Iraq Prisoner Abuse, Pt. 4: Rumsfeld Ordered It

He [Undersecratary Stephen Cambone] was known instead for his closeness to Rumsfeld. “Remember Henry II—‘Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?’” the senior C.I.A. official said to me, with a laugh, last week. “Whatever Rumsfeld whimsically says, Cambone will do ten times that much.” ««««««----- is the most ominous thing I've ever heard.

Is there anyone like Rush Limbaugh on ILX?

Resume shock and awe over Rumsfeld's hubris.

Goddamn, the government was out to get them. That's great, blame the white trash, let them take the fall.

Looking at it from a political standpoint, I cannot believe that Bush and his handlers would be stupid enough to wholeheartedly back Rumsfeld and then have something like this come out. Of course, they have stupidly got themselves so deep in this mess, they were perhaps resorting to extreme measures trying to get ahold of the situation.

If it holds to be true and a somewhat provable point, then the situation in Iraq is even much further gone than it appears and the Bush administration is much closer to completely coming apart at the hinges than anyone has previously predicted.

Nixon was able to ride out Watergate for a long time. How long until the bow breaks and the Bush Whitehouse is discredited to the point where even partisans won't be able to defend what is going on? It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

the gop has been all about polishing turds for the past few decades.

There are a few people in the hierarchy that are probably sweating, as they know and perhaps want to come forward, but are probably fearful of what will happen and want to get a good book deal signed before they start singing (yeah...pretty cynical I know).

The resultant clusterfuck could be pretty damned great. But it's still early days yet.

History doesn't repeat itself as much as it echoes.

Hersh ain't Piers Morgan. For which we should all be grateful.

and i'm hardly surprised by the anonymity of the sources, given the statement in the piece that revealing a black operation effectively shuts you out of the intelligence community for life. also, revealing a codename for an operation is a felony. since when do current intelligence officers outside p.r. go on the record?

I wonder who Hersh's "Pentagon consultant" is.

the conspiracy nut in me wonders how hersh's been able to do all this without getting his phone tapped and tires slashed.

by whom? and how do you know it hasn't happened? i would imagine that he's too high profile to be seriously threatened (and doubt that anyone would believe it would have an impact, but you never know).

That would be such a dream.

it will be given serious attention by the mainstream media

It's begun. That's the lead story on CNN at present. Not the lead story on Fox News but still up there.

Sacrificng Rumsfeld would probably best for Bush politically RIGHT NOW, but, as a number of writers have pointed out, the ensuing congressional hearings over the administration's choice for the new Sec. Defense would most likely result in a number of questions and revelations about the way they handled the war that the administration wouldn't want public around election time.

It seems like every phase of the war so far has like enhanced the Rumsfeld vision of the military: faster, smaller, and unrestrained by the geneva conventions.

The way the entire situation is playing out, I cannot believe there will not end up being a special congressional investigation of these various matters. I just am waiting for the next piece of the puzzle to become appearant. Think about how much perspective has changed in the past few months, give it another few weeks and I think other things will start shaking out of the trees.

If things continue to get ugly and uglier, there are a bunch of Republican House and Senate members up for election and if they play obstructionist in the face of evidence, they risk having this used against them as a campaign issue. I don't think you will see as many of those campaign ads with guys hugging up on Bush saying they "stood toe to toe with the president in the war against terror".

The only thing I can figure is that Rumsfeld behind the scenes has basically stated to Bush Co. that they can fuk off him taking the blame and if you hang me out, I'll make you burn. If he was a good soldier, he would have started making a setup to walk away, but instead they have run a big PR campaign to try and change the viewpoint.

I think the plan is to use greater military force to try and break the back of this resistance, like someone trying to use a sledgehammer to swat flies. It is only going to bring more death and destruction to civilians in Iraq and the resulting images will be broadcast to the world making this situation even more ludicrious and unstable. What a mess.

The level of ruthless conspiratorial cunning and mind-boggling incompetence simultaneously attributed to this administration on a daily basis by some of its critics just doesn't make sense to me. I can understand it being one, or the other, or occassionally back and forth between the two, but both at the same time, all the time? It just doesn't add up.

