Responsibiliy for Abu Ghraib abuses

There is some legal department, possibly the department of justice, who came out long before the Abu Ghraib scandal with opinions that seemed to open the door for torture for 'enemy combatants'. I remember it was in the news and hotly debated on talk shows. I think those people and possibly the administration bear the brunt of the blame for creating the admosphere of doubt regarding the illegality of these tactics.

There has already been admission from the White House that their lawyers looked into the legalities of "enemy combatants", Cuba detention and not following Geneva Convnention rules BEFORE this happened, so I believe the responsibility goes all the way to the top.

Abu Ghraib, the Next Step
Published: August 27, 2004
For months, John Warner, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has been gamely resisting pressure from Republican leaders to call off his hearings on the Abu Ghraib prison disaster - the only real sign of life on Capitol Hill on this important issue. Mr. Warner was patiently awaiting the outcome of a set of Pentagon investigations, including one by the Army and one by a civilian panel set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Both issued reports this week, and it's clear that Mr. Warner still has work to do.

The Army report did a painfully professional job of criticizing its own enlisted men and officers, including the three-star general who commanded American forces in Iraq at the time of the prison brutality and his two-star deputy. But it was not up to the Army to review the actions of the policy makers in Washington. It was also pretty obvious that Mr. Rumsfeld's panel - two former secretaries of defense, a retired general and a former Republican congresswoman - was not going to produce a clear-eyed assessment of responsibility.

The two new reports do make it starkly evident that President Bush's political decision to declare the war over far too prematurely and Mr. Rumsfeld's subsequent bungling of the occupation set the stage for the prison abuses. But the panel announced that it did not see any need to hold the secretary accountable, or even to subject him to any real direct criticism - even though its members thought the events warranted criminal charges against dozens of uniformed men and women.

At a news conference on Wednesday, Mr. Warner was careful to leave open the possibility that his committee would disagree with the panel's conclusions and that Congress would need to investigate Abu Ghraib on its own. He even pointedly reminded Mr. Rumsfeld that the secretary of defense is "captain of the ship," and "ultimately has to take responsibility." But Mr. Warner has set a schedule for further action that does not promise to lead to a real investigation, or to produce any satisfying answers for the public about Abu Ghraib, before the election.

Mr. Warner scheduled a hearing on the civilian panel's report for Sept. 9, when the committee's 25 members will get about eight minutes each for questions and comments. After that hearing, and after the Defense Department reacts to the report, and after the Pentagon finishes the investigations still under way, Mr. Warner said it would be time to decide what to do next. It's understandable that the courtly and loyal Mr. Warner would not want to push his party's leaders too far this close to an election. But the public has waited for months while Mr. Rumsfeld's team withheld documents from Congress and stonewalled senators' questions.

The Senate Armed Services Committee should call upon the Congressional leadership of both parties to form an investigative committee, with subpoena powers, to review this disaster, which has damaged the reputation of the American military and the United States around the world.

The responsibility may lie at the top. However in all likelihood the punishment will be delivered at the bottom.

RUMSFELD MISLEADS ABOUT PRISON ABUSE

Speaking yesterday in Phoenix, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed that there was no way that he and other top military officials could have known about the abuse and torture that took place at Abu Ghraib and other prisons. Rumsfeld said, "if you are in Washington, D.C., you can't know what's going on in the midnight shift in one of those many prisons around the world."[1] But a classified portion of a report by three Army generals (the Fay report) - obtained by the New York Times - found that the atrocities that took place in military prisons were the result of actions taken at the top of the military hierarchy.

According to secret sections of the Fay report, the former top commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez "approved the use in Iraq of some severe interrogation practices intended to be limited to captives held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and Afghanistan."[2] Moreover, "by issuing and revising the rules for interrogations in Iraq three times in 30 days, General Sanchez and his legal staff sowed such confusion that interrogators acted in ways that violated the Geneva Conventions."[3]

A separate investigation headed by former defense secretary James R. Schlesinger "faulted the Pentagon's top civilian and military leadership yesterday for failing to exercise adequate oversight and allowing conditions that led to the abuse of detainees in Iraq."[4] Rumsfeld was cited specifically for contributing to "confusion over what techniques were permissible for interrogating prisoners in Iraq."[5]

Sources:

1. "Rumsfeld: No plans to resign ," Arizona Daily Star, 8/27/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52360.
2. "Army's Report Faults General in Prison Abuse," New York Times, 8/27/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52361.
3. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52361.
4. "Top Pentagon Leaders Faulted in Prison Abuse," Washington Post, 8/25/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52362.
5. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=52362.

