Full Version: Rumsfeld's Role in Abuse
The following represents a pretty major update to this discussion - Report Blames Rumsfeld and other Pentagon Officials for Abu Gharib
The report fails to lay blame all the way to the top but it is certainly the most damning piece of evidence to date that the directives responsible for the abuse in Iraq came from very high up.
The people accused of the crimes in Iraq continue to insist the orders came from above. The judge is receptive to that theory, but believes the defense needs to provide a little more proof first before he requires Rumsfeld and others to testify.
I think it will only be a matter of time before we get some closure here.
QUOTE
The Pentagon's most senior civilian and military officials share a portion of blame for creating conditions that led to the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq, according to a new report.
The report, by a commission appointed by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, was presented to Rumsfeld Tuesday in advance of a Pentagon news conference to release the details. The commission was headed by James Schlesinger, a former secretary of defense.
A person familiar with the report said it implicitly faulted Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by finding that those responsible for the military prison system in Iraq were operating under confusing policies on allowable interrogation techniques. The person discussed some aspects of the report on condition of anonymity.
The report, by a commission appointed by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, was presented to Rumsfeld Tuesday in advance of a Pentagon news conference to release the details. The commission was headed by James Schlesinger, a former secretary of defense.
A person familiar with the report said it implicitly faulted Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by finding that those responsible for the military prison system in Iraq were operating under confusing policies on allowable interrogation techniques. The person discussed some aspects of the report on condition of anonymity.
The report fails to lay blame all the way to the top but it is certainly the most damning piece of evidence to date that the directives responsible for the abuse in Iraq came from very high up.
The people accused of the crimes in Iraq continue to insist the orders came from above. The judge is receptive to that theory, but believes the defense needs to provide a little more proof first before he requires Rumsfeld and others to testify.
QUOTE
The judge, Col. James Pohl, also rejected a request from the attorney for Spc. Javal Davis for Rumsfeld and his chief deputy for intelligence, Stephen Cambone, to submit to an interview, but said the request could be brought back if the defense can fill in some of the gaps.
"There's got to be some links in that chain," Pohl said.
Davis and the five other military police accused of abusing prisoners at the prison near Baghdad insist they were following orders from military intelligence officers and civilian contractors. A seventh soldier, Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits of Hyndman, Pa., pleaded guilty May 19 to taking pictures of naked prisoners and was sentenced to a year in prison.
"There's got to be some links in that chain," Pohl said.
Davis and the five other military police accused of abusing prisoners at the prison near Baghdad insist they were following orders from military intelligence officers and civilian contractors. A seventh soldier, Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits of Hyndman, Pa., pleaded guilty May 19 to taking pictures of naked prisoners and was sentenced to a year in prison.
I think it will only be a matter of time before we get some closure here.
QUOTE
Both reports will be reviewed by the Senate Armed Services Committee in hearings scheduled for Sept. 9.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Aug 24 2004, 01:14 PM)
The following represents a pretty major update to this discussion - Report Blames Rumsfeld and other Pentagon Officials for Abu Gharib
I'd say so, though in a different direction than I think you're going, nice spin on the title by the way.
(Clarified in the quote, of course, but still misleading)
Rumsfeld Indirectly to Blame for Abu Ghraib -Panel
QUOTE
A four-member panel headed by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger issued a report accusing the chain of command from Rumsfeld down of leadership failures that created conditions for the abuse late last year that sparked anti-American outrage across the world.[...]
But he said it was clear that Rumsfeld had issued no orders for the mistreatment of prisoners and direct responsibility ended with field commanders in Iraq.
But he said it was clear that Rumsfeld had issued no orders for the mistreatment of prisoners and direct responsibility ended with field commanders in Iraq.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
The report fails to lay blame all the way to the top but it is certainly the most damning piece of evidence to date that the directives responsible for the abuse in Iraq came from very high up.
...from what I've read, that isn't what the report say at all. It says that lack of order or clear command structure, was a problem.
..but it found no "directives responsible for abuse." More than that, it suggest abuse is indeed the exception to the rule.
Therefore if Rumsfeld's job is more endangered over this, well that would just be people not reading the report.
Report Full Text(PDF)
If Rumsfeld issued orders, guidance or even vague signals that this abuse should be instituted or tolerated, he should be sacked.
He should be held accountable for tarnishing my military.
But, I have to see some direct, irrefutable evidence.
