Kerry Calls for Rumsfeld's Resignation

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Actually, it was sarcasm, not ignorance. None of the smilie faces seemed to appropriate - do we have a sarcasm smilie here? Anyway...

When Iraq was putting the captured soldiers on TV, did the Red Cross send a report to Saddam and then say "See you should have listened to us"? Did they appeal to Saddam to investigage? No. They made some public comments, but no real effort to do anything about the treatment of those soldiers. You speak of my hypocracy, and that of the government - yet it no mention of the Red Cross' credibility problem. This is the organization that refused to take a public position in WWII, and have since been accussed, as recenlty as 1996, of working with Nazi Germany in smuggling German agents and assets out of France. They were on the wrong side then (even by not expressing an opinion) its a reasonable position to be suspicious now.

If we're going to be expected to abide by the Geneva Convention, then I expect all international bodies to demand that the other side do so as well, with as much insistance that is shown to the US, if not more. .

One side in this global terror conflict has announced that they will be intentionally targeting civilians. 3,000 died three years ago, and more since. One side makes no distinction betweem military or non-military, black or white, make or female, democrat or republican, they kill muslims, they kill christians and they especially kill jews. They kill anyone who is not like them. Don't you think that side deserves a bit more attention? I do.

But no, the side that puts its life at risk rescuing civilians, providing medical attention to insrugents, chosing its military targets with care so as not to hit bystanders, and doesn't return fire from cowards hiding in religious sites so as not to damage the site - That's the side that's the problem.They're the ones that should be bowing at the altar of the international community asking for forgiveness. Funny though, the US is the only side that ever makes any effort to rectify the violations.

then why arent we in Sudan? Those people are going to die, mmmm, right about now, unless we do something.....mmm, right about now. Wanna send the Red Cross, wait for multi lateral support? Just pointing out a dbl. standard here.


What you fail to remember is that we're fighting the "good fight". I believe it is a war between good and evil BUT Im not so naiive to think that there isnt a guy in a cave somewhere who thinks the exact same thing. He thinks that he's the "good" and were the "evil" and the only reason were right is because were american but in his land he's right. For us to be RIGHT to the whole world and win the battle(s) and war(s) and not create more terroriists, who sit in their caves and get more and more ammunition to prove to himself and his cohorts that he's rigth is to abide by the standards that we profess. "tO walk the talk" otherwise it is soooo easy for him to recruit his very own replacement and then some. Its about morality, dont sell it out while we destroy our enemy.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

From the EVILLIBURAL~ New York Times

Army's Report Faults General in Prison Abuse
By Douglas Jehl and Eric Schmitt
The New York Times
Friday 27 August 2004

Washington - Classified parts of the report by three Army generals on the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison say Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former top commander in Iraq, approved the use in Iraq of some severe interrogation practices intended to be limited to captives held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and Afghanistan.

Moreover, the report contends, 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, which they understood poorly anyway.

Military officials and others in the Bush administration have repeatedly said the Geneva Conventions applied to all prisoners in Iraq, even though members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban held in Afghanistan and Guantánamo did not, in their estimation, fall under the conventions.

But classified passages of the Army report say the procedures approved by General Sanchez on Sept. 14, 2003, and the revisions made when the Central Command found fault with the initial policy, exceeded the Geneva guidelines as well as standard Army doctrines.

General Sanchez and his aides have previously described the series of orders he issued, although not in as much detail as the latest report, which was released Wednesday with a few classified sections omitted. They have described his order of Oct. 12 as rescinding his order of Sept. 14.

But the Army's latest review instead finds that the later order "confused doctrine and policy even further," a classified part of the report says. It says the memorandum, while not authorizing abuse, effectively opened the way at Abu Ghraib last fall for interrogation techniques that Pentagon investigators have characterized as abusive, in dozens of cases involving dozens of soldiers at the prison in Iraq.

The techniques approved by General Sanchez exceeded those advocated in a standard Army field manual that provided the basic guidelines for interrogation procedures. But they were among those previously approved by the Pentagon for use in Afghanistan and Cuba, and were recommended to General Sanchez and his staff in the summer of 2003 in memorandums sent by a team headed by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, a commander at Guantánamo who had been sent to Iraq by senior Pentagon officials, and by a military intelligence unit that had served in Afghanistan and was taking charge of interrogations at Abu Ghraib.

