the record by slightly lower-level officials) which sanctioned pretty close to all the stuff we're seeing in those photos, even if not quite practiced with the same relish and glee.

This new article in Tuesday's Times says that the the head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib apparently put military police at the disposal of interrogators and gave them orders to do stuff like strip detainees, shackle them and generally give them a working over (though only, he said, when there was "some good reason"). But, along with this, there was no superivision of what they were doing and no guidelines or rules given to them saying what was acceptable and what wasn't. And remember, this isn't the testimony of a disinterested observer, but rather someone who is on the line for a lot of it and who presumably has an interest in putting the best face possible on the situation.

At a minimum, that sounds like giving benzine, some cordite, a gallon of gas, firecrackers, and a hundred rolls of toilet paper to some teenagers, telling them to see if they could put it all together to have some fun in the neighborhood on Friday night and then leaving them to their own devices.

And, remember, that's the generous interpretation.. 05/18/04


May 19, 2004

ABU GHRAIB ROUNDUP....This is getting worse and worse, and it doesn't look like it's going to let up anytime soon. Here's the latest:

  • An ABC News source claims that the Army is still covering up abuse at Abu Ghraib:

    Dozens of soldiers — other than the seven military police reservists who have been charged — were involved in the abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, and there is an effort under way in the Army to hide it, a key witness in the investigation told ABCNEWS.

    "There's definitely a cover-up," the witness, Sgt. Samuel Provance, said. "People are either telling themselves or being told to be quiet."

  • The Denver Post reports that "brutal interrogation techniques" are being investigated in connection with five POW deaths in Iraq:

    The deaths include the killing in November of a high-level Iraqi general who was shoved into a sleeping bag and suffocated, according to the Pentagon report. The documents contradict an earlier Defense Department statement that said the general died "of natural causes" during an interrogation. Pentagon officials declined to comment on the new disclosure.

    Another Iraqi military officer, records show, was asphyxiated after being gagged, his hands tied to the top of his cell door. Another detainee died "while undergoing stress technique interrogation," involving smothering and "chest compressions," according to the documents.

  • Three journalists say they were abused in custody:

    Two of the three Reuters staff said they had been forced to insert a finger into their anuses and then lick it, and were forced to put shoes in their mouths, particularly humiliating in Arab culture.

    All three said they were forced to make demeaning gestures as soldiers laughed, taunted them and took photographs. They said they did not want to give details publicly earlier because of the degrading nature of the abuse.

  • The Wall Street Journal reports that the Army has known about the abuses at Abu Ghraib since at least last November but did nothing about them:

    Senior U.S. military officials in Iraq, including two advisers to the top commander there, reviewed a strongly worded Red Cross report detailing the abuse of prisoners at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison last November -- but the Army did not launch an investigation into the abuses until two months later.

    ....The late November events show that top military commanders were alerted to the abuses by the Red Cross earlier than they so far have publicly acknowledged. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld testified before the Senate recently that officials at the Pentagon learned of the abuses after a soldier alerted them in mid-January. The Defense Department then launched an internal investigation.

    ....Gen. Karpinski and another officer who attended some meetings in Iraq about the report also said that instead of focusing on the abuses being reported, some military intelligence officers argued that they needed to limit the Red Cross's future access to cell blocks where interrogations were taking place. The officers worried that agency officials didn't have appropriate security clearances and that their presence could disrupt efforts to put pressure on prisoners by placing them in complete isolation.

  • The Los Angeles Times reports that at least one senior officer refused to testify at an Abu Ghraib hearing because of fears that his testimony could leave him open to criminal charges:

    Three key witnesses, including a senior officer in charge of interrogations, refused to testify during a secret hearing against an alleged ringleader of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves.

    ....Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said no soldier is allowed to invoke his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination unless he knows his testimony would leave him open to criminal charges.

    "You can't assert it unless you have a belief that there is some criminal exposure," he said. "That's why people do it."

To summarize: the Army knew about this back in November and didn't try to stop it; there are many more than just seven people involved; some of them are at a senior level; and the abuses may have caused at least five deaths.

Oh, and there are more pictures.

I'm sure I've missed a few things. I'll try to catch up later.

Kevin Drum 12:19 PM Permalink | TrackBack (0) | Comments (28)
 
Comments

Thank GOD the grownups are in charge!