The line of 'he is in charge, so is overall responsible' only goes so far with me. Back in 1996, after two paratroopers murdered a black couple in Fayetteville, NC, their Company Commander was sacked for 'not being involved in what was going on in his company'.
Never mind that he didn't give anything close to direction for these two twerps to murder anybody, but they did it off duty and off base. This is a guy that I would have followed into hell, should we declare war on Satan. It was IMO, a travesty of justice.
It is not inconceivable to me that someone in the chain of command between Rumsfeld-Karpinski-and the guards/interrogators issued this directive. And it could have been Rumsfeld himself, we'll hopefully soon find out. But I'm confused as to how so many people have crucified the SecDef without evidence.
He should be held accountable for tarnishing my military.
But, I have to see some direct, irrefutable evidence.
The line of 'he is in charge, so is overall responsible' only goes so far with me. Back in 1996, after two paratroopers murdered a black couple in Fayetteville, NC, their Company Commander was sacked for 'not being involved in what was going on in his company'.
Never mind that he didn't give anything close to direction for these two twerps to murder anybody, but they did it off duty and off base. This is a guy that I would have followed into hell, should we declare war on Satan. It was IMO, a travesty of justice.
It is not inconceivable to me that someone in the chain of command between Rumsfeld-Karpinski-and the guards/interrogators issued this directive. And it could have been Rumsfeld himself, we'll hopefully soon find out. But I'm confused as to how so many people have crucified the SecDef without evidence.
QUOTE(turnea @ Aug 24 2004, 05:13 PM)
Therefore if Rumsfeld's job is more endangered over this, well that would just be people not reading the report.
Report Full Text(PDF)
Report Full Text(PDF)
Thanks for providing the link Turnea, I wasn't aware it was publically available.
QUOTE(Turnea)
...from what I've read, that isn't what the report say at all. It says that lack of order or clear command structure, was a problem.
..but it found no "directives responsible for abuse." More than that, it suggest abuse is indeed the exception to the rule.
..but it found no "directives responsible for abuse." More than that, it suggest abuse is indeed the exception to the rule.
Now who is not reading the report
QUOTE
Since the beginning of hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. military and security operations have apprehended about 50,000 individuals. From this number, about 300 allegations of abuse in Afghanistan, Iraq or Guantanamo have arisen. As of mid-August 2004, 155 investigations into the allegations have been completed, resulting in 66 substantiated cases. Approximately one-third of these cases occurred at the ppint of capture or tactical collection point, frequently under uncertain, dangerous and violent circumstances.
Abuses of varying severity occurred at differing locations under differing circumstances and context. They were widespread and, though inflicted on only a small percentage of those detained, they were serious in both number and effect. No approved procedures called for or allowed the kinds of abuse that in fact occurred. There is no evidence of a policy of abuse promulgated by senior military officials or military authorities. Still, the abuses were not just the failure of some individuals to follow known standards, and they are more than the failure of a few leaders to enforce proper discipline. There is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld appointed the members of the Independent Panel to provide independent professional advice on detainee abuses, what caused them and what actions should be taken to preclude their repetition. The Panel reviewed various criminal investigations and a number of command and other major investigations. The Panel also conducted interviews of relevant persons, including the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, other senior Department of Defense officials, the military chain-of-command and their staffs and other officials directly and indirectly involved with Abu Ghraib and other detention operations. However, the Panel did not have full access to information involving the role of the Central Intelligence Agency in detention operations; this is an area the Panel believes needs further investigation and review.
Abuses of varying severity occurred at differing locations under differing circumstances and context. They were widespread and, though inflicted on only a small percentage of those detained, they were serious in both number and effect. No approved procedures called for or allowed the kinds of abuse that in fact occurred. There is no evidence of a policy of abuse promulgated by senior military officials or military authorities. Still, the abuses were not just the failure of some individuals to follow known standards, and they are more than the failure of a few leaders to enforce proper discipline. There is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld appointed the members of the Independent Panel to provide independent professional advice on detainee abuses, what caused them and what actions should be taken to preclude their repetition. The Panel reviewed various criminal investigations and a number of command and other major investigations. The Panel also conducted interviews of relevant persons, including the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, other senior Department of Defense officials, the military chain-of-command and their staffs and other officials directly and indirectly involved with Abu Ghraib and other detention operations. However, the Panel did not have full access to information involving the role of the Central Intelligence Agency in detention operations; this is an area the Panel believes needs further investigation and review.
By looking at the full quote from the executive summary section here, it is important to discuss a few things.