The report says the abusive techniques not sufficiently prohibited by General Sanchez included isolation and the use of dogs in interrogation. It says military police and military intelligence soldiers who used those practices believed they had been authorized by senior commanders.

"At Abu Ghraib, isolation conditions sometimes included being kept naked in very hot or very cold, small rooms, and/or completely darkened rooms, clearly in violation of the Geneva Conventions," a classified part of the report said.

The passages involving General Sanchez's orders were among several deleted from the version of the report by Maj. Gen. George R. Fay that was made public by the Pentagon on Wednesday.

Classified parts of the 171-page report were provided to The New York Times by a senior Defense Department official who said fuller disclosure of the findings would help public understanding of the causes of the prisoner abuse scandal.

Army officials said Thursday that some sections of the report had been marked secret because they referred to policy memorandums that were still classified.

But the report's discussion of the September and October orders, while critical of General Sanchez and his staff, do not disclose many new details of the orders and do not appear to contain sensitive material about interrogations or other intelligence-gathering methods.

They do show in much clearer detail than ever before how interrogation practices from Afghanistan and Guantánamo were brought to Abu Ghraib, and how poorly the nuances of what was acceptable in Iraq were understood by military intelligence officials in Iraq.

The classified sections of the Fay report reinforce criticisms made in another report, by the independent panel headed by James R. Schlesinger, the former defense secretary.

That panel argued that General Sanchez's actions effectively amounted to an unauthorized suspension of the Geneva Conventions in Iraq by categorizing prisoners there as unlawful combatants.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Actually, it was sarcasm, not ignorance. None of the smilie faces seemed to appropriate - do we have a sarcasm smilie here? Anyway...

When Iraq was putting the captured soldiers on TV, did the Red Cross send a report to Saddam and then say "See you should have listened to us"? Did they appeal to Saddam to investigage? No. They made some public comments, but no real effort to do anything about the treatment of those soldiers. You speak of my hypocracy, and that of the government - yet it no mention of the Red Cross' credibility problem. This is the organization that refused to take a public position in WWII, and have since been accussed, as recenlty as 1996, of working with Nazi Germany in smuggling German agents and assets out of France. They were on the wrong side then (even by not expressing an opinion) its a reasonable position to be suspicious now.

If we're going to be expected to abide by the Geneva Convention, then I expect all international bodies to demand that the other side do so as well, with as much insistance that is shown to the US, if not more. .

One side in this global terror conflict has announced that they will be intentionally targeting civilians. 3,000 died three years ago, and more since. One side makes no distinction betweem military or non-military, black or white, make or female, democrat or republican, they kill muslims, they kill christians and they especially kill jews. They kill anyone who is not like them. Don't you think that side deserves a bit more attention? I do.

But no, the side that puts its life at risk rescuing civilians, providing medical attention to insrugents, chosing its military targets with care so as not to hit bystanders, and doesn't return fire from cowards hiding in religious sites so as not to damage the site - That's the side that's the problem.They're the ones that should be bowing at the altar of the international community asking for forgiveness. Funny though, the US is the only side that ever makes any effort to rectify the violations.

Well done, Your reply completely fails to address the point of my post, that being the US Government pointed out the violations of the Geneva Convention for televising POWs before they did the same with Saddam. Way to stay on message with the Red Cross though, always a good way to avoid the argument. I am glad you admitted the hypocrisy of your position, though.

You also failed to address the double standard issue. And trying to argue the US is in the right because the other side is in the gutter too misses the other point of my post, which is you can't fight global terrorism effectively without the trust and sympathy of other nations. So claiming "but the other side's actions are much worse" doesn't cut it.

P.S. if you didn't hear it already, there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq, nor with almost all of the people incarcerated in Abu Graib.

[Dutch]

P.S. if you didn't hear it already, there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq, nor with almost all of the people incarcerated in Abu Graib.

But there was definately a link between Rumsfeld and the Human Pyramid of prisoners.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Well done, Your reply completely fails to address the point of my post, that being the US Government pointed out the violations of the Geneva Convention for televising POWs before they did the same with Saddam. Way to stay on message with the Red Cross though, always a good way to avoid the argument. I am glad you admitted the hypocrisy of your position, though.

