Buck-Passing on Abu Ghraib

[TrueHoyaBlue]

The B&G board has been awfully quiet lately, and I thought this might liven things up -- Who should be held responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib?

[kchoya]

I can't believe that no one else (all 16 people who have viewed this thread) chose the soldiers. Are we saying that the people who carried out these acts should not be held responsible?

[nychoya3]

Umm...I can't believe how dense you sound. Holding the soldiers accountable and holding accountable their superiors who at best failed in their leadership capacities and more likely simply turned their heads the other way are not mutually exclusive propositions. The question isn't where the buck starts-it's where it stops. And it doesn't stop with a bunch of morons in the prison.

Of course, it doesn't stop in the White House either. Welcome to the era of personal responsibility!

[TrueHoyaBlue]

Yeah, call me skeptical, but I find it hard to believe that the apparent thousands of pictures, and some videos as well, are the sole work of "6 morons," who just thought this would be something fun to do. And if it was their idea, am I supposed to believe that it took thousands of pictures and several months for someone to notice, and decide that maybe there was something wrong with this.

[showcase]

I do think the soldiers should be held accountable, since their actions were in clear contravention of military policy. However, the question was where does the buck stop - who is ultimately accountable. The press accounts and the military's own report indicate that what occurred in Abu Ghraib (and has occurred elsewhere) was not simply a few soldiers "blowing off steam" as Rush and other Bush apologists would like to spin it, but rather part of a calculated approach to get information out of detainees in all theatres of the "war on terror" that has been going on for some time. As I see it, someone somewhere along the line decided that the lack of good human intel on al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Iraqi insurgency could be alleviated by leaning harder on the captives in US custody. The pictures at Abu Ghraib only memorialize one particular aspect of that unstated policy.

I harbor no fantasy that there is some kind of smoking gun linking Rummy to this. Nevertheless, I think the example set by this Administration's constant prioritazation of results over process helped set the stage for this particular drama. Hence, my feeling that the ulimate responsibility for this latest fiasco in the Iraq campaign appropriately lies much higher up the chain of command than with the soldiers and their immediate superiors.

[kchoya]

nychoya3 said:

Umm...I can't believe how dense you sound. Holding the soldiers accountable and holding accountable their superiors who at best failed in their leadership capacities and more likely simply turned their heads the other way are not mutually exclusive propositions. The question isn't where the buck starts-it's where it stops. And it doesn't stop with a bunch of morons in the prison.

Of course, it doesn't stop in the White House either. Welcome to the era of personal responsibility!

Umm, I can't beleive how much of a prick you sound like. Thanks for keeping the level of discourse at a high level.

The buck should stop with the soldiers. Does that mean that we shouldn't look into what the response of their superiors, all the way up the chain, was to reports of these actions? No.

But unless there was some actual encouraging of these actions, or some sort of cover up, then the ultimate responsibility lies with the people who carried out such actions.

[nychoya3]

I apologize for the dense thing. It was uncalled for.

But I still think you're missing the point. I've heard enough to make me think that, even if Rummy et al. didn't know what the conditions were like, they would of if they had cared to know and asked the right questions. That's a failure of leadership and a fire-able offense, particularly considering how badly this incident has set back our cause (hint: VERY VERY badly). Heads should role, and it shouldn't just be the heads of a dozen idiots on the ground. I think the head of Amnesty summed it up well when she said "they opened the door for a little torture, and a lot of torture came in." From what I've read, I already think that Rumsfeld has to go, if only for the symbolic reasons. Also because he has been a terrible Sec. of Defense, and was probably the biggest contributer to the incredibly botched post-war situation in Iraq. But that's neither here nor there.

I think much of what went on was approved of, at least tacitly, by people much higher up the food chain.

I'm also getting sick of people trying to justify what we see in those pictures (and the worse ones that are on the way). Lieberman did it to appalling effect last week, and now James Inhofe (the "distinguished" senator from Oklahoma) takes it a step further. Some people don't deserve to live in America.

www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=5106409

Again, I'm constantly appalled by the Administration and the President's unwillingness to take responsibillity for ANYTHING. It's practically a parody at this point, considering that they've consistently botched just about every aspect of policymaking down the line.