"For purposes of comparing the outrage here with the outrage back home, perhaps the most striking of the Iraqi themes is that of total indifference as to whether Donald Rumsfeld is kept on, pushed out, or melted down and drizzled over porcini mushrooms."

http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/frontpage5.asp

I love this defense: "I don't believe this because it just doesn't make sense." I hear it a lot. It was trotted out most recently when the first hints of Abu Ghraib came to light: "It just doesn't make sense. American soldiers wouldn't do that? Why would they do that? What do they gain from it? I don't believe any American soldier would have such a great lapse of judgment." Then, as that became an unsustainable view, the defensiveness moved up the ladder (of the Defensive Department?), always steadfastly insisting at each level that "it just doesn't make sense" for a ranking officer/military intelligence/general to approve of it. ("It doesn't make sense for experienced military intelligence officers to authorize torture. Any experienced military intelligence officer knows torture doesn't work. I don't believe it, it just doesn't make sense.")

Against this you have the long, long human history of people doing horrible things to each other in wartime (we even have the chariming phrase "fog of war" to help explain the phenomenon), and this administration's late-2003 desperation to find something, anything that looked or smelled like a "weapon of mass destruction" (just because they've pretty much abandoned that issue now doesn't mean they weren't chasing it with mounting determination and frustration last year), plus the lack of adequate oversight for all of our Iraqi operations (it's not actually clear where anybody's authority to do anything in Iraq comes from), and the acknowledged use of "aggressive" interrogation techniques as a matter of policy in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and somehow none of this seems even remotely hard to believe to me. You can say "it doesn't make sense," and I might agree -- but then, I've spent the last three years watching things that don't make sense. That doesn't mean they're not happening.

Given such tendencies, the temptation is great to dismiss Abu Ghraib as the awful exception that proves the admirable rule: to focus on the need not to tar the many good soldiers with the sins of the few. Even as I write this, the images of the many hard-working, spotlessly decent soldiers of my acquaintance are swooping around in my head, like ghosts insistent on remembrance. And they should be remembered. But fairness to soldiers is not the main fairness.

The world-famous catastrophe of Abu Ghraib has something important in common with every little domestic political gaffe: It would not resonate unless it rang true.

The fact is, there is a lot about this Abu Ghraib stuff that does ring true. One hopes that in its particulars, this scandal will turn out to be as aberrant as it is abhorrent. But as a piece of the wider puzzle of what this occupation is like for many Iraqis, it does fit right in.

Day after day in Iraq, in countless instances great and small, America absolutely comes off as a country-club democrat, convinced that freedom, democracy and human rights are the exclusive entitlement of those with full membership in the United States, and that everybody else is lucky to be a busboy.

So much for the dream.

America’s most successful intelligence operations during the Cold War had been saps.

We’ve never had a case where a special-access program went sour—and this goes back to the Cold War.

I repeat: so these super secret operations, the most successful intel ops during the cold war, ops that have never gone sour, were allowed to be blown wide open by a bunch of hillbillies with digital cameras? There's no precedent and there's no motivation.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon calls the article "outlandish, conspiratorial, and filled with error and anonymous conjecture" and says Cambone "has no responsibility, nor has he had any responsibility in the past, for detainee or interrogation programs in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else in the world." Does someone need to tell the Pentagon about Seymour Hersh's credentials, too?

a bunch of hillbillies with digital cameras

I think you might want to clarify whether you're paraphrasing someone else's words right there or if that your own particular take, for obvious reasons. If the latter, why, I didn't know you had it in you.

What are these "countless incidents"? If the point is that Abu Ghraib resonates because the issues of America/the West humiliating Iraqis/Arabs looms large especially during an occupation, I'd agree. Still, I hear some anti-American sentiment leaking into that last paragraph, as if the writer could have been telling us about their kid's birthday party and still would have found a way to get in that last swipe.

What's your point here, Stuart? A Pulitzer-winning reporter with years of experience reports on his findings. You seem to think that since the people on whom his reporting reflects negatively are responding defensively and with counterspin - well, asked and answered! I don't think "the Pentagon has denied it!" is exactly a done-deal dismissal of Hersh's reporting; nor is "the Pentagon has denied it loudly!" So, um, yes. Somebody needs to tell the Pentagon's counter-spinning press guys that there's a difference between the New Yorker and the fucking Drudge Report.

Read the rest of the linked article if you'd like...

Another point Hersh draws is the possibility that the dissemination of the photographs may be part of a calculated scheme to humiliate the prisoners:

The government consultant said that there may have been a serious goal, in the beginning, behind the sexual humiliation and the posed photographs. It was thought that some prisoners would do anything—including spying on their associates—to avoid dissemination of the shameful photos to family and friends.