You also failed to address the double standard issue. And trying to argue the US is in the right because the other side is in the gutter too misses the other point of my post, which is you can't fight global terrorism effectively without the trust and sympathy of other nations. So claiming "but the other side's actions are much worse" doesn't cut it.

P.S. if you didn't hear it already, there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq, nor with almost all of the people incarcerated in Abu Graib.

Now who's dodging the point?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

But there was definately a link between Rumsfeld and the Human Pyramid of prisoners.

The new independent report says that the Pentagon and its higher ups were responsible INDIRECTLY for allowing the atmosphere to exist. Again, the example is a business owner allowing one worker to put pictures of scantily clad women on the wall. When the inventory specialist, a woman, when a lawyer for NOW calls him to say that she has complained about harassment at work and the owner does nothing to remedy the situation, whent he situation blows up 7 months later into a full fledged lawsuit bringing the companyto its knees it is ULTIMATELY the owner who is at fault. The harrasser is at fault, anyone who watched it and didnt report it is at fault (Site the case in NY where the woman was killed while people sat in their homes hearing her cries for help), and the Owner is most definitely at fault.

Why is that the admin defenders dont see that part of the report? It is right there and it is easily understandable and it makes sense. If they dont want Rumsfeld to resign because it would bolster the enemy's resolve, then i understand.....if they dont want him to resign because they dont think he has any fault in this scandal, then that, I do not understand.

Saddam Hussein is only guilty, in this regards (im sure he's guilty of murder and such but thats not what im talking about), of having a mutual enemy of the Organization we make synonymous with Terrorism, Al Qaeda. He didnt support Bin Laden and Bin Laden did not support him. As a matter of fact most people agree, that a majority of the terrorists entere Iraq after the war was over, either via Syria (a bad bad country) or through Iran.

Again I throw out our need to go to the Sudan, unilaterally, if were not to wear hypocrisy on our sleeve (I thought we deemed the UN irrelevant) but I am for the UN so through the UN is how I think we should act....quickly.

[Dutch]

were responsible INDIRECTLY

And Senate is indirectly responsable for armed robberies in Detroit.

We can play the blame game all day long like the media does, but we would have to do it for free.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And Senate is indirectly responsable for armed robberies in Detroit.

We can play the blame game all day long like the media does, but we would have to do it for free.

nice slippery slope, in that case you shoulbe believe ABSOLUTELY nothing in print or on TV anywhere, since it is edited and not raw. No reports, should be believed at all unless oyu are there to witness whatever it is yourself. Ridiculous. If it fit the agenda you'd be tooting it like everything else, when report after report comes out against the agenda, it is "crap" in the admin's defenders eyes. Thats crap, I guess there ARENT more people living in poverty then 4 years ago, or more people today without health insurance then 4 years ago, and Rumsfeld is not responsible.....Im going to put pictures of naked women on the walls.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

The new independent report says that the Pentagon and its higher ups were responsible INDIRECTLY for allowing the atmosphere to exist.
...

Again...NO it doesn't. The report, well the People behind the report at least, said the responsibility for events at Abu Gharaib ended at the senior command in Iraq. The responsibility of officials in Washington was solely for their lack of adequate response upon the discover of the situation.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Again...NO it doesn't. The report, well the People behind the report at least, said the responsibility for events at Abu Gharaib ended at the senior command in Iraq. The responsibility of officials in Washington was solely for their lack of adequate response upon the discover of the situation.

exactly, they found out last summer and did nothing. They allowed the atmosphere to exist and persist.


story:

Report: Abu Ghraib was 'Animal House' at night
Commanders blamed for lack of supervision

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Posted: 10:39 AM EDT (1439 GMT)

A hooded and wired Iraqi prisoner is seen at the Abu Ghraib prison in this undated file photo.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Abuses photographed at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq represented "deviant behavior and a failure of military leadership and discipline" at the facility, but direct and indirect responsibility for those acts and others elsewhere went higher up the chain of command, an independent panel reported Tuesday.

The prison's weaknesses were no secret and they should have been fixed, said James Schlesinger, chairman of the four-member advisory panel appointed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in early May to investigate abuse allegations.

"We believe that there is institutional and personal responsibility right up the chain of command as far as Washington is concerned," Schlesinger told a news conference to release the 126-page report.

Former Republican Rep. Tillie K. Fowler of Florida, a panel member who was once a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, was more direct.

