1
   

The Army & CIA are tired of being scapegoats.

 
 
pistoff
 
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 04:24 pm
Army, CIA want torture truths exposed

By Martin Sieff
UPI Senior News Analyst
Published 5/18/2004 7:16 AM

WASHINGTON, May 18 (UPI) --

Quote:
Efforts at the top level of the Bush administration and the civilian echelon of the Department of Defense to contain the Iraq prison torture scandal and limit the blame to a handful of enlisted soldiers and immediate senior officers have already failed: The scandal continues to metastasize by the day.

Over the past weekend and into this week, devastating new allegations have emerged putting Stephen Cambone, the first Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, firmly in the crosshairs and bringing a new wave of allegations cascading down on the head of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when he scarcely had time to catch his breath from the previous ones.Even worse for Rumsfeld and his coterie of neo-conservative true believers who have run the Pentagon for the past 3½ years, three major institutions in the Washington power structure have decided that after almost a full presidential term of being treated with contempt and abuse by them, it's payback time.Those three institutions are: The United States Army, the Central Intelligence Agency and the old, relatively moderate but highly experienced Republican leadership in the United States Senate. None of those groups is chopped liver: Taken together they comprise a devastating Grand Slam.

The spearhead for the new wave of revelations and allegations - but by no means the only source of them - is veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. In a major article published in the New Yorker this week and posted on to its Web-site Saturday, Hersh revealed that a high-level Pentagon operation code-named Copper Green "encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation" of Iraqi prisoners. He also cited Pentagon sources and consultants as saying that photographing the victims of such abuse was an explicit part of the program meant to force the victims into becoming blackmailed reliable informants.Hersh further claimed in his article that Rumsfeld himself approved the program and that one of his four or five top aides, Cambone, set it up in Baghdad and ran it.These allegations of course are anathema to the White House, Rumsfeld and their media allies. In a highly unusual step for any newspaper, the editorially neo-conservative tabloid New York Post ran an editorial Monday seeking to ridicule and discredit Hersh. However, it presented absolutely no evidence to query, let alone discredit the substance of his article and allegations.Instead, the New York Post editorial inadvertently pointed out one, but by no means all, of the major sources for Hersh's information.

The editorial alleged that Hersh had received much of his material from the CIA.Based on the material Hersh quoted, his legendary intelligence community contacts were probably sources for some of his information. However, Hersh has also enjoyed close personal relations with many now high-ranking officers in the United States Army, going all the way back to his prize-winning coverage and scoops in Vietnam more than 30 years ago.Indeed, intelligence and regular Army sources have told UPI that senior officers and officials in both communities are sickened and outraged by the revelations of mass torture and abuse, and also by the incompetence involved, in the Abu Ghraib prison revelations.

These sources also said that officials all the way up to the highest level in both the Army and the Agency are determined not to be scapegoated, or allow very junior soldiers or officials to take the full blame for the excesses.President George W. Bush in his weekly radio address Saturday claimed that the Abu Ghraib abuses were only "the actions of a few" and that they did not "reflect the true character of the Untied States armed forces."But what enrages many serving senior Army generals and U.S. top-level intelligence community professionals is that the "few" in this case were not primarily the serving soldiers who were actually encouraged to carry out the abuses and even then take photos of the victims, but that they were encouraged to do so, with the Army's well-established safeguards against such abuses deliberately removed by high-level Pentagon civilian officials.Abuse and even torture of prisoners happens in almost every war on every side. But well-run professional armies, and the U.S. Army has always been one, take great pains to guard against it and limit it as much as possible.

Even in cases where torture excesses are regarded as essential to extract tactical information and save lives, commanders in most modern armies have taken care to limit such "dirty work" to very small units, usually from special forces, and to keep it as secret as possible.For senior Army professionals know that allowing patterns of abuse and torture to metastasize in any army is annihilating to its morale and tactical effectiveness. Torturers usually make lousy combat soldiers, which is why combat soldiers in every major army hold them in contempt.Therefore, several U.S. military officers told UPI, the idea of using regular Army soldiers, including some even just from the Army Reserve or National Guard, and encouraging them to inflict such abuses ran contrary to received military wisdom and to the ingrained standards and traditions of the U.S. Army.

The widespread taking of photographs of the victims of such abuses, they said, clearly revealed that civilian "amateurs" and not regular Army or intelligence community professionals were the driving force in shaping and running the programs under which these abuses occurred.Hersh has spearheaded the waves of revelations of shocking abuse. But other major U.S. media organizations are now charging in behind him to confirm and extend his reports. They are able to do so because many senior veteran professionals in both the CIA and the Army were disgusted by the revelations of the torture excesses. Now they are being listened to with suddenly receptive ears on Capitol Hill.Republican members in the House of Representatives have kept discipline and silence on the revelations. But with the exception of the increasingly isolated and embarrassed Senate Republican Leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, other senior mainstream figures in the GOP Senate majority have refused to go along with any cover-up.Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Pat Roberts of Kansas and John Warner of Virginia have all been outspoken in their condemnation of the torture excesses. And they did so even before the latest, most far-reaching and worst of the allegations and reports surfaced. Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, lost no time in hauling Rumsfeld before it to testify.

The pattern of the latest wave of revelations is clear: They are coming from significant numbers of senior figures in both the U.S. military and intelligence services. They reflect the disgust and contempt widely felt in both communities at the excesses; and at long last, they are being listened to seriously by senior Republican, as well as Democratic, senators on Capitol Hill.Rumsfeld and his team of top lieutenants have therefore now lost the confidence, trust and respect of both the Army and intelligence establishments. Key elements of the political establishment even of the ruling GOP now recognize this.Yet Rumsfeld and his lieutenants remain determined to hang on to power, and so far President Bush has shown every sign of wanting to keep them there. The scandal, therefore, is far from over. The revelations will continue. The cost of the abuses to the American people and the U.S. national interest is already incalculable: And there is no end in sight.


Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040518-064124-9605r
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,185 • Replies: 2
No top replies

 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 04:33 pm
Sly Sy at it Again
Joel Mowbray
May 18, 2004

Reading the "hot" new New Yorker "expose" ?-which has the rest of the media in a tizzy, and has many Democrats even hungrier for Rumsfeld's resignation?-can lead one to believe that the Defense Secretary had a hand in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal.

Reading it more closely, however, leads one to realize that Rumsfeld knew, well, nothing.

Reading it with the author's credibility problems in mind, and the Pentagon's seemingly obligatory denials seem more credible.

Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has been a trailblazer on the Abu Ghraib scandal, breaking numerous stories. And his latest has tongues in Washington wagging.

In a piece titled "The Gray Zone," Hersh lays the blame for the scandal at the feet of Rumsfeld, who, Hersh writes, expanded a secret operations unit into Iraq. In the second sentence of the lead paragraph, Hersh leaves little doubt as to his personal conclusions: "Rumsfeld's decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America's prospects in the war on terror."

The article is quite damning, that is, until the reader gets to the obligatory disclaimer.

Buried 3,300 words inside a roughly 4,500-word article is the following exoneration: "Rumsfeld may not be personally culpable." And further down near the end was another: "The former intelligence official made it clear that he was not alleging that Rumsfeld or General Myers knew that atrocities were committed."

In Hersh's line of work, opinion-based reporting, he is absolutely within bounds to attack Rumsfeld with as much tenacity as any rabidly partisan Democrat. But the problem is the treatment then given by the rest of the media.

When mainstream news outlets, such as the Associated Press, reported on Hersh's latest piece, there was nary a mention of Hersh's left-leaning bias.

Even more troubling is that there are more than 25 quotes attributed to "former intelligence officials" and only five to current officials anywhere in government. And all, save for one public official, are anonymous.

Current officials deserve the cloak of anonymity, particularly when revealing information the public has a right to know and the act itself could cost the person's job. But what is the rationale for keeping nameless all the "former" officials? There are no jobs on the line, and "former" officials are routinely quoted on the record in most outlets. Does Hersh think this adds a layer of intrigue if names aren't there to clutter up a good story?

Most important, how can others judge the credibility of nameless individuals who could be doing nothing more than settling old scores?

Readers, and the media at large, would also be wise to consider Hersh's credibility in past stories. While much of what he has written has been well-researched and true, he has not been without substantial error.

In November 2001, Hersh penned a New Yorker piece that portrayed a Pentagon mission to strike Mullah Omar in Afghanistan as a "near-disaster," completely contrary to the official line. (An excellent Slate article by former Naval intelligence officer Scott Shuger found multiple flaws in Hersh's reporting.)

One "fact" from the story that numerous conservative publications, from National Review to Washington Times, were quick to expose was one that even a junior New Yorker fact checker should have caught: "The mission was initiated by sixteen AC-130 gunships, which poured thousands of rounds into the surrounding area but deliberately left the Mullah's house unscathed."

There almost certainly could not have been 16 AC-130 gunships in one battle; the military has a worldwide total fleet of 21.

In that November 2001 piece, the muckraker painted a bleak picture, leading the casual reader to believe that the U.S. might lose the campaign. The Taliban was toppled the next month.

And in April 2003, Hersh attacked the military capabilities of ground forces in Iraq (blaming, guess who, Rumsfeld). A week and a half later, Saddam's regime was no more.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the Pentagon has vehemently denied the allegations made in Hersh's article. Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita issued a statement calling the claims "outlandish, conspiratorial, and filled with error and anonymous conjecture."

Maybe Hersh's piece has quite a bit of truth in it. Even so, the worst that the article actually alleges (meaning with facts) is that Rumsfeld expanded a program that, unbeknownst to him, spiraled out of control.

But with the nameless sourcing?-apparently needlessly in most of the cases?-determining the accuracy of Hersh's reporting becomes an essentially impossible task.

Let's hope that's not why he used almost solely anonymous sources.

Link
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2004 04:38 pm
Prison abuse scandal limited to Abu Ghraib: US lawmakers


WASHINGTON (AFP) -
Quote:
US lawmakers said after a private meeting with General Antonio Taguba that they were assured that the prison abuse scandal in Iraq was limited to the facility at Abu Ghraib.

"The general theme of General Taguba's statements ... after visiting most, if not all of the detention centers in Iraq, that the problem was limited to Abu Ghraib and that a breakdown in leadership at the prison was the primary cause," said US Representative Jim Saxton, chairman of the House Terrorism and Special Operations Subcommittee.

Taguba was the author of a Pentagon report last January revealing "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses" against Iraqi prisoners by their US jailkeepers.

According to the document, military intelligence officers told US military police guards to give Iraqi detainees rough treatment to facilitate interrogation, leading to the abuses highlighted in shocking photos and video images broadcast around the world.

Taguba held Tuesday's two-hour briefing with members of the House of Representatives one week after providing testimony at an open Senate committee hearing.

Lawmakers said Taguba also reiterated an earlier conclusion that there was no official policy of mistreatment or order to guards from top Pentagon officials to abuse detainees.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040518/pl_afp/us_...

*Congress wants to stop the blood flow because it might kill their golden goose.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Army & CIA are tired of being scapegoats.
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/05/2026 at 06:19:26