Top Army Officers Are Cleared in Abuse Cases - A Disgraceful Abdication of Accountability from the President on Down
I don't have a single clue about what's happened to accountability in this country.
Bush talks about an "ownership society." Who ultimately "owns" the actions of our country's military? Specialist Charles A. Graner? Brigadier General Janis Karpinski? Col. Thomas M. Pappas and Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan? Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller? Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez? Army Chief of Staff General Peter J. Schoomaker? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard B. Myers? USCENTCOM’s Commander, Gen. John Abizaid (who reports directly to the Secretary of Defense, who in turn, reports to the President of the United States)? Maybe Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld? How about the Commander in Chief and the President of the United States, George W. Bush?
I am struggling mightily to withold obscenities here. This is nothing but a NATIONAL DISGRACE. The most appalling thing of all is that it's still going on. Mark my words. This will not go away. We will be dealing with this indelible stain on our country's character for a VERY long time.
It's very obvious. There was no way they could walk away from these atrocities without at least one general being thrown to the lions.
Of COURSE the "dereliction HAPPENED at the brigade level and below." IMPLEMENTATION of policies and directives is ALWAYS carried out at the brigade level and below. But, of one thing you can be sure. In the military, FORMULATION of policies and directives NEVER takes place at the brigade level and below. And, when you're dealing with such sensitive matters as prisoner interrogation which could potentially reveal highly useful information AND you have already made the determination to circumvent the Geneva Convention in order to obtain that information, you KNOW those policies and directives came from the TOP of the food chain.
General Sanchez himself WROTE and signed the specific memorandum which authorized the very techniques that General Karpinski was given to carry out. The memorandum contained clear cautions regarding the use of techniques that contravened Geneva. "Other nations that believe detainees are entitled to EPW protections may consider this technique inconsistent with the provisions of Geneva." (Because I knew I would want it for later reference, I took the time to fully transcribe the interrogation techniques approved by General Sanchez.You can look at them here.)
Last fall, two reports were released, both of which pointed to General Sanchez' authorization of interrogation techniques as "indirectly" responsible for "some" of the abuse.
Even more damning is that General Sanchez clearly perjures himself during sworn testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 19, 2004, and why he has not been called to account on this serious offense alone is completely beyond understanding.
So, now we know that General Sanchez authorized the interrogation techniques that resulted in prisoner and detainee abuse. We also know that a number of the techniques were recognized by General Sanchez in his memorandum to be in clear contravention of the Geneva accords. We can see from reading that memorandum (CJTF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy, dated 14 September 2003) that the interrogation techniques outlined therein left considerable room for interpretation and, even though in some instances higher review was required, limits and boundaries on use of the techniques were left to Brigade-level interpretation.
The only missing pieces to this puzzle are found in the "Final Report of the Independent Panel To Review DoD Detention Operations, August 2004," where the Executive Summary contains this statement on pgs. 6 and 7.
In the memorandum referenced in the report, Appendix C, part 2(a), the President stated:
The President further stated in part 2(d):
So, in accordance with the guidance provided by the President of the United States, it is apparent that General Sanchez, under the direction of his superiors, Secretary Rumsfeld and General Abizaid, formulated his memorandum of September 14, 2003. It is also apparent that the techniques authorized in that memorandum were directly related to the abuse that arose from their implementation. It is also clear that General Sanchez lied under oath when asked if he authorized those techniques.
There is not a mystery here. There is not some arcane web of deceit. The facts are clear on their face and there is absolutely no other way to say it. It is because of the above sequence of actions, formally initiated by the President of the United States on February 7, 2002, that our country has come to this shameful pass. I am infinitely tired and profoundly angry that we continue to pretend otherwise. Our President has led us down the same path followed by so many leaders who discard the basic principles of civilized nationhood in a belief that the end justifies the means. Our President is a hypocrite and a liar and he has made hypocrites and liars out of us all.
But, now that we have it to deal with, it is our solemn obligation, as citizens of the United States, to insist that the use of such techniques be immediately stopped, that, no matter how high up he or she may be, those responsible are held accountable, and, that, heaven forbid, it not be allowed to happen again. And you know what? We better because it's a lead-pipe cinch that if we don't, no one else will.
I am not in the least bit optimistic. Submit To Propeller
Tweet
Bush talks about an "ownership society." Who ultimately "owns" the actions of our country's military? Specialist Charles A. Graner? Brigadier General Janis Karpinski? Col. Thomas M. Pappas and Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan? Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller? Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez? Army Chief of Staff General Peter J. Schoomaker? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard B. Myers? USCENTCOM’s Commander, Gen. John Abizaid (who reports directly to the Secretary of Defense, who in turn, reports to the President of the United States)? Maybe Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld? How about the Commander in Chief and the President of the United States, George W. Bush?
Barring new evidence, the inquiry, by the Army's inspector general, effectively closes the Army's book on whether the highest-ranking officers in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib prison scandal should be held accountable for command failings described in past reviews.
[...]
So far, only a small number of soldiers, mostly from the enlisted ranks, have faced courts-martial for their actions at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.
I am struggling mightily to withold obscenities here. This is nothing but a NATIONAL DISGRACE. The most appalling thing of all is that it's still going on. Mark my words. This will not go away. We will be dealing with this indelible stain on our country's character for a VERY long time.