Posted by: MattB on May 19, 2004 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

But Zell said it is like showering in high school! A murderous high school, which is why he is a Democrat! Democrats love torture and murder, on our own soil!

Posted by: Al on May 19, 2004 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

How long before we here, "Ya know, this is really Clinton's Army."

Posted by: Nick Vance on May 19, 2004 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

I thought we were supposed to be outraged over the outrage?

After all, wasn't it Rush Limbaugh who likened the prison abuse/torture to college pranks? (.."just some kids blowing off steam.")

I see the abuse/torture as a reflection on the wrongness of the entire Iraq War.

I suspect we might be in for a terrorist act, soon, in the USA, to turn the world's attention elsewhere.

The New Yorker scooped everyone, now the press is falling over themselves to cover this story. Too bad we didn't have this fervor BEFORE the invasion of Iraq.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on May 19, 2004 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe this will finally do it...

www.removebush.com

But why does Paul Harvey (now hear the rest of the story) still say it was only seven GI's who did the abuse?

Posted by: Wade on May 19, 2004 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

It's never the crime, it's the coverup.

Posted by: Melanie on May 19, 2004 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

"How long before we hear....

Heard it already on NPR. From William Kristol of the Weekly Standard. Last night.

Further, you do know, don't you, that the torture at A.G. is merely the outgrowth of blow jobs in the White House and the Sixties' counter-culture?

This from assorted Republican quasi-humans on talk radio.

By the way, should McCain be chosen by Kerry as running mate, maybe McCain will hire Kristol as his chief-of-staff. He owes him, from 2000. Then the Repugs can own the Democratic Party, too.

Posted by: John Thullen on May 19, 2004 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

I am OUTRAGED that the WSJ and DEnver Post are focusing on systemic abuses that were buried instead of the fact that Omarosa from the Apprentice has her own 900 #. Why does the WSJ HATE America?

Posted by: robbymack on May 19, 2004 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

This situation will only continue to spiral downward as more people come forward. I am willing to bet that the Army is working to get the "7" guilty soldiers to plead guilty so there is no public testimony.

If the courts martial go beyond a sentencing hearing, lots of additional people are going to be implicated.

It makes me sick to think I once went through Interrogation School as part of my training. This is not what we were trained to do. Of course that was shortly after Vietnam and the people in charge had some understanding of what our POWs went through in the Hanoi Hilton.

Posted by: Kurt on May 19, 2004 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Drip, drip, drip

But it seems like the attempts to limit the damage is starting to be effective. The Senate hearings today didn't turn up much more news, and we heard lots of "I didn't know that, or approve that".

The generals were able in several situations to get away with "I reported that to higher commands" without being questioned as to whom the reports went.

Some low level officers will be charged. But nothing beyond the actual Abu Ghraib premises, it seems.

It still is not clear to me what the DoD and military think IS permissible. Still lots of talk about needing to get good intelligence from prisoners.

BTW: What ever happened to the old line that no one need answer more than "name, rank, and serial number"?

Posted by: JimPortlandOR on May 19, 2004 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

But you know, its not like we're killing people or anything. Or at least not using cameras. Or at least not beheading them, I guess.

Who was it yesterday that noted that all of a sudden the Right has become a bunch of relativists, as long as what we do is one step less reprehensible from what they do, then we must be okay. What happened to their vaunted "moral clarity."

Posted by: Doug-E-Fresh on May 19, 2004 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

I am "outraged" and the faux "outrage" that "outrageous" repuglican senators fake to divert America's attention from the greatest administrative failure since watergate...

Posted by: me on May 19, 2004 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

All terrible. And no one will give a shit in the end. I can smell the backlash coming.

Posted by: Nick on May 19, 2004 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

As this spreads higher and higher up the command chain, and as the media finally decides that this is "sexy" enough to use on the infotainment half-hour every evening, it's going to be impossible for BushCo to stick with the "7 bad apples" explanation.

At the same time, I'm disgusted by the growing number of people who feel that exposing torture and murder is unpatriotic.

Posted by: Derelict on May 19, 2004 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Paul Harvey's still on the radio? How quaint!

Posted by: DrZhivodka on May 19, 2004 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

I listened to some of the senate hearing today and it sounded to me like Lindsay Graham was working hard to keep the issue limited to Iraq and leave responsibility with military intelligence at Abu Ghraib. A clear effort was made to protect General Miller and his Guantanamo operation. Guantanamo is administration's soft underbelly since this is where detainees by adminstration fiat did not have Geneva protections. My general impression of the hearing(i missed mccain) was that the whitewash operation was starting to get a little traction.