The premeditation of this photography, I think suggests the possibility that the images weren't leaked entirely accidentally. And though I don't know if it's probable that part of the SEP's charter was to release these photos (which, honestly, don't seem to be bothering the Pent. much) it's certainly an idea I think worth entertaining. Rumsfeld's a notorious escalator, and he's successfully ratcheted-up the psychological battlefield of the Iraq conflict with the introduction of humiliation-techniques. Among the obvious effects this will have in Iraq are: further demoralization of the rebels, an increased othering of the Iraqis by the US troops, greater alienation of the US by the UN/international community (and, concurrently, a freer hand) ... all things that DR would consider benefits.

But the generally subdued response among mainstream Iraqis is a harsh indictment in its own right, Iraqi pollsters and outside experts say. To many Iraqis, the abuse of prisoners came as no surprise. To hear them tell it, the experience of the American occupation was already one of degradation, disappointment and discomfort, and despite months of steady complaints, few U.S. officials seemed to listen.

---

The widespread and increasing resentment toward the U.S. is reflected in polling results over the last several months. Support for the U.S. presence here eroded dramatically well before photographs of the Abu Ghraib prison abuses came to light, according to two reputable polling organizations, the Iraqi Center for Research and Strategic Studies and the Independent Institute for Research and Civil Society Studies.

Between October and April, the percentage of Iraqis viewing the United States as an occupier rather than a liberator or peacekeeper more than doubled — from 43% to 88%, according to Dulaimi's Center for Research. The Independent Institute had almost identical numbers for the same question.

Similarly, the percentage of Iraqis wanting the U.S. troops to immediately leave the country rose from 17% in October to 57% in April, according to the Center for Research. Both polls rely on samples of between 1,200 and 1,600 people in at least five cities around the country. Interviews are done in person by Iraqi surveyors.

In what appears to be a closely related opinion shift, public support has risen dramatically for cleric Muqtada Sadr, who has been trying to rally a populist uprising against the U.S. occupation. Three months ago, 2% to 3% of Iraqis said they supported or strongly supported him; since his militia's confrontations with the U.S., more than 50% of those polled either somewhat support or strongly support him, according to the Center for Research.

--

"From the beginning of the conflict, the United States and the United Kingdom underestimated the importance of Iraqi nationalism and the importance of treating Iraqis in a respectful way," said Joost Hiltermann, the director of the International Crisis Group's Jordan office, which also covers Iraq. The Brussels-based ICG is a think tank that does research and reporting on areas of conflict around the world.

"The unwillingness of the U.S. to order a halt to the looting of symbols of the Iraqi nation in which Iraqis had a deep sense of pride, such as the National Museum and the library, as well as dissolving the Iraqi Army, which has been in existence for 83 years and is viewed as a symbol of the nation, not as an arm of Saddam Hussein's regime — those acts were viewed as very deeply wounding, as acts of humiliation and gratuitous," Hiltermann said.

Resentment of U.S. troops' actions has not been lessened by any perceived improvement in daily life. Many Iraqis interviewed simply denied that the United States had done anything that materially improved their lives. The 2,000-plus schools that the United States describes as having been renovated are said by Iraqis to have been merely repainted; the electricity that U.S. officials boast is now on for three hours at a time is seen by Iraqis as more unstable than it was under Hussein.

While some admit that ridding the country of Hussein is a concrete benefit, the freedoms that followed from that, such as the free press, the ability to protest and the opening to the outside world seem to weigh little in contrast to Iraqis' deep unease about the lack of security and jobs.

"In the beginning, after the Americans arrived, we were living in a state of hope," Tuaima said. "But then month by month we saw how they were behaving and … it has ebbed away."

I think we can stop deluding ourselves as to how thoroughly our presence is wanted and loved over there, frankly. Although I'm sure Stuart will be all too glad to correct me, because clearly the pollers must have only talked to terrorists and mullahs.

Meanwhile, at least 18 dead due to mistreatment and/or shootings in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Indeed, the single most iconic image to come out of the abuse scandal—that of a hooded man standing naked on a box, arms outspread, with wires dangling from his fingers, toes and penis—may do a lot to undercut the administration's case that this was the work of a few criminal MPs. That's because the practice shown in that photo is an arcane torture method known only to veterans of the interrogation trade. "Was that something that [an MP] dreamed up by herself? Think again," says Darius Rejali, an expert on the use of torture by democracies. "That's a standard torture. It's called 'the Vietnam.' But it's not common knowledge. Ordinary American soldiers did this, but someone taught them."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/

Well done, indeed.

