Full Version: Is General Miller the right man to fix things?
When I read that Maj. General Geoffrey Miller, the person who runs the prison for enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, was being brought to Iraq to fix the prison mess there I thought I had heard things wrong. I mean was this the way to pacify angry Iraqis, assure them that there was a real professional coming in who had been running a controversial detention center?
But then I heard a few stories, including ones with interviews, about Miller efficiency, and commitment to professionalism, and his sincere promise that things would turn around immediately, and I was shaken from my skepticism.
Something nagged at me on top of my worry that appearances wouldn't calm Iraqis who know about Guantanamo. This morning I was reminded while reading my Sunday paper.
General Miller had drawn up a report about Iraqi prison run by US forces and he had suggested that prison guards could be used to help soften detainees up for easier interrogation.
A month later General Donald Ryder, provost marshal of the Army, looked at these detention centers and pointed out that guards should not be assisting in preparing prisoners for interrogation because that would conflict with their duty to keep the prisoners safe.
Edited to add in documentation
CHAIN OF COMMAND
And farther from the left
Postcards from the Edge
The question for debate?
Is General Miller the right choice for Abu Ghraib and the other facilities in Iraq at this time. Doesn;t it seem that he is in a position of defending the actions of the guards against the prisoners? Doesn't it seem that he would be in a conflict of interest in trying to kill this story since there is a good chance that his recommendations contributed to this situation?
Even if he were not tied to this by his earlier recommendations, does his association with Guantanamo Bay make him a liability at a time of damage control, or is it possible that this can gain him credibility in the eyes of Iraqis?
But then I heard a few stories, including ones with interviews, about Miller efficiency, and commitment to professionalism, and his sincere promise that things would turn around immediately, and I was shaken from my skepticism.
Something nagged at me on top of my worry that appearances wouldn't calm Iraqis who know about Guantanamo. This morning I was reminded while reading my Sunday paper.
General Miller had drawn up a report about Iraqi prison run by US forces and he had suggested that prison guards could be used to help soften detainees up for easier interrogation.
A month later General Donald Ryder, provost marshal of the Army, looked at these detention centers and pointed out that guards should not be assisting in preparing prisoners for interrogation because that would conflict with their duty to keep the prisoners safe.
Edited to add in documentation
QUOTE
Two months earlier, Major General Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the task force in charge of the prison at Guantánamo, had brought a team of experts to Iraq to review the Army program. His recommendation was radical: that Army prisons be geared, first and foremost, to interrogations and the gathering of information needed for the war effort. “Detention operations must act as an enabler for interrogation . . . to provide a safe, secure and humane environment that supports the expeditious collection of intelligence,” Miller wrote. The military police on guard duty at the prisons should make support of military intelligence a priority.
General Sanchez agreed, and on November 19th his headquarters issued an order formally giving the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade tactical control over the prison. General Taguba fearlessly took issue with the Sanchez orders, which, he wrote in his report, “effectively made an MI Officer, rather than an MP officer, responsible for the MP units conducting detainee operations at that facility. This is not doctrinally sound due to the different missions and agenda assigned to each of these respective specialties.”
General Sanchez agreed, and on November 19th his headquarters issued an order formally giving the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade tactical control over the prison. General Taguba fearlessly took issue with the Sanchez orders, which, he wrote in his report, “effectively made an MI Officer, rather than an MP officer, responsible for the MP units conducting detainee operations at that facility. This is not doctrinally sound due to the different missions and agenda assigned to each of these respective specialties.”
CHAIN OF COMMAND
And farther from the left
QUOTE
We now know as well that General Miller originally visited Abu Ghraib back in the fall of 2003 and seems to have really gotten the ball rolling by offering a little piece of helpful advice from a penal colony all-star. He suggested "that military detention centers in Iraq should serve as an 'enabler for interrogation' and that the prison guards should 'set the conditions for successful exploitation of the internees.'" As Seymour Hersh, whose New Yorker piece really broke the Abu Ghraib story, commented in an appearance on Fox TV's The O'Reilly Factor, "One of [the other investigations of Abu Ghraib] was done by a major general who was involved in Guantanamo, General Miller. And it's very classified, but I can tell you that he was recommending exactly doing the kind of things that happened in that prison, basically. He wanted to cut the lines. He wanted to put the military intelligence in control of the prison." The general, whether he has ever lifted a hand against a prisoner or directly ordered one of those "stress" methods (and it seems he has), is by the very nature of what he has overseen a torturer and, like those above him, deserves prosecution.
Postcards from the Edge
The question for debate?
Is General Miller the right choice for Abu Ghraib and the other facilities in Iraq at this time. Doesn;t it seem that he is in a position of defending the actions of the guards against the prisoners? Doesn't it seem that he would be in a conflict of interest in trying to kill this story since there is a good chance that his recommendations contributed to this situation?
Even if he were not tied to this by his earlier recommendations, does his association with Guantanamo Bay make him a liability at a time of damage control, or is it possible that this can gain him credibility in the eyes of Iraqis?
I was trying to allude to this thread in the thread about the New Yorker article about Rumsfeld being connected to the abuse methods of prisoners in Iraq. (Sadly, after several tries I could't get a post on that thread. 
) This informaiton seems releveant to me showing that there was more than just a few misguided soldiers in action at Abu Ghraib.
) This informaiton seems releveant to me showing that there was more than just a few misguided soldiers in action at Abu Ghraib.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.