Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Inhofe has no idea who our enemies are. We don’t do a very good job of determining guilt or innocence in this country. The innocence project, Illinis’s death row, O.J. and numerous “devil worship” child molestation cases has proven. We try harder than any Islamic courts. There probably are US enemies in those prisons but the Red Cross estimates that 70-90% are innocent. It is tragic that U.S. abuse produces sharper reactions than Saudi or al Queda torture and executions. Thank Bush’s misguided policy of premptive war based on a hidden oil agenda for that.

“Have these prisoners been found guilty, or does Inhofe believe that “innocence until proven guilty” is an outdated concept?”

Do you believe that concept is outdated? Apparently so, since you haven’t waited for the conclusion of investigations (or even a single guilty verdict) before drawing conclusions beyond what appears in the photos.

Inhofe’s comments capture perfectly what I believe a majority of Americans are actually thinking, despite what the media and Democratic pollsters want them to think, and it’s about time somebody actually said it. It’s a classic the Emperor has no clothes moment.

Contrast Inhofe’s comments with Senator Kennedy’s on the same subject, which sound more like an excerpt from an Osama Bin Laden tape smuggled out of the Middle East in the rear end of a camel than a statement from a responsible member of Congress: “Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management.”

That this kind of inflammatory rhetoric and distorted propaganda does nothing but stoke the fires of violence and may cost the lives of Americans is totally lost on a figure such as Kennedy. At bottom, the whole Democratic opposition to Iraq has more to do with wanting to win a presidential election than the actual substance of the issues, and Kennedy probably feels this bite of being on the outside more deeply than most. He always thought it was birthright to be president. And now, like he did to that poor woman in his car, he’s ready to abandon American soldiers and let them drown in the swamp of his own resentment.

Martin—

Inhofe’s comments capture perfectly what I believe a majority of Americans are actually thinking, despite what the media and Democratic pollsters want them to think, and it’s about time somebody actually said it. It’s a classic the Emperor has no clothes moment.

If that is the case, then as a people we are lost, and totally devoid of principle. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are nothing more then yellowed scraps of papers with no more meaning then a Playboy magazine! Is that where we as a nation are headed?

Senator Kennedy, whatever his past (and don’t we all have one), was right on the mark with his remark, and anyone, anyone who cannot feel the gravity of his remark and what it means to American leadership and prestige around the world is living in a world of their magical rose colored construct.

There is only so much Conservative dogma, arrogance, and “compassion” the world can take before Americans will start to be shoot and beheaded on sight and not just in Iraq. It boggles my mind that the implications of this dishonorable and despicable behavior are not glaringly clear. I can only shake my head in wonder at such ignorance…

V. Ed:

You act so arrogantly above us all when you say you can only “shake my head in wonder at such ignorance…” How self-important of you.

It has been clear that the administration has fully and completely stated that the actions of a few are not the stated goal of the United States. They are condemning the abuse of the prisoners, yet you are still holding the entire administration and military to task for the actions of a few. I have not heard you similarly hold all Muslims or even all Iraqis accountable for the outrageous actions of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Cat got yer tongue on that??

V. Ed—this is the clear distinction between “us” and “them”: While our opposition is cheering brutal murder as policy, the US is holding our own soldiers accountable for lesser violations. And our violaters SHOULD be held accountable—but to compare the misdeeds at Abu Ghraib with the hideous and brutal murder of a civilian is plain wrong. And you know it.

Answer these questions please: What level of “interrogation” is acceptable by your standards. Is ANY level of interrogation beyond simple questioning acceptable to you? Then think about if your brother, sister, child etc were being held by a murderous thug, and you had access to information from someone involved, to what lengths would you go to to save your family member’s life?

Its easy for you to condemn our military men and women as mindless thugs and torturers. I am interested to see if you have any alternative thoughts of how to get valuable information. Lets hear it.

Martin,

Whether you like Kennedy or not, the statement that he made is literally true — the US occupation force was torturing people in a prison where Saddam goons used to torture people. Several Republicans have made equally strong statements, if not as colorfully.