Just for you, Stuart:

As his other reasons for war have fallen away, President Bush has justified his ouster of Saddam Hussein by saying he's a "torturer and murderer." Now the American forces arrayed against the terrorists are being tarred with the same epithet. That's unfair: what Saddam did at Abu Ghraib during his regime was more horrible, and on a much vaster scale, than anything seen in those images on Capitol Hill. But if America is going to live up to its promise to bring justice and democracy to Iraq, it needs to get to the bottom of what happened at Abu Ghraib.

Stuart, the thrust of the Hersh article is that this SAP went sour because Cambone and the Defense department took it to Abu Ghraib. Most of the CIA objected fearing exactly that this kind of thing might happen and the operation would "go sour".

Because the connection between the SAP and the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib is still largely speculative?

They've yet to explain or uncover (not that it would be easy to, even if it were true) how this "successful" top secret high-value Al Qaeda program manages to spin out of control, resulting in hundreds and thousands of photos of seemingly random abuse and humiliation, intended to blackmail petty criminals into becoming snitches.

the thrust of the Hersh article is that this SAP went sour because Cambone and the Defense department took it to Abu Ghraib. Most of the CIA objected fearing exactly that this kind of thing might happen and the operation would "go sour".

That's such a stupid gamble, though. The CIA has secret interrogation chambers and detention centers sprinkled around the world, and there are all these super-secret operatives scurrying around, and no budget and it's all untraceable, but Rumsfeld and Cambone decide to expand the operation and put it in the hands of a bunch of MP Reservists? And nobody convinces them that's a bad idea?How? Why would they do that? Why would you use reservists and official prison personnel to build up this "humiliation blackmail" scheme?

Another point Hersh draws is the possibility that the dissemination of the photographs may be part of a calculated scheme to humiliate the prisoners

Doesn't Hersh believe the it's the threat of dissemination that motivates the prisoners to snitch? If you let the photos get out, then the snitches have no more reason to help you.

Bush administration in too much hubris shocker!!! Your "doesn't make sense" argument isn't making sense.

And nobody convinces them that's a bad idea? How? Why would they do that?

Here is a case in point. At the time this decision was made, its consequences were as yet in the future and therefore not known. They were only subject to educated guesses. Risks could be isolated and assessed, but, when pressed, the advisor could not honestly say if the operation would fail. On the other hand, there was the imagined reward of expanded information. Human-sourced information. Our leaders had and still have a boundless appetite for information and for certainty. If the black ops were delivering fantastic morsels of intel, then the natural desire is to expand them. Greed is a human trait, too, and more common even than common sense.

All it takes for an advisor to fail to convince a superior is for that superior to think he knows better than his advisor, or dismiss risk in favor of a rosy scenario. Now look at Rumsfeld. Look carefully. Was there ever a man more in love with his own judgement and ability? Look at the rosy scenarios this administration embraced, wrongly, in planning the occupaion of Iraq.

This perfectly fits their pattern of weaknesses as it has been revealed so far. In my opinion.

if you're not being disingenuous, Stuart, you're not reading very closely. Pentagon took the SAP program, which they had run the whole time at CIA centers, to Abu Ghraib only after CIA pulled out and refused to have anything to do with them there. So DOD intel people ran the thing using MPs. The only thing standing in the way of your crediting that story is a belief that the Bush admin has such good instincts that they wouldn't have done such a thing, which is contrary to the great weight of the evidence.

Bush's management problems are not nearly as related to how much paper he reads as the people he hired to feed him information. The essence of good management is the ability to hire and fire--with the scope of the presidency, reading volumes of paperwork is much less important than being able to rely on others to help you make decisions. The sheer volume of information processing requires massive division of labor and ultimately, sage delegation in order to make decisions. Bush seems to place an enormous amount of blind faith in loyalty.

He has anonymous informants saying Cambone controlled all SAPs relevant to the war on terror, including the details of prisoner interrogations, which the Pentagon denies. He has the CIA supporting the operation until it somehow spun out of control and went from interrogating "suspected insurgents" to targeting "cabdrivers, brothers-in-law, and people pulled off the streets," but doesn't explain who let it spin out of control - something that has supposedly never ever happened in the history of these Special Access Programs. So he's saying Cambone controlled the program, and the details of the interrogations, and apparently supported the abuse and harrassment of random detainees for no apparent reason besides the speculation that they would be blackmailed to provide human intelligence after their release.