"We found fundamental failures throughout all levels of command, from the soldiers on the ground to Central Command and to the Pentagon. These failures of leadership helped to set the conditions which allowed for the abusive practices to take place," Fowler said.


EDITED FOR REITERATION:

"We found fundamental failures throughout all levels of command, from the soldiers on the ground to Central Command and to the Pentagon. These failures of leadership helped to set the conditions which allowed for the abusive practices to take place," Fowler said.

She said the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the head of the U.S. Central Command failed to plan properly for the treatment of prisoners.

"There was sadism on the night shift at Abu Ghraib, sadism that was certainly not authorized," Schlesinger said. "It was kind of 'Animal House' on the night shift.

The American film "National Lampoon's Animal House" is a 1978 comedy about an unruly fraternity whose wild antics run afoul of the campus establishment.

Schlesinger noted, however, that there was "no policy of abuse."

"Quite the contrary," Schlesinger said. "Senior officials repeatedly said that in Iraq, Geneva regulations would apply."

Commanders at Abu Ghaib did not "adequately supervise" the actions by the people involved in the abuse, said Schlesinger, who was secretary of defense for Presidents Nixon and Ford.

Those who ran the facility, which held as many as 7,000 prisoners just outside Baghdad, were often under great stress, said Schlesinger, who also served as President Carter's secretary of energy.

The building was constantly shelled, and Iraqi police sometimes slipped arms to the inmates, he said.

In addition, the ratio of prisoners to military police officers was 75-to-1, versus 1-to-1 at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, naval base. The guards at the Iraqi facility lacked training and arrived without equipment, he said.

Panel member Charles A. Horner, who led the air campaign in the 1991 Iraq War and was former commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and Space Command, urged caution in affixing blame.

"We all have 20/20 hindsight that makes us perfect," said the retired Air Force general.

The other panel member was Harold Brown, secretary of defense for President Carter. All four are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld issued a statement saying he appreciated the panel's work and that "we look forward to reviewing their analysis and recommendations in detail."

Asked if Rumsfeld should resign, Schlesinger said, "His resignation would be a boon to all of America's enemies and, consequently, I think it would be a misfortune if it were to take place." The three other panel members concurred.

Schlesinger said abuses were widespread throughout the military detention system, which was set up after hostilities began in Afghanistan.

So it existed not just in IRAQ but throughout the entire institution under Rumsfeld.

Of the 300 allegations of abuse that have been made from the 50,000 people detained in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, 155 investigations have been completed and 66 cases of abuse substantiated, the report said.

Eight took place at Guantanamo, three in Afghanistan, and 55 in Iraq, the report said. "Only about one-third were related to interrogation, and two-thirds to other causes," it said.

Five detainees died from abuse during interrogations, it said. Many others died from natural causes and enemy mortar attacks. Twenty-three cases of detainee deaths were still under investigation -- three in Afghanistan and 20 in Iraq -- the report said.

None of the prisoners depicted in the photographs that were first published in April was being held for their intelligence value, Schlesinger said.

The report cited the CIA for not giving it "full access to information involving CIA's role in detention operations." It said that area needs further investigation.

A Pentagon report by U.S. Maj. Gen. George Fay is expected to recommend up to 27 people once assigned to Abu Ghraib for referral to authorities for possible additional legal action, including as many as five private contractors, a senior Pentagon official familiar with the document said.

The report was due to be released in July but is now expected to be released Wednesday, the official said.

The official also said Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq when the abuses took place, will be criticized in the report for failing to oversee the prison system properly and failing to provide enough resources and personnel. Sanchez has since been replaced as commander in Iraq.

In Mannheim, Germany, Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick, one seven MPs charged in the Abu Ghraib scandal, agreed to plead guilty to several of the charges against him.

Frederick's lawyer said that a culture of humiliation existed "prior to Frederick and his company arriving on the scene."

Frederick's was the last of four pretrial hearings scheduled over the past two days at an Army post in Mannheim; Spc. Charles Graner, Spc. Megan Ambuhl and Sgt. Javal Davis also appeared.




So what my brain gets out of that, is That YES he (the pentagon and the chain of command) ARE responsible for allowing the atmosphere to exist and persist.

More Gems in this regard:

- "We learned there were leaders who knew about this misconduct, knew better, and did nothing" Kern said.