A Failure of Accountability

Sunday, August 29, 2004; Page B06



ONLY A FEW years ago, it seemed the slightest suggestion of malfea- sance by a presidential administration -- allegations of tampering with a minor administrative office, say, or indications that a cabinet secretary might have understated the amount of money given to a former girlfriend -- could trigger a formidable response from the other two branches of government: grand juries, special prosecutors, endless congressional hearings, even impeachment proceedings. Some of that auditing, especially during the Clinton administration, went too far. Yet now the country faces a frightening inversion of the problem. Though there is strong evidence of faulty and even criminal behavior by senior military commanders and members of President Bush's cabinet in the handling of foreign detainees, neither Congress nor the justice system is taking adequate steps to hold those officials accountable.

Investigations by the Army, including one completed last week, could result in prosecution or disciplinary action for up to 50 persons involved in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. But almost all are low-ranking soldiers; the most senior officer to be targeted is a female reserve brigadier general, who plausibly argues she has been scapegoated by higher-ranking officers. The military investigations and a separate probe by a panel picked by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have issued reports making it clear that senior commanders in Iraq and the civilian leadership at the Pentagon also bear specific responsibility for an affair that has gravely damaged the U.S. mission in Iraq and American prestige around the world. But no court, prosecutor or disciplinary panel is even considering action against these top officials. Only one more congressional hearing, by the Senate Armed Services Committee, is planned.
What's particularly troubling about this breakdown of checks and balances is that some of the most disturbing behavior by senior officials has yet to be thoroughly investigated. For example, Mr. Rumsfeld is now known to have approved, in December 2002, the use of dogs to frighten detainees under interrogation. That technique, which was immediately adopted in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, was described by Army Maj. Gen. George R. Fay as "a clear violation of applicable laws and regulations." Mr. Rumsfeld has also publicly acknowledged that he ordered that some prisoners in Iraq not be registered with the International Red Cross, an unambiguous violation of Army regulations and the Geneva Conventions. Yet Mr. Rumsfeld has never been called upon to explain these actions to legal investigators or to Congress.

The former commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, also issued an interrogation policy allowing the illegal use of dogs. Subsequently, he testified under oath to Congress that he had never approved this or other illegal measures listed above his signature. No formal criminal or administrative action against him is under consideration. Former CIA director George J. Tenet, according to Mr. Rumsfeld, requested that detainees in Iraq be concealed from the Red Cross. According to Gen. Fay's investigation, CIA operatives abused detainees, introduced improper interrogation methods to the theater and contributed substantially to the breakdown of discipline at Abu Ghraib. Yet the only investigation of the agency and its leaders is being conducted by its own inspector general.

When the prisoner abuse allegations first became public in May, many members of Congress, including several senior Republicans, vowed to pursue the evidence up the chain of command and not to allow low-ranking reservists to be prosecuted while more senior officials escaped sanction. Yet, as matters now stand, Mr. Rumsfeld, Gen. Sanchez and other senior officials are poised to execute just such an escape. When the scandal began, these leaders told Congress they were prepared to accept responsibility for the wrongdoing. As it turns out, they didn't mean that in any substantive respect. Their dodge shames not only them but the legal and legislative bodies charged with enforcing accountability.

I think there's a place in hell waiting for those at the top who either approved of, suggested or closed an eye to these abuses....but at the end of the day, the people who actually inflicted the abuses are ultimately responsible......even if ordered to do so, they could have refused if they had any balls....Lynndie England notwithstanding...she looks like she keeps some on a strap in her nightstand.....

Agree with this statement. I think that is exactly what will happen. I don't believe it should be that way. I believe there is a degree of responsibility on all parts.

An organization has several steps of ranking. Top dog make the rules. This is sent to a middle man to enforce, with no real authority. There are supervisory people, with their own work to do. Then you have the people on the ground floor, who do all the work.

All are adults with standards, some higher than others. The responsibility level differs. You cannot babysit people, when you have work of your own to do. I think all are responsible, with differing levels of it.

That's usually what happens.

I have seen the underlings come out to bite the big dog on the butt. It gives me such great pleasure when it happens! These big shots are not so well protected, just want us to think so. It seems more of a matter of who is willing to take the risk to bring em down. It happens!! I know, not nearly often enough.