The MSNBC article says oh-so-convincingly that it was "almost certainly" these MPs' superiors that taught them these interrogation procedures. It goes from stating that "stress and duress" techniques that were approved against suspected terrorists, to saying that what we see in these pictures was approved *from the top* for use against random Iraqi detainees. It then says Rumsfeld "seemingly" set in motion a process to bring these techniques from Afghanistan and Guantanimo to Abu Ghraib. I'm not sure the authors themselves are convinced.

This is like a coordinated attack on the "enemy combatants" designation policy specifically. The MSNBC article seems especially determined to blame the abuses in Abu Ghraib on the administration's decision to classify captured terrorists outside the Geneva Conventions' POW definition, when in fact it has no evidence to link the two, just the observation that that sorta looks to them like what might have happened, and Hersh has been going after the "Straussian movement" in the Pentagon, including Cambone, for over a year. It's quite an elaborate theory for how Rumsfeld or other senior Pentagon officials can be held criminally responsible for the prisoner abuses, but it's far from being supported by the evidence we have right now.

He doesn't even need the yes-men who "extract" the "facts" from the news articles. He's his own built-in yes-man.

Hmm, indeed.

Right, because it would clearly be insane to think there could be any connection between how the same set of people deal with prisoners in two different locations. Nutso. Tinfoil hat stuff.

Again, you're misleading or misreading. It quite clearly says that the who = Bush, Rumsfeld and Cambone, who supported extending a counter-Al Qaeda/Taliban SAP program to interrogation in the Abu Ghraib prison, which CIA quickly discovered was filled with civilians, leading it to pull out of the effort. The article states that the SAP program had been involved in a limited capacity in Iraq during the 'major engagement' phase of the war, helping to look for Saddam and WMDs. The article does not state that the SAP was at all involved in gathering intelligence on the insurgency. Rather, it says that there was an uncoordinated, unsuccessful human intelliigence campaign carried out by multiple groups associated with American and Coalition forces, presumably a 'white' program conducted by officers of intelligence agencies adjunct to the service branches.

The MSNBC article says oh-so-convincingly that it was "almost certainly" these MPs' superiors that taught them these interrogation procedures.

Would you like to advance an alternate explanation for the 'hillbilly' MPs' use of a specific technique known only to interrogation veterans? Are you familiar with the phrase res ipsa loquitur?

It then says Rumsfeld "seemingly" set in motion a process to bring these techniques from Afghanistan and Guantanimo to Abu Ghraib. I'm not sure the authors themselves are convinced.

ah, the paperless office. the quotation is from an introductory paragraph. the later elaboration describes oral communications only. i suppose the comparison to how bin Laden operates would be too facile.

X = X, then. Or do all the various statements regarding how it was intelligence personnel who apparently had quite a bit of say in the actions in Abu G somehow not apply? Even Rumsfeld said as much in response to McCain on the hill -- when he was finally pushed into saying it.

As for Guantanamo, then again. I'd like to see more information about this myself either way, though.

Like WMD? I most certainly agree!

Because Stuart decrees so? I'll trust we'll never see you link to the Drudge Report. No, see in the real world of American journalism, a 'claim', no matter how extraordinary, requires two credible sources. We're already doing a lot better than that.

Tinfoil hats are not crazy! They're scientifically proven, like crop circles and colonics!

I have nothing against using such techniques against known terrorists, assuming that they produce reliable information. Of course, the multiple releases from Gitmo indicate that many there don't fall into this category. And I doubt few if any would at Abu Ghraib.

So "specific technique known only to interrogation veterans" might be a little hyperbolic...but does this mean the MPs at Abu Ghraib must've known "the Vietnam" from reading the above, not because they were told about it by some shadowy superior?

And it's interesting that the administration's defenders have, in just a week, retreated from the "few bad apples" defense to the "Rumsfeld didn't specifically authorize the torture of prisoners x, y and z".

spittle: I'd say the issue right now is WHETHER the pattern of abuse is a product of those policy choices. I don't think the evidence has come to light to make that a foregone conclusion. Also, feel free to note that I took issue with your characterization of this as a "widespread" pattern before I even read your last sentence. It remains to be seen how widespread it is. At this point we're still looking at a dozen or so "bad apples" facing punishment.

x-post

If Taguba is right, then it's necessary to link those four to the SAP, to continue the chain on up to Rummy.