- "Kern said the investigation also found that at least eight "ghost detainees" were kept at Abu Ghraib. They were not registered on official logs and were moved around the facility and hidden from representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Kern said.

"Now, were there more? We don't know, because what we found is without records. It's difficult to document," Kern said.

One of the ghost detainees died shortly after being brought to Abu Ghraib, Fay said. He said he could not reveal more about the incident because it was the subject of an active criminal investigation by the Army's Criminal Investigative Division."

- "He said the panel, appointed by Rumsfeld in May, found that the higher chain of command held direct and indirect responsibility for those acts and others elsewhere."

- "The prison's weaknesses were no secret, and they should have been fixed, said Schlesinger, a former defense secretary for Presidents Nixon and Ford."

- DO you not consider Rumsfeld a part of this Chain of Command?

[Dutch]

Again, the senate is somewhat responsable for this country and yet, they do nothing to stop armed robberies in Detroit until after the fact. It's just sick, I tell you!

[Glengoyne]

Flasch,

Look I heard an interview(On NPR, the bastion of conservatism it is) with Schleshinger and another member of his "panel". When pressed about why Rumsfeld should not resign, since their report indicated responsibility(direct and indirect) going all the way up to central command at the Pentagon, both of them clarified that what the people in Washington were responsible for was a failure to respond adequately upon being made aware of the situation in November. So yes I agree with you that the report holds senior officials responsible with regard to this matter. I just happen to have heard a clarification on the scope of that responsibility.

You seem to be hell bent on condemning Rumsfeld for this whole thing, because you "predicted" it would reach to him. I think it is pretty clear that Rumsfeld didn't handle the situation correctly, but when you have two reports in two days that declare the problems at Abu Gharaib essentially happened on a single shift, and that General Sanchez gave out orders that conflicted with the Pentagon's own. It seems pretty clear to me the direct responsiblity or blame lies elsewhere.

I think I'd be willing to say that Rumsfeld is ultimately accountable, because he is at the top of the food chain in the armed forces, and this was done by our soldiers. So yes he is responsible to answer for what happened, but he is in no way culpable with regard to what those soldiers did. There is a big difference. I believe you consider him culpable for the abuses. I just say he is responsible for dealing with the situation because it happened on his watch.

[Flasch186]

no, not culpable, just "directly & indirectly" responsible. Unfortunately I didnt get to hear any clarifications, I just have to go by what is in print.

I think that he's a part of the problem. The difference is the guy who hit/killed/humiliated the prisoner should go to prison, Rumsfeld should (potentially) be sanctioned or even lose his job. "Direct" responsibility does lie elsewhere, but his hands are not clean. Regardless of all this, its a shame it happened in the first place. I think it points to the arrogant attitude Washington has right now....but hopefully some conciousness will emerge sometime soon.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

... I think it points to the arrogant attitude Washington has right now....but hopefully some conciousness will emerge sometime soon.

I think it points to the fact that we had some deviant morons responsible for guarding prisoners on the night shift in Abu Gharaib(I used to know how to spell that, but have somehow lost the ability in the last few days. It just never looks "right")

Originally Posted by Flasch186

...Rumsfeld should (potentially) be sanctioned or even lose his job. "Direct" responsibility does lie elsewhere, but his hands are not clean.

I think the deviant morons are so far below the purview of the Sec of Defense, it is not reasonable to hold him accountable for their actions. Now if you were to change focus, and say that the laissez-faire attitude with which he and his department handled this situation is what he should be "sanctioned" for, then I'd more inclined to agree with you.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think it points to the fact that we had some deviant morons responsible for guarding prisoners on the night shift in Abu Gharaib(I used to know how to spell that, but have somehow lost the ability in the last few days. It just never looks "right")


I think the deviant morons are so far below the purview of the Sec of Defense, it is not reasonable to hold him accountable for their actions. Now if you were to change focus, and say that the laissez-faire attitude with which he and his department handled this situation is what he should be "sanctioned" for, then I'd more inclined to agree with you.

shoot, im just glad you see where im coming from....whether or not you agree with me isnt the point, never is....just seeing the other side's point is all that matters, then it persuades or dissuades.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

The Washington Post has a column challenging the report's conclusion that nobody at the top should be held responsible with data from the report itself: link

Here's the intro:
"The latest official reports on the prisoner abuse scandal contain a classic Washington contradiction. Their headlines proclaim that no official policy mandated or allowed the torture of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that no officials above the rank of colonel deserve prosecution or formal punishment. But buried in their hundreds of pages of detail, for anyone who cares to read them, is a clear and meticulous account of how decisions made by President Bush, his top political aides and senior military commanders led directly to those searing images of naked prisoners being menaced with guard dogs."