I agree that politicians should be conscious of stoking resentment and undermining the war effort, but in this case the pictures really speak for themselves. Every member of the US Congress could get on TV and talk about how bad Saddam was compared to us, and the insurgents (or terrorists, whatever) in Iraq would still be disgusted by our conduct.

The reference to Chappaquiddick is so random and irrelevant that I think it discredits itself.

Then think about if your brother, sister, child etc were being held by a murderous thug, and you had access to information from someone involved, to what lengths would you go to to save your family member’s life?

This is exactly why reason takes precedence over emotion in a civilized society. It’s a similar question to whether I’d support the death penalty if someone killed my wife, despite my general opposition to it. Of course I’d want prisoners with potential information tortured or my wife’s murderer killed because I’m so close to the situation. However, in a civil society, we rise above the animal instincts.

Torture should be banned for both humanitarian and pragmatic reasons. No only does human respect require us not to resort to torture, but the acknowledgement that information extracted based on torture is so unreliable as to be useless. See how many people in Stalin’s USSR admitting to completely fabricated crimes on the basis of torture.

There are valid ways to interrogate. There are ways to get information. Those ways may not be as quick as torture, but they are both more humane and more useful.

Claiming you are better than your enemy is not enough. You must be better. People will not simply take your word at it. You actions must convince them. Bush and many like him would be far better off if they understood how actions can speak louder than words.

Obviously this is horrible stuff. Treating large numbers of prisoners in this way, publicly (meaning infront of other prisoners) is additionally exacerbating. ANY systematic mistreatment of ANYONE is intolerable. That said:

(BTW I’m somewhat conservative) There are times, unfortunately, when more aggressive methods of interrogation are warrented. They are NEVER warrented to get confessions. NEVER. There is no value in a coerced confession. However, there are times when it is KNOWN that a prisoner has information about pending events, events that WILL happen unless they are prevented.

Imagine we had been able to capture one of the 9/11 hijackers on September 3rd! If we KNEW he had something planned, and was not working alone, and we KNEW that it would almost certainly happen unless we got information about it, and that thousands of lives were at stake, I believe it would justify aggressive, physical or humiliating interrogation.

I doubt that this situation in Abu Ghraib qualifies, and I condemn it completely. As I said, confessions are useless if coerced. But there are times when the known protection of future lives is worth the torture (there, I said it) of one known terrorist.

It’s a dangerous slope. But there is a time for everything.

Do you believe that concept is outdated? Apparently so, since you haven’t waited for the conclusion of investigations (or even a single guilty verdict) before drawing conclusions beyond what appears in the photos.

What conclusions have I drawn outside what’s in the photos? I’ve related other reports, and both cited them and described them as allegations. I’ve specifically blamed no one: Wherever blame lies, from Iraq to the Pentagon to the White House

You accuse me of defying “innocence until proven guilty” because I describe the crimes. I don’t know who’s responsible here, and I don’t know who should take the blame, so this argument doesn’t make sense. Your accusation is a meritless distraction equivalent to saying that unsolved murders cannot be reported in the media because it prejudices the sentence against the unknown assailant.

What happened is a real problem, and political distraction like yours will help no one.

Joe says

“They are condemning the abuse of the prisoners, yet you [V. Ed] are still holding the entire administration and military to task for the actions of a few.”

There is an old saying that you can delegate authority but you can’t delegate responsibility. It is clear this point that high-level officers (more than one star generals) made decisions that led to these atrocities. These guys should certainly get fired. As for the people higher up (including Bush), at a minimum need to explain how they are going to keep this from happening again.

This is simply how the world works — if Bush, Rummy, etc. can’t take responsibility for these things then they aren’t earning their pay.

Anyone who cares about the outcome of this war, regardles of party affiliation, should want a strong demonstration of accountability.