Posted by: ftm on May 19, 2004 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, the country's in the very best of hands!"

Posted by: george on May 19, 2004 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

Lord, how much worse can it get?

Posted by: Irrational Bush Hatred on May 19, 2004 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

"But Warner's counterpart in the House, Rep. Duncan Hunter, lashed out at the Senate for its plan to hold another hearing on the matter, saying "people are now being pulled out of those battlefield positions" to testify before Congress.

"That is detrimental to the 135,000 good people who are fighting right now in theater and who need their leadership and need a focused leadership," Hunter, a Republican from California, told reporters.

Of course what the good Congressman forgot to tell the reporters was that Senator Warner offered to teleconfernce with the "warfighting generals" and was informed by the Pentagon that they were already in the US for discussions.

Just another little oversight on the part of the Conservatives in the House of MisRepresentatives when being outraged by the outrage.

Posted by: Kurt on May 19, 2004 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Despicable. They are trying to pin this faisco on low level soldiers who took orders from Intel officers or higher up.

Posted by: david on May 19, 2004 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

George Bush, the perennial C- student, is getting an object lesson on politics. Except this time no one can bail him out. Frankly, I'm pleased that he hasn't fired Rumsfeld because every time Bush professes his loyalty to Rumsfeld, he attaches himself even more firmly to the torture scandal. They are all going to go down together. Bush's incompetence, willful blindness, and ignorance is on full display in this crisis. He's the captain of a ship that he has steered onto an iceberg and the ship is falling apart underneath him. Stay the course, Dear Leader!

Posted by: Night Runner on May 19, 2004 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Chris Matthews on Hardball last night kept referring to a statement allegedly made by Thomas Pappas (Intel Colonel in charge) that Pappas gave the order to strip these prisoners etc. Has anyone seen confirmation of this?

Posted by: Harold McClure on May 19, 2004 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

I still very much want to see this investigation expanded to Afghanistan, considering that we've heard reports and complaints from the prisons there for a long time now.

I'm thinking it's still the tip of the iceberg. Will we ever get to see the rest of the iceberg exposed?

Posted by: PaulB on May 19, 2004 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

Cat out of bag.

Genie out of bottle.

Dragon's teeth sown.

Chickens coming home.

The Night of Long Knives is about to begin.

Rats best jumping now to be saving your skin.

Oh Canada!

Posted by: coz on May 19, 2004 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Jeremy Sivits just got the full sentence possible under his special court marshal and all he did was snap some pics then cooperate with the investigation.

Those other MPs are no doubt feeling a bit anxious and lonely right about now.

In related news, have you noticed that the Repugs in the House are having kittens? They are trying every excuse possible to get the Senate leadership to shut down the moment toward full and open investigations, but the old bulls on both sides of the Senate committee leadership will have no part of this.

This may not be the Senate's finest hour (yet) but it sure shows the genius of what the founders in Philadelphia designed for us.

Posted by: Keith G on May 19, 2004 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

"The deaths include the killing in November of a high-level Iraqi general...."

"The Wall Street Journal reports that the Army has known about the abuses at Abu Ghraib since at least last November but did nothing about them"

"....The late November events show that top military commanders were alerted to the abuses by the Red Cross earlier than they so far have publicly acknowledged."

"To summarize: the Army knew about this back in November and didn't try to stop it"

now....what else happened in November of 2003? particulary late November.....around the time when many Americans eat turkey (or turkee)and watch football.....hmmmm....am i the only one who thinks Bush's Thanksgiving visit with the troops could now be looked at as an attempt to distract us all in case these events were leaked to the press?

Posted by: sean on May 19, 2004 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

I thought I read somewhere where stripping of detainees was allowed by military higher-ups.

Posted by: robbymack on May 19, 2004 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

One unfortunate outcome from an unexpected corner:

The rightwing in germany already refers to this as "concentration-camp"-like-torture, trying to diminish the significance of Nazi crimes in WWII.

Guess the right wing fuckwads are the same all over the world.

Posted by: Felix Deutsch on May 19, 2004 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?









 
     
------ ADVERTISEMENTS ------

Search Now:
In Association with Amazon.com

var site="s18washingtonmonthly"
     
function PrivoxyWindowOpen(a, b, c){return(window.open(a, b, c));}