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

The Washington Post has a column challenging the report's conclusion that nobody at the top should be held responsible with data from the report itself: link

Here's the intro:
"The latest official reports on the prisoner abuse scandal contain a classic Washington contradiction. Their headlines proclaim that no official policy mandated or allowed the torture of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that no officials above the rank of colonel deserve prosecution or formal punishment. But buried in their hundreds of pages of detail, for anyone who cares to read them, is a clear and meticulous account of how decisions made by President Bush, his top political aides and senior military commanders led directly to those searing images of naked prisoners being menaced with guard dogs."

I'd need to read that to believe it.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Here's a link to the report...it's a PDF file...Report

[Glengoyne]

How Torture Came Down From the Top


By Jackson Diehl
Friday, August 27, 2004; Page A21


The latest official reports on the prisoner abuse scandal contain a classic Washington contradiction. Their headlines proclaim that no official policy mandated or allowed the torture of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that no officials above the rank of colonel deserve prosecution or formal punishment. But buried in their hundreds of pages of detail, for anyone who cares to read them, is a clear and meticulous account of how decisions made by President Bush, his top political aides and senior military commanders led directly to those searing images of naked prisoners being menaced with guard dogs.

An abbreviated tour of that buried narrative could begin on Page 33 of the report by the panel led by James R. Schlesinger. There it details how President Bush, on the advice of his White House counsel and attorney general, decided in February 2002 that the Geneva Conventions would not apply to captured members of al Qaeda and Afghanistan's Taliban. This, despite the objections of the State Department and "many service lawyers," who worried that the decision "would undermine the United States military culture, which is based on a strict adherence to the law of war."

In October 2002, Schlesinger recounts, authorities at the Guantanamo Bay prison "requested approval of strengthened counter-interrogation techniques," and in December, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld authorized a number of harsh methods. He was challenged by the military lawyers whom he had failed to consult, and the policy was revised in April 2003.

Already, however, the techniques first authorized by Rumsfeld were circulating around the world. According to the report of Army Maj. Gen. George R. Fay, "the techniques employed in [Guantanamo] included the use of stress positions, isolation for up to thirty days, removal of clothing and the use of detainees' phobias (such as the use of dogs)," all of which had been approved by Rumsfeld. "From December 2002, interrogators in Afghanistan were removing clothing, isolating people for long periods of time, using stress positions, exploiting fear of dogs and implementing sleep and light deprivation."

How did these abusive practices spread to Iraq, where they were clearly illegal under the Geneva Conventions? "Interrogators in Iraq," Fay writes, "already familiar with the practice of some of these new ideas, implemented them even prior to any policy guidance" from Iraq commanders. But there was "policy guidance," too. In August 2003, Schlesinger says, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, then the commander at Guantanamo Bay, arrived in Iraq; "he brought the Secretary of Defense's April 16, 2003, policy guidelines for Guantanamo with him and gave this policy to" Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq.

On Sept. 14, as Schlesinger recounts it, "Sanchez signed a memorandum authorizing a dozen interrogation techniques beyond" the standard Army practice under the Geneva Conventions, including "five beyond those approved for Guantanamo." He did so, Schlesinger says, "using reasoning from the President's Memorandum of February 7, 2002," which he believed justified "additional, tougher measures." The methods he approved included several of those on which Rumsfeld had signed off 10 months earlier and which subsequently had appeared in Afghanistan: stress positions, fear of dogs, and sleep and light deprivation.

Sanchez's policy was revised a month later, but interrogators at Abu Ghraib, Fay reports, had begun using it immediately. Consequently, some guards and interrogators who used dogs to frighten prisoners, deprived them of clothing or subjected them to extreme isolation had every reason to believe their acts were authorized. As Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Jones delicately put it in his report, "Some of these incidents involved conduct which, in retrospect, violated international law. However, at the time some of the soldiers or contractors committed the acts, they may have honestly believed the techniques were condoned."