Lawnboy, I admit after re-reading your post that you were a lot more restrained about this than most of the left has been. However, you did say:

“Additionally, at least 25 prisoners have died in US custody since 9/11, including 3 from Afghanistan.

These facts and allegations are worthy of outrage.”

What does this represent except drawing conclusions beyond what’s in the photos? Prisoners dying in custody needs to be investigated, but without reference to why and how they died—prison uprisings? disease? wounds already sustained in battle?—it definitely seems premature to be “outraged.”

Lawnboy:

We seem to agree on the premise that torture is wrong. However, in a situation where hundreds or thousands might die due to an imminent attack, I’d advocate getting the information by virtually any means.

What I asked V Ed to comment on was what interrogation methods would be found acceptable. So far, we see politicians aghast at such “torture” as sleep deprivation, blindfolds/hoods, deprecating questions and the like. While some of the abuses at Abu Ghraig were certainly horrendous, the above types of interrogation methods are little more than what I endured joining a fraternity.

So again, I ask what levels you would find acceptable. Please note that the Geneva Convention goes to extreme lengths, going so far as to stipulate that POWs must be paid financially while in internment. Its a rather utopian document, but with good intent.

Martin,

Very good point. The reports that 25 prisoners have died in US custody since 9/11 do not necessary mean that bad treatment occured. I should have been more clear.

There is a letter from one of the guards to his wife describing killing one prisoner in “stressing”, so at least one of the 25 is likely from bad treatment.

Also, the Newsweek article that reports three prisoners dying in Afghanistan (sorry, I can’t find it online - it’s on page 32 of the May 17 issue) reports (a)ccording to U.S. military pathologists, two Afghan detainees died of “blunt force injuries” to “the lower extremities” and “legs” at Baghram in December 2002…. The article does not blame U.S. personnel, but it does say that the military investigation is still incomplete.

So, there are uncorroborated reports that one Iraqi detainee died from abuse, and two Afghani detainees died from suspicious causes. Without further investigation, though, we can’t know if these and the other 22 deaths are from natural causes or poor treatment. I suspect it’s a bit of both.

joe,

I don’t really know where the line should be drawn. My instinct is that torture is somewhat like pornography; I know it when I see it. I see it here.

For legally defining acceptable interrogation techniques, I’ll rely on the expert judgement of war lawyers, the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and others. So far, they’ve measured the charges and evidence of breaking the Geneva Convention, human rights, and reasonable expectations of behavior and found our troops’ behavior unacceptable. I’m not comfortable being more specific than that right now.

> I have not heard you similarly hold all Muslims
> or even all Iraqis accountable for the
> outrageous actions of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

All Muslims are not in the direct chain of command below al-Zarqawi. The American military is entirely in the chain of command of the President, the Secretary of Defense, and countless layers in between.

It’s easy to see how Bush is responsible:

First, Bush demonizes the enemy, equates Al Qaeda with Iraq, claims that this war is different and requires us to use “unconventional” tactics, he implements a policy where suspected terrorists are treated with an unprecedented level of adherence to the Geneva Convention, and lets his inner circle know that his Administration will stand by them regardless of what they do in the name of fighting terror. His team knows full well that any documents they create will be kept ruthlessly secret, perhaps for generations.
Soon, administration officials are openly scoffing at the Geneva Convention. Ashcroft defends the concept that even American citizens suspected of terrorism have no rights whatsoever.

Then, in the war zone, high-level and middle-level intelligence officials are pressured to uncover WMD evidence as quickly as possible. Poor war planning leads to a rapid rise in various violent opposition groups in Iraq.All of our pre-war intelligence sources turns out to be all a pack of liars and con-men. We find ourselves in a disastrous intelligence vacuum. This vacuum must have been felt at the top, too.