OTOH i'd think hersh's credentials (and the new yorker's famous insanely stringent and detailed fact-checking) would be enough for you. god knows enough clinton-era stuff was chewed over and checked out over much, much less.

we don't even necessarily know who they all are

documents from the SAP, with signatures

you would wait in vain. the articles suggest that there are none.

In my view such a claim doesn't require any extraordinary level of evidence, because a government that does not have such a policy has ample means to ensure that prisoner rights are respected. And such abuses of prisoner rights are widespread throughout the known world, especially in a political context.

The same applies to the claim that Secretary Rumsfeld is capable of an egregious error in judgement. Such errors are so commonplace among humans and among leaders that they require no more than ordinary levels of evidence to establish their credibility.

I realize that these failures fall in different areas, but to me it says there is a wider systematic breakdown. The only people that have paid for these failures are people that have tried to blow the whistle on the problems. To me, this isn't a partisan problem, there is plenty of guilt to go around.

It's all very complicated.

Someone want to give me the gist of all this so I can make vague and ill-informed interpretations for the uber-liberals to wax their crevace with?

A.D.D.

-- Ned Raggett (ne...), May 17th, 2004.

I say Michael Moore order the abuses against the prisoners. Not Rum'y.

It was not clear who was who, even to Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, then the commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade, and the officer ostensibly in charge. “I thought most of the civilians there were interpreters, but there were some civilians that I didn’t know,” Karpinski told me. “I called them the disappearing ghosts. I’d seen them once in a while at Abu Ghraib and then I’d see them months later. They were nice—they’d always call out to me and say, ‘Hey, remember me? How are you doing?’” The mysterious civilians, she said, were “always bringing in somebody for interrogation or waiting to collect somebody going out.” Karpinski added that she had no idea who was operating in her prison system.

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/may2004/051104beheadsuscivilian.htm

(And yeah, yeah, I know -- some of the conspiracy theories *still* sound almost as much like unbelievable bullshit as the official beheading story does.) (Were there any conspiracy theories about that Portland guy who was arrested in connection with the Madrid bombing a couple weeks ago, by the way? If not, there *should* be some.)

I thought this was one of the reasons countries had moved away from 'inhumane' interrogation techniques. That and the historical unreliability of what abuse/torture victims will tell their interlocutors.

After reading Hersh, I couldn't help thinking about Al-Zawahiri and the effect torture had on turning him into the kind of warped psycho he is now.

That whole Yee thing was such a goddamn scam. Really pissed me off, though at least they dropped the charges -- now are the paranoid assholes who brought the charges up in the first place ever going to be trashed, I wonder?

There were a lot (or a couple) of people that were in question, causing the doubling of work for the translators. They found out that some people interogating could be possible sympathizers of their cause, and not translating the converstaions 'accurately'. So a lot of their stuff now has to be checked for quality and accuracy.

But with arabic translation, they will take what they can get. Not too many americans can do it, and its not always the best thing to hire natives to do it. Who are essentially the best at it for obvious reasons. But then you run the chance of having bias, and sympathizers.

Jesus, that's the first time I've seen those stills. I am so goddamned glad I didn't watch the video.

His link down below, in the Responses section (to something called "The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World"), spells out his worldview (conspiracist gold!).

Chthonic golfing?

But im just saying what I know. I'll read that/research the story further later.

Just realize that my unique possition and experiences might give me opinions different from the rest of the world. Im not an asshole, i just see everything from a different perspective.

This may be true but it shows an essentially antagonistic attitude toward a country we're supposed to be helping. If, instead of all this cloak & dagger stuff, we had insisted on the highest standards of justice and instituted controls to help prevent bias or collaboration, we might right now be offering an example to the Iraqis of our benign intent.

True, very true. But if frogs had wings, they wouldnt...blah.

Things just dont work as they should. There is no excuse for that, but that is the reason.

Office Space II: Michael Bolton Goes to Cuba

I think that's something we can all agree on or should. The kind of humor that's best for it is black.