The causal chain is all there: from Bush's February 2002 decision to Rumsfeld's December 2002 authorization of nudity, stress positions and dogs; to the adoption of those methods in Afghanistan and their sanction in Iraq by a commander looking back to Bush's decision; and finally, to their use on detainees by soldiers who reasonably believed they were executing official policy.

So why do the reports' authors deny the role of policy, or its makers? Partly because of the Army's inbred inability to indict its own; partly because of the desire of Rumsfeld's old colleagues, such as Schlesinger, to protect him. But there's another motive, too: a lingering will to defend and preserve the groundbreaking decisions -- those that set aside the Geneva Conventions and allowed harsh interrogation techniques. Schlesinger argues they are needed for the war on terrorism; he and senior Army commanders say they are worried about a "chilling effect" on interrogations and a slackening in intelligence collection.

The buried message of their reports, though, is that the new system is unworkable. Once the rules are bent for one class of prisoner, or one detention facility, or one agency, exceptional practices cannot be easily returned to their bottle -- and the chaos of Abu Ghraib is a predictable result. Just as the Army professionals foresaw, Bush's 2002 decision undermined "U.S. military culture" and its "strict adherence to the law of war." That is the headline the investigators ducked.

There are dots there, but you have to really want them connected to connect them. I summarize the report to say that

1. President Bush decided that the Geneva Convention didn't apply to the Taliban/Al Qaeda prisoners captured in Afghanistan.
2. Rumsfeld wrote a letter authorizing interrogation methods for use at Gitmo that went beyond those allowed by the geneva convention.
3. Rumsfeld then a number of months later rescinded those orders, and said that the Geneva Convention would apply to all prisoners.
4. General Sanchez became aware of those decisions, and authorized interrogation techniques that went beyond even what Rumsfeld had authorized. He did so based on Bush's decision, and Rumsfeld's initial letter, eventhough the DoD had been issuing orders indicating that the Geneva Convention applied to all prisoners in Iraq.(That italics come from the Schleshinger report, not Diehl's column)

That pretty clearly shows me that Sanchez played a considerable role here. Diehl blames the administration for confusing the issue. Muddying the water so to speak. The admin also corrected their earlier error(Rumsfeld's second memo) six months before Sanchez's authorization, and Bush's decision/announcement was with regard to a whole different set of prisoners almost two years earlier.

Also, left out of the column was the Schleshinger report's assertion that these incidents of sadism were not used to interrogate the prisoners. They were just acts of Sadism. The dots connected by this column are all interrogation related.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Also, left out of the column was the Schleshinger report's assertion that these incidents of sadism were not used to interrogate the prisoners. They were just acts of Sadism. The dots connected by this column are all interrogation related.

Yeah, but other investigations are coming to different conclusions about some of the incidents. The report by Gen. Fay and Lt. Gen. Jones directly implicates military intelligence officers and civilian contractors, and directly linked some of the abuses to interrogations.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

There are dots there, but you have to really want them connected to connect them. I summarize the report to say that

1. President Bush decided that the Geneva Convention didn't apply to the Taliban/Al Qaeda prisoners captured in Afghanistan.
2. Rumsfeld wrote a letter authorizing interrogation methods for use at Gitmo that went beyond those allowed by the geneva convention.
3. Rumsfeld then a number of months later rescinded those orders, and said that the Geneva Convention would apply to all prisoners.
4. General Sanchez became aware of those decisions, and authorized interrogation techniques that went beyond even what Rumsfeld had authorized. He did so based on Bush's decision, and Rumsfeld's initial letter, eventhough the DoD had been issuing orders indicating that the Geneva Convention applied to all prisoners in Iraq.(That italics come from the Schleshinger report, not Diehl's column)

That pretty clearly shows me that Sanchez played a considerable role here. Diehl blames the administration for confusing the issue. Muddying the water so to speak. The admin also corrected their earlier error(Rumsfeld's second memo) six months before Sanchez's authorization, and Bush's decision/announcement was with regard to a whole different set of prisoners almost two years earlier.

Also, left out of the column was the Schleshinger report's assertion that these incidents of sadism were not used to interrogate the prisoners. They were just acts of Sadism. The dots connected by this column are all interrogation related.

Thanks for summing it up. That is pretty much what I had concluded on my own over the last few months. Number 1 and 2 still bother me.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Now who's dodging the point?

Still waiting for you to respond. It doesn't surprise me that you haven't. Contradictions are always hard to explain.