Because of these failings, in particular the rising violence that is turning the American public against the President, the Administration escalates the pressure on intelligence officials to learn more about the forces attacking Coalition troops. But the intelligence officials have almost no staff to conduct the kind of massive intelligence gathering they are being asked to gather. They need to systematize the “preparation” of subjects for interrogation so they can accomplish the intelligence gathering more quickly. Conducting hundreds or even thousands of interrogations will require the organizational cooperation of many levels of command, particularly because the only troops they have for this purpose are untrained in interrogation. Intelligence operatives become so desperate to please their superiors (and their superiors’ superiors) that they are willing to allow totally untrained MPs/guardsmen to ‘prepare’ hundreds of suspects for interrogation. These officials seemed to think that decisions like these were worth the risks, including the risk that these untrained interrogators would cross the line. In fact, these “risks” were so obvious if you think about it that it was tantamount to ordering abuse.

As you go down to each successive layer of command, Bush’s generalist directive “whatever it takes” became more and more specific. “whatever it takes” became “We’ve got to bend the rules”. At some point it became “If you have to violate the Geneva Convention, well, do what you gotta do.”

And then at some point it became “Make her take off her shirt” and “Kick him in the face” and worse.

Newsweek reports that there was a series of interrogation techniques that intelligence operatives were only permitted to use if they had the specific permission from Donald Rumsfeld himself, presumably for the interrogation of the 55 “most wanted”. So at least according to Newsweek Rummy himself did have a direct channel into the Abu Gharib interrogation chambers, and that he used that channel to approve of interrogation techniques that one must conclude violated the Geneva Convention (operatives are presumably permitted to use interrogation techniques that dont violate the Geneva Convention, so if they had to ask there must be something exceptional about the techniques). Perhaps knowing that Rumsfeld actually approved the torture of members of Saddam’s inner circle emboldened the staff at Abu Gharib to think they could torture others.

In those pictures you can often see a dozen or so American troops mulling about in the background, acting perfectly natural, as if they had no reason to fear getting caught. The troops took pictures for crying out loud. Sounds to me like the climate there was pretty torture-friendly.

Is it really so preposterous to hold the President responsible for the way his vaguely tough-sounding orders are interpreted all the way down the line? Shouldn’t he, in fact, give orders that are not interpretable as “you are permitted to violate the Geneva Convention?”

Do think that Bush ever specifically ordered his team and our forces to not violate the Geneva Convention? Do you think Rumsfeld ever did?

It seems obvious to me that a man like John Kerry would have had the foresight to realize that our troops might need to be given specific instructions about how to avoid behavior like this, and that he would have made a point of making a visible policy of being extra-careful about keeping the Iraqi public on our side and to never ever torture. Yes, I know that that’s just idle speculation and Monday morning quarterbacking, but I honestly beleive that he would have done so. I think Bill Clinton would have, too. But I can’t imagine Bush doing it. In fact, he still hasn’t done it!! He still hasn’t stood up and said to the world and to the American people “From now on, our troops will adhere religiously to the letter and spirit of the Geneva Convention, with no exceptions. We will set an example for the world.”

See, I don’t just expect our leaders to take responsibility for the misdeeds of their lowest-level troops, we’re asking them to have the foresight - or even the hindsight! - to try to take measures to prevent these misdeeds.

But I think that Bush doesn’t really want to adhere to the Geneva Convention. He thinks that violating it is something we (i.e., he) should be allowed to do. What surprises me about Bush’s supporters is that many of them say “You can’t hold Bush accountable for the misdeeds of these lowest level troops” when in fact they really mean “These abuses aren’t so bad, and they were probably justified anyway”. This attitude is why Rumsfeld still has a job. Rush Limbaugh at least had the honesty to say what many Bush supporters really truly think: That the United States should be permitted to torture whomever we want as cruelly as we wish because many of them are potential terrorists and we’re fighting a new kind of war. They think that the risk of our war escalating to include more and more Muslim countries and peoples would not be a bad thing, anyway, so they don’t really care what the Arab street thinks.

We who oppose Bush think that all of that is a load of crap.