[showcase]

kchoya said:

But unless there was some actual encouraging of these actions, or some sort of cover up, then the ultimate responsibility lies with the people who carried out such actions.

Agree with some of what you said above in that there's no need to call someone dense just because you disagree with them. However, I think there are strong indications that this is hardly just a few miscreants abusing their charges.

The Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where a unit of U.S. soldiers abused prisoners, is just the largest and suddenly most notorious in a worldwide constellation of detention centers -- many of them secret and all off-limits to public scrutiny -- that the U.S. military and CIA have operated in the name of counterterrorism or counterinsurgency operations since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

These prisons and jails are sometimes as small as shipping containers and as large as the sprawling Guantanamo Bay complex in Cuba. They are part of an elaborate CIA and military infrastructure whose purpose is to hold suspected terrorists or insurgents for interrogation and safekeeping while avoiding U.S. or international court systems, where proceedings and evidence against the accused would be aired in public. Some are even held by foreign governments at the informal request of the United States.

...

In fact, every aspect of this new universe -- including maintenance of covert airlines to fly prisoners from place to place, interrogation rules and the legal justification for holding foreigners without due process afforded most U.S. citizens -- has been developed by military or CIA lawyers, vetted by Justice Department's office of legal counsel and, depending on the particular issue, approved by White House general counsel's office or the president himself.

...

Along with other CIA and military efforts to disrupt terrorist plots and break up al Qaeda's financial networks, administration officials argue that the interrogations are a key component of their global counterterrorism strategy and counterinsurgency operations in Iraq. As the CIA's deputy director, John McLaughlin, recently told the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks: "The country, with all its capabilities, is now much more orchestrated into an offensive mix that is relentless."

...

In December 2002, two Afghans died in U.S. custody in Afghanistan. The U.S. military classified both as homicides. Another Afghan died in June 2003 at a detention site near Asadabad.

...

The CIA general counsel's office developed a new set of interrogation rules of engagement after the Sept. 11 attacks. It was vetted by the Justice Department and approved by the National Security Council's general counsel, according to U.S. intelligence officials and other U.S. officials familiar with the process. "There are very specific guidelines that are thoroughly vetted," said one U.S. official who helps oversee the process. "Everyone is on board. It's legal."

The rules call for field operators to seek approval from Washington to use "enhanced measures" -- methods that could cause temporary physical or mental pain.

U.S. intelligence officials say the CIA, contrary to the glamorized view from movies and novels, had no real interrogation specialists on hand to deal with the number of valuable suspects it captured after Sept. 11. The agency relied on analysts, psychologists and profilers. "Two and a half years later," one CIA veteran said, "we have put together a very professional, controlled, deliberate and legally rationalized approach to dealing with the Abu Zubaidas of the world."

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15981-2004May10_3.html

To me, the abuse at Abu Ghraib reflects a group of soldiers crossing a line that was apparently moving more and more in that direction. Given the Post's story from yesterday, it seems clear that the soldiers and civilian contractors handling the detainees were under a great deal of pressure to get information. Ultimately, I think this fairly tars all those involved in the more day-to-day issues surrounding the war in Iraq - like Rummy. Certainly, whomever thought it would be a good idea to send Maj. Gen. Miller to Abu Ghraib to "Gitmo-ize" the detention operation made a serious miscaluclation. The fact...

Last fall, U.S. military leaders cast about for ways to generate more information on the insurgency after focusing their early intelligence efforts on the hunt for Saddam Hussein, his top lieutenants and the weapons of mass destruction that were the Bush administration's rationale for going to war.

The urgency of the problem prompted U.S. officials to accept a new intelligence service they once opposed because of its similarity to Hussein's. It also led to more widespread detentions of Iraqis. The strategy was reflected in the rising number of Iraqis arrested for questioning across the country in the late fall. At Abu Ghraib alone, the number of prisoners rose from 5,800 in September to 8,000 five months later, when Karpinski received an official admonishment.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13065-2004May9.html

only underscores for me that this was a foreseeable consequence of an official policy to lean hard on the only source of 'human' intel available in Iraq, the detainees. If that's borne out, I think it's indefensible to say the buck stops with the soldiers in Abu Ghraib. Certainly appears to me that there's a lot of smoke coming from higher up the chain of command, right now.