The only Army general officer recommended for punishment for the failures that led to abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison and other facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan is Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski, who was in charge of U.S. prison facilities in Iraq as commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade in late 2003 and early 2004. Several sources said Karpinski is expected to receive an administrative reprimand for dereliction of duty.
It's very obvious. There was no way they could walk away from these atrocities without at least one general being thrown to the lions.
"The dereliction happened at the brigade level and below," said one defense official familiar with the [Army inspector general's] report.
Of COURSE the "dereliction HAPPENED at the brigade level and below." IMPLEMENTATION of policies and directives is ALWAYS carried out at the brigade level and below. But, of one thing you can be sure. In the military, FORMULATION of policies and directives NEVER takes place at the brigade level and below. And, when you're dealing with such sensitive matters as prisoner interrogation which could potentially reveal highly useful information AND you have already made the determination to circumvent the Geneva Convention in order to obtain that information, you KNOW those policies and directives came from the TOP of the food chain.
General Sanchez himself WROTE and signed the specific memorandum which authorized the very techniques that General Karpinski was given to carry out. The memorandum contained clear cautions regarding the use of techniques that contravened Geneva. "Other nations that believe detainees are entitled to EPW protections may consider this technique inconsistent with the provisions of Geneva." (Because I knew I would want it for later reference, I took the time to fully transcribe the interrogation techniques approved by General Sanchez.You can look at them here.)
Questions about Sanchez's and other senior leaders' role in approving harsh interrogation tactics -- including the use of military working dogs to intimidate detainees -- have swirled since photographs of abuse at Abu Ghraib surfaced almost exactly a year ago.
Last fall, two reports were released, both of which pointed to General Sanchez' authorization of interrogation techniques as "indirectly" responsible for "some" of the abuse.
An independent panel led by former Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger concluded last August that General Sanchez had failed to make sure that his staff was dealing with Abu Ghraib's problems. A separate Army investigation, called the Kern-Fay-Jones report, found that at one point General Sanchez approved the use of severe interrogation practices that led indirectly to some of the abuses.
Even more damning is that General Sanchez clearly perjures himself during sworn testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 19, 2004, and why he has not been called to account on this serious offense alone is completely beyond understanding.
REED [U.S. SENATOR JACK REED (D-RI)]: General Sanchez, today's USA Today, sir, reported that you ordered or approved the use of sleep deprivation, intimidation by guard dogs, excessive noise and inducing fear as an interrogation method for a prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison.
REED: Is that correct?
SANCHEZ: Sir, that may be correct that it's in a news article, but I never approved any of those measures to be used within CJTF-7 [CJTF-7, Combined Joint Task Force Seven, Camp Victory, Baghdad, Iraq] at any time in the last year.
So, now we know that General Sanchez authorized the interrogation techniques that resulted in prisoner and detainee abuse. We also know that a number of the techniques were recognized by General Sanchez in his memorandum to be in clear contravention of the Geneva accords. We can see from reading that memorandum (CJTF-7 Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy, dated 14 September 2003) that the interrogation techniques outlined therein left considerable room for interpretation and, even though in some instances higher review was required, limits and boundaries on use of the techniques were left to Brigade-level interpretation.
The only missing pieces to this puzzle are found in the "Final Report of the Independent Panel To Review DoD Detention Operations, August 2004," where the Executive Summary contains this statement on pgs. 6 and 7.
"On February 7, 2002, the President issued a memorandum stating that he determined the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda, and although they did apply in the conflict with Afghanistan, the Taliban were unlawful combatants and therefore did not qualify for prisoner of war status (see Appendix C). Nonetheless, the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were all in agreement that treatment of detainees should be consistent with the Geneva Conventions. The President ordered accordingly that detainees were to be treated "...humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."
In the memorandum referenced in the report, Appendix C, part 2(a), the President stated:
"I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva."
The President further stated in part 2(d):
"Based on the facts supplied by the Department of Defense and the recommendation of the Department of Justice, I determine that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants and, therefore, do not qualify as prisoners of war under Article 4 of Geneva. I note that, because Geneva does not apply to our conflict with al Qaeda, al Qaeda detainees also do not qualify as prisoners of war.
So, in accordance with the guidance provided by the President of the United States, it is apparent that General Sanchez, under the direction of his superiors, Secretary Rumsfeld and General Abizaid, formulated his memorandum of September 14, 2003. It is also apparent that the techniques authorized in that memorandum were directly related to the abuse that arose from their implementation. It is also clear that General Sanchez lied under oath when asked if he authorized those techniques.
There is not a mystery here. There is not some arcane web of deceit. The facts are clear on their face and there is absolutely no other way to say it. It is because of the above sequence of actions, formally initiated by the President of the United States on February 7, 2002, that our country has come to this shameful pass. I am infinitely tired and profoundly angry that we continue to pretend otherwise. Our President has led us down the same path followed by so many leaders who discard the basic principles of civilized nationhood in a belief that the end justifies the means. Our President is a hypocrite and a liar and he has made hypocrites and liars out of us all.
But, now that we have it to deal with, it is our solemn obligation, as citizens of the United States, to insist that the use of such techniques be immediately stopped, that, no matter how high up he or she may be, those responsible are held accountable, and, that, heaven forbid, it not be allowed to happen again. And you know what? We better because it's a lead-pipe cinch that if we don't, no one else will.
I am not in the least bit optimistic. Submit To Propeller
Tweet
posted by profmarcus at
4/23/2005