I sometimes even suspect that Bush’s supporters think, at least on a subconscious level, that the war makes them feel special and tough as Americans. They think that by being willing to allow our troops to torture detainees that they are being somehow intellectually courageous. I suspect that they think that the war is actually kinda fun.

Again, I think that’s all a load of crap. We Americans are better than that. Or at least we should be.

-Cf

Our military and political administrations all unanimously condemn the actions of the 6 Army Reserve personnel. I would ask that we, responsible citizens, do not blame anyone except the reserve soldiers who committed the crime because the ultimate decision was theirs.

Christopher, the abuses at Abu Ghraib that we’re aware of are clearly the work of VERY low-ranking individuals—privates (no pun intended), E4s, sergeants, staff sergeants. If they were operating under the oversight of higher-ups, which I concede is at least a possiblity, we’re taking about commisioned officers within the prison itself at most. We’re a very long way from even suggesting anything more.

The whole argument that the environment in Iraq, and the rhetoric of the administration, has created an enviroment of disgregard for the Geneva Conventions is beyond weak—it’s the most flimsy kind of reasoning possible. It’s like saying that video games and war movies (or bowling) were responsible for Columbine. Soldiers know the rules—the Geneva Conventions are part of basic training, and suggesting that they would have known the contents of secret orders related to treatment of Saddam’s inner circle (having read, somehow, the contents of an issue of Newsweek six months before it was published) is utterly unbelievable.

Let me approach this from even the most dire of all unsubstantiated scenarios: American soldiers really are permitted to “torture” captives under secret orders (you might not know this—but not all coercive interregation actually is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions—but that’s another story).

Do you actually think that such a sinister secret conspriracy would enlist the services of this pack of weekend warrior reservists with high school degrees and digital cameras? Do you seriously think that they would be sent in to torment prisoners along with a slap on the back and a “Hey, have fun, take a few photographs to show your friends?” Please. I have no doubt they’ll say that they really were “told” to behave that way. Some of them have already started to, as part of their defense strategies—but for the reasons I’ve just pointed to, such a defense is beyond ridiculous. Even OJ was more believable.

semper and Martin,

At least one of the six involved (Pfc. Lynndie England) has claimed that she was following orders when she committed abuse. This means that investigators must at least consider that direct responsibility lies above the six so far charged.

Additionally, more highly-placed officials decided to place untrained reservists in the position of prison guards, strangely under the command of interrogators, and in a prison with a 10-1 prisoner to guard ratio (much higher than Gitmo and pretty much any US prison). Rumsfeld also expressed a lot of disdain for the Geneva Conventions, arguing that they did not apply to the current situation.

These decisions and pressures from above created a situation where abuse was likely, if not inevitable. It doesn’t require a conspiracy theory to see that poor decisions were made that created this environment. It’s not comparable to claims about video games.

Rumsfeld said “I take full responsibility.” Let’s see if taking responsibility these days means anything more than simply claiming that responsibility is taken.

I ask that we, as responsible citizens, let the investigations determine where the fault lies and not scapegoat the low-ranking individuals.

Lawnboy, it seems a staple of argument on the left to equate “the Geneva Conventions” with general ideas about jurisprudence which are more relevant to the American legal system. The Geneva Conventions were not written by Miss Manners, and they don’t offer protection to absolutely anybody doing anything in a combat zone.

If someone is captured not wearing a uniform, for example, they are absolutely not protected by the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions (as opposed to other standards of international law)do not actually preclude their being summarily executed on the spot, much less humiliated in prison while not being actually physically harmed. Rumsfeld is correct from a legal standpoint to say that a high percentage of those captured in Iraq—like the Fedayeen or foreign insurgents—are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Having said that, Americans generally do apply a much higher standard than the Geneva Conventions to our treatment of prisoners. Pfc. England’s defense has to be taken with a giant grain of salt—it’s exactly the line taken by everybody, from the Balkans to Rwanda, when called on to defend their crimes in a war zone.