1) This panel was not formed to hang Rumsfeld or the administration, if you think they were going to come out and explicitly say he was at fault, you should do a reality check - this wasn't a Democratic panel. Now what they did say with that in mind is in my opinion pretty damning.
When a friendly panel writes:
QUOTE
Still, the abuses were not just the failure of some individuals to follow known standards, and they are more than the failure of a few leaders to enforce proper discipline. There is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels.
That is telling Rumsfeld that he messed up big time, in the nicest way possible.
2) The Panel did not suggest that these were "merely exceptions" as you wrote Turnea. If you read the report they say exactly the opposite. Furthermore, the fact that the abuses have occured in Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba also backs that assessment up. Did we have the same people working at facilities separated by 1000's of miles? I didn't think so. What about the roughly 50% of cases that haven't been investigated yet? What about the 66 substantiated cases - did the people being held for the photo abuses at Abu Ghraib commit all of those?
3) The fact that the Panel has not yet had full access to the CIA involvement means that this thing isn't wrapped up quite yet. Considering many of the people involved were with intelligence, I would think the CIA's role is important to investigate here.
4) If anyone expected politicians and military officials to sink themselves if they were involved in this then they don't understand human nature very well. There has been ample time for anyone involved to get the story straight, destroy evidence if there is any etc. I'm not suggesting there is a conspiracy here necessarily, but if you think politicians always tell the truth, you need to take off your rose colored glasses.
5) The more interesting evidence is going to come from those accused, rather than from some panel convened to study this incident. When in the history of the United States has a panel been useful in bringing any facts to light when it comes to a government scandal? If something shady was going on then the leads are going to come from those being held on charges right now. I'm sure that your first reaction turnea and that of a few others will be to believe they are just trying to make a deal, but with circumstances such as they are anything these people say is at the very least worth investigating.
And after skimming through some of the other sections of the report (which I'll read later), the "policies" are certainly interesting to say the least. This is definitely not the last we'll hear of this and I think the military's black eye will get bigger before it is healed. The report, considering the panel, was pretty harsh on the administration as I have shown above.
I know that if I were president then I would be calling for my secretary of defense's resignation, but I guess that is just me and probably why I'd never make it as a politician.
edited to add:
QUOTE(dontreadonme)
But, I have to see some direct, irrefutable evidence.
I would agree with you DTOM, but what we do have is an ever increasing pile of circumstantial evidence and some interesting facts and situations. Is it enough to convict Rumsfeld or prove that he was responsible? Not yet. But it certainly is enough to dispel the "Rumsfeld couldn't have been involved, that is just leftist spin" arguments that some on this thread have and continue to use. There is definitely something here, how much we may or may not ever know.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Aug 24 2004, 09:42 PM)
1) This panel was not formed to hang Rumsfeld or the administration, if you think they were going to come out and explicitly say he was at fault, you should do a reality check - this wasn't a Democratic panel.
Assumption.. assumptions
. No this wasn't a democratic panel, it was an independent panel, not formed to hang Rumsfeld but to get to the truth of the matter. If you think they went easier on Rumsfeld than the fact demanded, then I'd need to see some evidence of that.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
When a friendly panel writes:
That is telling Rumsfeld that he messed up big time, in the nicest way possible.
QUOTE
Still, the abuses were not just the failure of some individuals to follow known standards, and they are more than the failure of a few leaders to enforce proper discipline. There is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels.
That is telling Rumsfeld that he messed up big time, in the nicest way possible.
How you glean that meaning from that quote is beyond me, more unsubstantiated assumptions. The only things the report fault Rumsfeld on were frequent changes to interrogation standards, which while they did not encourage abuse, did cause confusion... and possibly poor training for the troops involved. This report, contrary to the popular misconception wasn't aimed at Rumsfeld or even the DoD. It blames mostly those involved locally.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
The Panel did not suggest that these were "merely exceptions" as you wrote Turnea. If you read the report they say exactly the opposite.
From the report (pg. 13)...
QUOTE
The aberrant behavoir in Cell Block 1 at Abu Ghraib would have been avoided with proper training, leadership, and oversight
Aberrant, of course, means exceptional.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey)
I would agree with you DTOM, but what we do have is an ever increasing pile of circumstantial evidence and some interesting facts and situations. Is it enough to convict Rumsfeld or prove that he was responsible? Not yet. But it certainly is enough to dispel the "Rumsfeld couldn't have been involved, that is just leftist spin" arguments that some on this thread have and continue to use. There is definitely something here, how much we may or may not ever know.
