|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights : Crime & Police : Government Secrecy : International Relations : Iraq : Prisons : Regime |
|
Prisoner Abuse: Investigation Aims Far Too Low |
Current rating: 0 |
by Joseph L. Galloway
(No verified email address) |
05 Oct 2005
|
|
No one has ever accused Joe Galloway of being a bleeding heart. When he raises these issues, it's because he feels they are a threat to the US military that he loves. And a national disgrace that every real American wants to end. It's time to end the coverup and impunity and hold those further up the chain of command accountable, whether through orders or gross negligence, of facilitating war crimes. |
Well, they finally got to the bottom of the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal last week. An Army court martial convicted Pfc. Lynndie England and sentenced her to three years in prison and a dishonorable discharge for holding that leash, pointing with scorn and other offenses.
They've gotten to the bottom, all right. With England's conviction, that wraps up the cases against nine enlisted soldiers who starred in those terrible digital photos in 2003.
So that's it, huh?
Not exactly. We still haven't gotten to the top of this scandal, the Guantánamo problems and questions raised last week by an Army captain from the 82nd Airborne Division troubled by, of all things, a conscience.
Capt. Ian Fishback, a West Point graduate, was a lieutenant in both Afghanistan and Iraq when he became troubled by what he was seeing: American soldiers beating Iraqi detainees until their arms and legs were broken. Death threats. Extreme forced physical exertion. Sleep deprivation. Exposure to the elements.
He began a 17-month journey, or attempted journey, up the chain of command, asking, then pleading for simple guidance on whether American troops in Iraq were bound by terms of the Geneva Conventions. He wrote a letter to the two top Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner, R-Va., and John McCain, R-Ariz.
''This is a tragedy,'' he wrote. ``I can remember, as a cadet at West Point, resolving to ensure that my men would never commit a dishonorable act; that I would protect them from that type of burden.''
What did this honorable American officer ask that was so hard? ``Give (our soldiers) a clear standard that is in accordance with the bedrock principles of our nation.''
Capt. Fishback added: ``Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as al Qaeda's we should not be concerned. When did al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States?''
Nobody in his chain of command showed the slightest concern about what the captain reported and what he sought. Nobody showed any interest until Human Rights Watch revealed details of his case last week.
Then the Army got very interested. Orders went down to interrogate the captain and demand that he identify two sergeants who also witnessed some of the abuse. Once again, the powers-that-be were eager to get to the bottom of the issue. Find some enlisted men or non-coms and hang them out to dry. Shame on them.
And unless the good senators are ready at last to step up to the plate and hold independent hearings on the question of how the United States treats prisoners or detainees who end up in U.S. custody anywhere in the world, shame on them, too.
We've been treated to the spectacle of a Republican-controlled House and Senate abdicating their constitutional responsibility to conduct rigorous oversight of actions and failings of the executive branch of government. This has gone on for the four-plus years that President Bush has occupied the White House, and it looks as if we'll get more of the same for three more years and a bit.
There have been 17 separate investigations of Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and other prisoner-abuse scandals. All have gone straight to the bottom of every case. All have consistently claimed that no one higher up the chain of command, including the civilian leadership in the Pentagon, bears any responsibility for any of this.
Hogwash. BS. Nonsense.
If the lowest private fails, then others have failed in training, leading and directing that private. The chain runs from sergeant to lieutenant to captain to lieutenant colonel to colonel to one, two, three and four stars, on to the longest serving, most arrogant secretary of defense in our history, Donald H. Rumsfeld, and beyond him to President Bush.
It's past time for responsibility to begin flowing uphill in this administration. It's time for leaders to take responsibility for what's being done in our names and under our proud flag. It's time for Congress to do its job if the administration won't do its job.
Joseph L. Galloway is the senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers.
© 2005 Miami Herald
http://www.miami.com |
Copyright by the author. All rights reserved. |
Comments
|
Window Dressing or Real Change?: Time Will Tell |
by via NYT
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Oct 2005
|
Senate Moves to Protect Military Prisoners Despite Veto Threat
By ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - In a sharp rebuke to the White House, the Senate overwhelmingly agreed Wednesday to regulate the detention, interrogation and treatment of prisoners held by the American military.
The measure ignited a fierce debate among many Senate Republicans and the White House, which threatened to veto a $440 billion military spending bill if the detention amendment was tacked on, saying it would bind the president's hands in wartime. Nonetheless, the measure passed, 90 to 9, with 46 Republicans, including Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, joining 43 Democrats and one independent in favor.
More than two dozen retired senior military officers, including Colin L. Powell and John M. Shalikashvili, two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, endorsed the amendment, which would ban use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in United States government custody.
It would also require all American troops to use only interrogation techniques authorized in a new Army field manual. It would not cover techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency.
Republicans and Democrats took to the Senate floor on Wednesday in a passionate debate over the measure, which supporters said would clarify a jumble of conflicting standards and cast a new spotlight on the treatment of detainees at American prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba. "Confusion about the rules results in abuses in the field," said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican and the measure's main sponsor. "We need a clear, consistent standard."
Mr. McCain, who was a prisoner of war in the Vietnam War, added in closing Wednesday night: "Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But every one of us - every single one of us - knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies."
Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, questioned why the White House would oppose a measure that codifies military procedures and policies, and reaffirms a ban against torturing detainees. "It is time for Congress, which represents the people, to clarify and set the rules for detention and interrogation of our enemies," he said.
Opposing the effort, Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, said that requiring American troops to follow procedures in the Army manual was not practical in the current war environment. "The techniques vary upon the circumstances and the physical location of people involved," Mr. Stevens said
The measure faces stiff opposition in the House. And the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said, "If it's presented, then there would be a recommendation of a veto." Armed with the strong Senate vote, however, Mr. McCain is expected to keep the pressure on in the public arena and when the spending bill goes to a House-Senate conference committee.
Mr. McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina offered the same proposal during the summer as the Senate was working on a bill setting Pentagon policy. But Mr. Frist scuttled that legislation in part because of White House opposition.
In July, the White House dispatched Vice President Dick Cheney to Capitol Hill to lobby Senators McCain, Graham and John W. Warner of Virginia personally. This week, White House officials not only pressured Mr. McCain to modify his measure, but also approached sympathetic Senate Republicans to work against the amendment.
The Senate vote drew applause from human rights organizations. "Senator McCain's amendments are a key step toward the restoration of the military's traditional prohibition against torture and inhumane treatment," said Leonard S. Rubenstein, executive director of Physicians for Human Rights.
The vote came two weeks after the Army began an inquiry into new allegations of prisoner abuse in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 by members of a battalion of the 82nd Airborne Division. Three former members of the unit who have come forward have said many American troops who interrogated detainees did not know which techniques were permitted.
As the debate over detainees and Pentagon policy proceeded, senior Senate Democrats pressed the Bush administration Wednesday to lay out a detailed strategy for the war as Iraqis prepare to vote next week on a constitution. "It's simply time for some accountability," said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.
In a letter to the president, Mr. Biden and other Democrats asked Mr. Bush a series of pointed questions: How many Iraqi forces can operate without United States assistance? What specific steps is the administration taking around the referendum to reconcile Iraq division? What is being done to attract more international support to stabilize Iraq? How should the public assess progress?
"In times past, when asked to explain your Iraq policy to our troops and the American people, you have chosen to reply that we need to 'stay the course,' " the letter said. "But simply staying the current course is not a strategy for success."
Carl Hulse contributed reporting for this article.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com |
|