Martin sez

I have no doubt they’ll say that they really were “told” to behave that way. Some of them have already started to, as part of their defense strategies—but for the reasons I’ve just pointed to, such a defense is beyond ridiculous. Even OJ was more believable.

I guess there must be more than one “Martin” posting here, because I recall a certain Martin getting all worried about a liberal lynch mob making judgements before the evidence is in. (There’s no photograph of any being murdered, just official reports!) Apparently it is OK to impugn a soldier’s character if you are defending the Pentagon.

Speaking of OJ, by logic of Martin I no one should talk about the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson. It wasn’t photographed or videotaped, and no one was convicted.

Lawnboy, it seems a staple of argument on the left to equate “the Geneva Conventions” with general ideas about jurisprudence which are more relevant to the American legal system. The Geneva Conventions were not written by Miss Manners, and they don’t offer protection to absolutely anybody doing anything in a combat zone.

The Geneva Conventions are the law of the land, signed by the President and ratified by Congress. No general ideas can be more relevant to US law than US law itself.

You are correct, though, that the Geneva Convention has gaps in dealing with ununiformed combatants. However, it is not completely silent about such situations. It requires that a military tribunal convene to discuss each case and determine the status within the framework of the Geneva Conventions. The Bush Administration has violated the Conventions (and thus US law) by making the decision for whole classes of detainees. The Bush administration does not have the authority to make those decisions, and such decisions must be on a case-by-case basis.

Pfc. England’s defense has to be taken with a giant grain of salt—it’s exactly the line taken by everybody, from the Balkans to Rwanda, when called on to defend their crimes in a war zone.

Of course one must take it with a grain of salt. However, you seem to have already decided that only the low-ranking individuals in country should be held responsible. That’s not considering critically; that’s prejudiciously determining guilt.

Rumsfeld himself said that some people think it’s an aberration and some think it’s systemic. The Red Cross (a non-partisan group recently run by Republican Elizabeth Dole) found that methods of physical and psychological coercion used by the interrogators appeared to be part of the standard operating procedures by military intelligence personnel to obtain confessions and extract information. Meaning that they found systemic abuse. Rumsfeld claimed responsibility (meaninglessly, so far), which furthers the idea that responsibility should not rest on the Abu Ghraib 6. Let’s let the process find out whether it’s an aberration or systemic

I’m not sure who should be court-martialed or fired for this. I’m not privy to enough information to know, but I suspect that responsibility goes high in the chain. You also are not privy to sufficient information, yet you’ve made you decision on guilt that it should stay with the Abu Ghraib 6. I’ve provided a small sampling of the considerable evidence that responsibility goes high, but you’ve not provided anything but an anger at people who blame video games for violence for your decision. Could it simply be a political ploy to protect the image of beaurocrats in your party?

> Soldiers know the rules—the Geneva
> Conventions are part of basic training

Not for the National Guard they’re not. And we’re talking about National Guardsmen here. Someone at the Pentagon decided that it was okay to put troops who are not trained in the Geneva Convention in charge of monitoring prisoners being prepared for interrogation. That crosses the line from negligence to, well, something else.

-Cf

Actually, I’ve only speculated that it will stay within Abu Ghraib—I haven’t said that investigations should be restricted from pursuing avenues where other evidence leads. What I have objected to is the left’s attempts to politicize this issue and investigate from the top down instead of the bottom up (again, no pun intended in regard to the events in Abu Ghraib). If they could get away with it, they’d use this as an excuse to rummage around in Karl Rove’s file cabinet and George Bush’s sock drawer. It’s a simple matter of following the chain of evidence—something the left, in their zeal to throw stones, doesn’t have the patience for.

Also, insisting on a standard of innocent before proven guuilty does not mean that we have to say that the soliders in the picture are totally innocent of any violations. What I’ve complained about is the left’s constant line that because Baathists were sexually humiliated in Abu Ghraib, that murders and all kinds of extreme torture also occured (which we don’t findings or even evidence for as strong as those photos). It’s safe to say that those soldiers in the photos are guilty of something—the only question is how serious should their charges be?