CJ, evidence is exactly what we don't have, DTOM has already explained he's not voting for Bush, I myself am undecided. This isn't the blind faith of Bush-supporters talking...
..rather, it is the staggering lack of evidence with which backs the calls for Rumsfelds resignation over the issue. An action which all four panel members say would be a bad idea.
QUOTE(turnea @ Aug 26 2004, 01:35 PM)
CJ, evidence is exactly what we don't have, DTOM has already explained he's not voting for Bush, I myself am undecided.
For that I'm simply going to point you to one of the sections of the report I bolded in my previous post:
QUOTE
However, the Panel did not have full access to information involving the role of the Central Intelligence Agency in detention operations; this is an area the Panel believes needs further investigation and review.
That is what this independent panel was saying. I also wrote in my post the following:
QUOTE
5) The more interesting evidence is going to come from those accused, rather than from some panel convened to study this incident. When in the history of the United States has a panel been useful in bringing any facts to light when it comes to a government scandal? If something shady was going on then the leads are going to come from those being held on charges right now. I'm sure that your first reaction turnea and that of a few others will be to believe they are just trying to make a deal, but with circumstances such as they are anything these people say is at the very least worth investigating.
And finally
QUOTE
The aberrant behavoir in Cell Block 1 at Abu Ghraib would have been avoided with proper training, leadership, and oversight
So I suppose you are just ignoring the cases that have happened in Afghanistan and Guantanamo then or the fact that only half of them have even been investigated? When does it stop being aberrant and start becoming a pattern? You took one sentence from the report and tried to debunk what was basically an executive summary. I'm sorry but that doesn't work.
If you aren't going to at least take the time to read a post before selectively digging out your talking points then it really isn't very productive of a debate. I shouldn't have to essentially repeat things I just posted to answer your questions. If you disagreed with them, you could at least acknowledge that my answer was not satisfactory instead of asking the question again.
Is [Rumsfeld's] position as Secretary of Defense now in serious jeopardy? Should it be?
Nice update there Cubejockey!
I have another couple of updates for you all to keep this fire burning.
"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. "
-A Failure of Accountability,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Aug28.html
"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."
same source."
This is disturbing. I am afraid of our government, but whats more disturbing, is the lack of coverage I have seen from the press. After the initial story broke, they seem to have all but been silent. It is a shame that a few low-level soldiers are currently taking the heat, and they should be let off the hook if evidence of higher powers ordered such mistreatment.
Whatever your opinion about the war, and the truly barbaric behavior the enemy, we should not let the enemy say the Americans will do this...
However, there is hope that justice will be served. We Americans as leaders of the free world, should not stoop to the tactics of barbarians to acheive our objectives.
"Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner declared the pictures were the worst "military misconduct" he'd seen in 60 years, and he planned more hearings."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989422/
Whatever the outcome of these hearings, justice should be done. If I were late for work or messed up on such a scale, I would expect to be fired. This may (and it should), have a huge effect on the public and the press. This administration is out of control, and such examples as shown above are proof.
Nice update there Cubejockey!
I have another couple of updates for you all to keep this fire burning.
"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. "
-A Failure of Accountability,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Aug28.html
"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."
same source."
This is disturbing. I am afraid of our government, but whats more disturbing, is the lack of coverage I have seen from the press. After the initial story broke, they seem to have all but been silent. It is a shame that a few low-level soldiers are currently taking the heat, and they should be let off the hook if evidence of higher powers ordered such mistreatment.
Whatever your opinion about the war, and the truly barbaric behavior the enemy, we should not let the enemy say the Americans will do this...
However, there is hope that justice will be served. We Americans as leaders of the free world, should not stoop to the tactics of barbarians to acheive our objectives.
"Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner declared the pictures were the worst "military misconduct" he'd seen in 60 years, and he planned more hearings."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989422/
Whatever the outcome of these hearings, justice should be done. If I were late for work or messed up on such a scale, I would expect to be fired. This may (and it should), have a huge effect on the public and the press. This administration is out of control, and such examples as shown above are proof.
Here's an update on this topic.
If in fact high level officials were responsible for th scandal at Abu Ghraib, they should be fired yesterday. These sorts of actions are irresponsisble in the extreme, and if anyone in the corporate world acted the way which these people did, they would unemployed today. I totally agree with someone who said they fired for being late. Where is the accountability?