[showcase]

For the conservative true believers out there, note George Will's take on this matter...

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16108-2004May10.html

[kchoya]

nychoya3 said:

I apologize for the dense thing. It was uncalled for.

As was my retort. I apologize.

[thebin]

I really can't believe I am the only one that blames the warden (Gen Karpinski) whose command is the one in question.

[showcase]

Fiascos, like accidents, rarely have a single error as its cause, hence I blame everyone from the individual with whom the buck stops on down.

[kchoya]

showcase said:

Fiascos, like accidents, rarely have a single ecord as its cause, hence I blame everyone from the individual with whom the buck stops on down.

But the question is not just who to blame, but how much should you blame them and what should the conseqeuences be for each person. If a soldier tortured a prisoner to death, then he should be court-martialed and punished according to the UCMJ. But Rumsfield, who would be at the top of the Pentagon chain overseeing that soldier should not be court-martialed (to use an overly simple example).

Rumsfield should not be held accountable in the same manner as the soldiers who actually carried out these acts. Our "blame" of the SecDef should be based on whether he encouraged such actions, tolerated such actions, could have done more to clamp down on such actions, etc...

It's apples and oranges (though they're both rotten to some extent).

[thebin]

showcase- under that principle, if you were head of a corporation that engaged in wrong doing, you would fire every single manager and then resign?

[showcase]

If the transgression was serious enough, I might have to do just that. Furthermore, the Board may do it for me. A clear break may be necessary for the company's image or even long-term prospects in certain circumstances. It all depends on context.

As for whether Rummy should go, I again commend the George Will piece linked above. Some interesting thoughts on why his resignation would be appropriate that go well beyond punishment.

kc: I agree the "punishment should fit the crime," so to speak, but if there's evidence that Rummy or some other senior Administration official laid the groundwork for the conditions that led to these abuses through policy decisions, I still feel that official is not absolved from culpability simply because someone else was the one to take it too far in a suddenly more 'permissive' penal environment.

For what it's worth, I think the jury's still out on what extent, if any, directives from the White House or the Pentagon contributed to the evironment at Abu Ghraib or any of the other prisons where abuses have taken place. However, if a link is made, I think resignation is not only the minimally required 'punishment,' it's also probably in the best interest of the country and this Administration's Iraq policy.

[Badger Hoya]

Lost in the story about the passing of Ronnie, two memos providing at least circumstantial evidence to the idea that 'torture' was deemed legal by DoJ and White House Counsel have come out. Moreover, when Ashcroft went before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, he sounded like a man who's been caught w/his hand in the cookie jar.

With that in mind, not only does this story not go away, but it keeps going right up the food chain. In fact, apparently Rumsfeld specifically designated 24 interrogation methods that could be used, with some of them, most likely, being the ones that were used at Abu Ghraib (otherwise they would have certainly released the memo by now).

So, the questions remain: How far up does it in fact go, and who will finally take responsibility for this?

Again, this appalling episode keeps getting worse, and I fear we're going to be digging ourselves out of this hole for years to come.

[showcase]

I thought Ashcroft's performance at the Senate Judiciary hearing last week was inexcusable: "No, I will not turn these memos over to the Committee. But I am not invoking executive privilege. I simply believe that the President has a right to the candid advice of his advisors... That being said, I am not withholding these memos as an exercise of executive privilege."

The merits of whether the memos are disclosable aside, Ashcroft's position is laughable. This sets a new precedent in terms of chutzpa in thumbing the Administration's collective nose at Congress, and the people as a whole. I can't believe this part of the story hasn't gained more momentum.

[TrueHoyaBlue]

If there was nothing to hide, why would they be trying so hard to hide it?

[showcase]

Obviously, it's a matter of principle. If you're weak on accountability (in that it's a foreign concept to your Administration), executive privilege (or Ashcroft's recent "non-privilege" variation) should be invoked to divert attention from that fact - sort of an anti-principle, really.