Personally, I think that they’re likely to become scapegoats—not to cover up for the wrong-doings of higher ups but as a result of media hysteria and the administration’s misguided desire to placate all those hypocritcal foreign critics. A year in Leavenworth would more than suffice, as far I’m concerned, but I think the lynch-mob mentality that’s taken over is likely to get them the maximum sentences, which is especially a shame in Pfc. England’s case since she’s soon to be a mom.

Re the Geneva Conventions: Yes, they are ratified by US Law, but that doesn’t mean that standards of US jurisprudence apply to those situations which fall under the purveiw of the Geneva Conventions. There’s no right, for example, to be given a Miranda Warning or a trial by one’s peers.
That’s all I meant—and Rumsfeld is right, the insurgents in Iraq (as opposed to soldiers who were captured in uniform during major conflict) are not protected by most of the rules of the Geneva Conventions.

Semper, since when are the low level marines free to make decision on their own? This was not something they did with fear of authority. Either it was not there, and should have been, or it was there, and it was directing the soldiers to do illegal things. While responsibility for following illegal orders resides with the soldier, responsibility for giving the illegal orders, or failing to give the orders that would remove protection for this kind of behavior rests on whichever officer or government official who had that authority.

If Rumsfeld, for example, okayed a torture session, some of that responsibility lies on him. Certainly those in charge of the prison have some explaining to do. So do the immediate superiors here, or whoever functioned as such.

If we merely scapegoat the admittedly guilty soldiers, the likelihood may be that those people will start indulging the same kind of behavior, when enough attention has fallen off of them. We have to demonstrate that there is no hiding behind one’s rank when it comes to this kind of crime, this kind of dysfunction in the chain of command.

Christopher, do you have a link or source that would verify two of the things you’re saying? My first impulse is that they’re completely wrong.

1. “We’re talking about National Guardsmen here.” I thought those in question were reg. Army and Army Reservists? They may be “guards” but that doesn’t make them “Guardsmen.”

2. Is it true that National Guard training doesn’t include the Geneva Conventions? I have no idea if it does or not, but could you point to a source? Reservists, of course, had the same basic training as everybody else.

“It has been clear that the administration has fully and completely stated that the actions of a few are not the stated goal of the United States. They are condemning the abuse of the prisoners, yet you are still holding the entire administration and military to task for the actions of a few. I have not heard you similarly hold all Muslims or even all Iraqis accountable for the outrageous actions of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Cat got yer tongue on that??”

This is as poor an analogy as I’ve ever seen. The parallels drawn don’t follow any sense of logic.

There is something called a CHAIN OF COMMAND, which inherently exacts responsibility to those above in the chain. Therefore, it’s improper to claim that blaming our leadership for our military personnel’s transgressions is tantamount to blaming all Muslims/Iraqis for the actions of al-Zarqawi.

Now, how about trying this on for size… If we were to apply your logical argument to a more appropriate parallel, then you would probably agree that Sadaam Hussein is not to blame for his reign of torture. After all, it was not he who carried out the orders to torture and execute, he was merely at the top of that chain of command.

Granted, Sadaam much more directly oversaw the torture in his regime, so there is an obviously greater sense of blame that falls on him. However, he does assume a very large responsibility in creating a culture of torture and execution, since I presume he did not sign off on every order. Likewise, Rumsfeld is very much to blame for overseeing a culture that allowed for such atrocities to occur.

The Iraqi abuse was not the actions of just a few bad seeds — that’s just what the Republican propaganda machine would like you to believe. The evidence that’s coming out points to systemic problems. I highly doubt that thousands of pictures of abuse come from the actions of a handful of soldiers. And the Red Cross’ documentation of abuse over the past year points to a more widespread problem. I don’t know if it’s as high as 5% or 10%, but I think it’s probably at least 1% of troops engaging in abuse of a similar nature, and that’s still a serious problem. A failure of this magnitude falls on the shoulders of someone higher up the chain.