Low level MP's, while they were stupid for behaving in what anyone would say was wrongful behavior, should be pardoned if orders came from higher up. Unfortunatel for many, it is already too late.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/internat...ast/12iraq.html
The book should be out now, this was 9-12.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/internat...st/12abuse.html
If in fact high level officials were responsible for th scandal at Abu Ghraib, they should be fired yesterday. These sorts of actions are irresponsisble in the extreme, and if anyone in the corporate world acted the way which these people did, they would unemployed today. I totally agree with someone who said they fired for being late. Where is the accountability?
Low level MP's, while they were stupid for behaving in what anyone would say was wrongful behavior, should be pardoned if orders came from higher up. Unfortunatel for many, it is already too late.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/internat...ast/12iraq.html
The book should be out now, this was 9-12.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/internat...st/12abuse.html
Updating from a different angle, here is a disturbing article in The Lancet (requires free registration), takes a look at the responsibility borne by medical personnel at Abu Ghraib: Abu Ghraib: Its Legacy for Military Medicine
QUOTE
The medical system collaborated with designing and implementing psychologically and physically coercive interrogations. Army officials stated that a physician and a psychiatrist helped design, approve, and monitor interrogations at Abu Ghraib. This echoes the Secretary of Defense's 2003 memo ordering interrogators to ensure that detainees are "medically and operationally evaluated as suitable" for interrogation plans. In one example of a compromised medically monitored interrogation, a detainee collapsed and was apparently unconscious after a beating, medical staff revived the detainee and left, and the abuse continued. There are isolated reports that medical personnel directly abused detainees. Two detainees' depositions describe an incident where a doctor allowed a medically untrained guard to suture a prisoner's lacertation from being beaten.
...At the operational level, medical personnel evaluated detainees for interrogation, and monitored coercive interrogation, allowed interrogators to use medical records to develop interrogation approaches, falsified medical records and death certificates, and failed to provide provide basic health care.
...At the operational level, medical personnel evaluated detainees for interrogation, and monitored coercive interrogation, allowed interrogators to use medical records to develop interrogation approaches, falsified medical records and death certificates, and failed to provide provide basic health care.
According to the Washington Times, Bush actually banned using torture as a means of extracting information from terrorists, even though he was given legal advice that such a ban was not necessary.
'Values' guided Bush torture ban
'Values' guided Bush torture ban
QUOTE
President Bush decided shortly after the September 11 attacks that terrorism detainees would be treated in accord with the Geneva Conventions, despite legal advice that this was not required, to adhere to "our values as a nation," according to a memo he wrote himself.
The White House yesterday released a 2-inch-high stack of memos that outline the administration's thoughts on dealing with an enemy that declares no country its home, wears no uniforms, and concentrates its attacks on civilians.
After months of deliberations, the administration decided to adhere strictly to the Geneva Conventions, despite their being optional in this case.
In a memo titled "Humane Treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban Detainees," Mr. Bush says he accepts "the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time."
"Of course our values as a nation ... call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment," he concluded in the Feb. 7, 2002, memo.
The White House yesterday released a 2-inch-high stack of memos that outline the administration's thoughts on dealing with an enemy that declares no country its home, wears no uniforms, and concentrates its attacks on civilians.
After months of deliberations, the administration decided to adhere strictly to the Geneva Conventions, despite their being optional in this case.
In a memo titled "Humane Treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban Detainees," Mr. Bush says he accepts "the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time."
"Of course our values as a nation ... call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment," he concluded in the Feb. 7, 2002, memo.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 22 2004, 03:25 PM)
According to the Washington Times, Bush actually banned using torture as a means of extracting information from terrorists, even though he was given legal advice that such a ban was not necessary.
'Values' guided Bush torture ban
'Values' guided Bush torture ban
QUOTE
In a memo titled "Humane Treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban Detainees," Mr. Bush says he accepts "the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time."
"Of course our values as a nation ... call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment," he concluded in the Feb. 7, 2002, memo.
"Of course our values as a nation ... call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment," he concluded in the Feb. 7, 2002, memo.
I think a reread of the thread (and other abu gharib threads) is in order Amlord because the facts at hand seem to indicate that regardless of Bush saying detainees should be treated humanely, some harsh interrogation techniques were approved by Rumsfeld. You can reference this post earlier in the thread.
Saying that people should be treated humanely (for political purposes and lipservice) and actually treating them that way are completely different things.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.