Martin, I think I could be really wrong on that stuff. For example, I am now absolutely sure I was mistaken about the National Guard/Reservist thing, so now I am totally unsure of what I wrote. I’ll do more research on it.

-Cf

Okay, I apologize for the Reservist/National Guard mistake. They both are so regionally-based, always mentioned in association with some city and state that I got them mixed up.

But I was right insofar as these troops were poorly trained and that that was a bad thing that must have been known to be a little problematic by the people who made the decision to station these troops there. First, there’s this article, which alleges that the soldiers were simply inadequately trained, but it doesn’t say whether or not that’s normal.

In its report, CBS said the Army found a lack of leadership at the prison and learned that the soldiers at the facility, most of whom were Army reservists, were not trained on rules for handling prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, the internationally accepted rules on the conduct of war and treatment of prisoners.

Morgenthaler said that the investigation ordered by Sanchez confirmed that the soldiers did not receive such training and now all military police dealing with detainees receive comprehensive training under the Geneva Convention guidelines.

And then there’s this article, in which General Taguba reports that the Geneva Convention was far from the topic of the day among these particular military units.

Part of the problem was inadequate training, according to Taguba’s report.

“I find that prior to its deployment to Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom, the 320th MP Battalion and the 372nd MP Company had received no training in detention/internee operations. I also find that very little instruction or training was provided to MP personnel on the applicable rules of the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war. … Moreover, I find that few, if any, copies of the Geneva Conventions were ever made available to MP personnel or detainees.”

I assume that when you pointed out that the Reservists were “of course” trained the same way as the regular Army, that you were referring to the basic training they received years before when they were actually in the regular Army. Then why should Taguba point out that these particular troops were, shall we say, ‘undertrained’ in the Geneva Convention’s “applicable rules”?

The “years before” might be a clue. Perhaps Taguba pointed out the inadequate training because it’s only common sense that troops given such an assignment, particularly Reservists, would need a kind of “refresher” training program before they got there, particularly because of the perceived dangerous nature of the enemy. The Army Reserve, in fact, has had such foresight before, such as in 1995 when they were sending troops to Bosnia.

Nobody seemed to care enough to make sure this abuse - or the scandal - didn’t happen. Even after Taguba’s report came out, apparently Rumsfeld and even General Myers hadn’t read it.

The Army Times seems to think that this scandal ought to lead to punishments at least up to the Joint Cheifs level.

I don’t know what’s worse: Not caring enough about the risk of this abuse to try to take pains to prevent it, or not being smart enough to realize the depth of the damage and the scandal that it would lead to once it became known. On the one hand they’re guilty of an amazing level of criminal negligence, but on the other hand they’re profoundly blind to the opinions of the world and to those of decent-minded American people.

-Cf

LawnBoy -
Rank has nothing to do with responsibility for one’s own actions. Those reservists, whether they were put in a position to fail or not, made the conscious decision to abuse prisoners. That was their decision and they used their person to commit the crime.
Furthermore, the argument that the reservists are not responsible for their own actions because they were “just following orders” is not viable. 809.ART.90 (20) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice states that military personnel must obey the “lawful command of his superior officer.” If the command is not lawful, he/she has not only the right but also the duty to disobey that order.
The reservists, and only the reservists, are responsible for their actions.

Semper, while you are quite correct in your comment to Lawnboy, it should also be said that under the UCMJ, whether or not they were following orders can and will play a part as mitigating circumstances and can influence the court’s sentencing.

It is not at all unusual, for the court to lighten sentences where orders are given in the perpetuation of a violation of military law.

Semper,

I’m not saying that the Abu Ghraib 6 should be considered innocent if they were ordered to break the law. What I’m saying is that responsibility would be shared between the direct perpetrators and those who ordered it.

If a commanding officer ordered them to break the law, then the commanding officer is also guilty of a crime.

Interesting blog, does this site get lots of activity or is it usually slow around here?