>In mid-January 2002 the first plane-load of prisoners landed at Gitmo's Camp X-Ray. Still, not everyone was getting the message that this was a new kind of war. The first commander of the MPs at Gitmo was a one-star from the Rhode Island National Guard, Brig. Gen. Rick Baccus, who, a Defense source recalled, mainly "wanted to keep the prisoners happy." Baccus began giving copies of the Qur'an to detainees, and he organized a special meal schedule for Ramadan. "He was even handing out printed 'rights cards'," the Defense source recalled. The upshot was that the prisoners were soon telling the interrogators, "Go f—- yourself, I know my rights." Baccus was relieved in October 2002, and Rumsfeld gave military intelligence control of all aspects of the Gitmo camp, including the MPs.<

yes well we can't have non-citizens knowing what their rights are

multi x-post

Im just saying that if he handed out a 'rights card' that stated rights that they werent entitled to, it would cause a serious uproar within the confined population. Tell them you are going to do one thing, then do something else. That would make me mad as hell. So if the Brig Gen did that, then hell yeah he'd get in trouble.

x-post on what dyson said=

Technically I dont see a lot of the people in Iraq as lawful combatants anyway. They run around in street/civilian clothing pulling off guerilla attacks, indistinguishable from a citizen bystander until the last minute where he sets off a C4 bomb he stuffed into his a-hole minutes earlier. To be treated as a POW, you must be a lawful combatant. That definition is pretty cut and dry. (Why should we follow rules that they dont?...but keep in mind im not a heartless asshole, just making a statement)

Why should we follow rules that they dont?

Dude, you've got to be kidding.

So, in a way...no. I wasnt.

Let me spell it out: because if we don't follow the rules that we publicly claim to think of as good, fair, and fundamental to human decency, then we don't get to complain when others choose not to follow them.

Right, but do you have an opinion on that, or just stating the situation?

I mean, there are reasons why nations have been playing nice with each other since 1945.

I guessed, but the way that paragraph started all "my opinion:" caused some confusion in my tiny brane.

I dropped a lot of sarcasm, mixed in slightly with some true feelings. But mostly they were just observations.

I think all people have rights, regardless of their classification by a country they've never even been to. I think a lot of our foreign policy is ridiculous. I dont believe war is the answer to everything, but aggression seemed to be inevitable eventually regarding the middle east(in some form or another). I think Bush is a horrible speaker, but humors the shit out of me. I really hate the way the war is turning out and the way I look to people that have never met me, just because I am a US citizen.

I dont know. If you would like me to clear anything up with you, then just ask. But, again, a lot of it was observation.

I think people in the US are so used to bending the rules that they think the rest of the world will let it slide too. Kind of like someone who habitually lies...and they convince themself that they arent lying.

You dig?

Thats what happens when you have a country ran by lawyers, oil tycoons, terminator cyborg machines, and business men.

I think it's quite possible that without three, and perhaps even four, of the above, we would not be what we are (in a good sense) today.

http://www.oldlutheran.com/newpages/books/boomerbible.gif

for a concise history of the world in terms of manifest destinies.

"This is the most hysterical piece of journalist malpractice I have ever observed," said Lawrence DiRita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in response to Hersh's report.

A senior intelligence official said the article contains "fantasy," adding, "I haven't found any truth in it."

The unit described simply does not exist, the intelligence official said.

---

DiRita, responding Monday, called Hersh "one of history's great conspiracy theorists."

And the intelligence official told CNN there is no such thing as "Copper Green." The official said there is no joint interrogation program between the Defense Department and the CIA approved by the Secretary of Defense.

It is "incorrect" to suggest that the CIA withdrew from interrogations at Abu Ghraib, the intelligence official added.

But Hersh told CNN said he has faced similar attacks before when uncovering major stories.

When told the Pentagon spokesman's position, Hersh said, "I understand this is going to be the kind of response. ... I leaned over backwards to make sure in my own reporting. I met multiple sources. There was a lot of basis for this.

"It will come out eventually."

"I'm not saying that Rumsfeld or the president or anybody else had any idea of how this sort of transmogrified into what we saw in the photographs," he said, referring to the photos of naked Iraqi prisoners being forced to perform or simulate sexual acts by Americans at the prison.

"But the way it began was with a program, guys coming in -- very sophisticated guys, under aliases. We've all heard about the civilians running around those prisons. Some of them were people from this unit. I can tell you the intelligence community went batty about this."

The anonymous CNN source intrigues me. Wonder who it is or where they work?

hmm.

I was just chatting with my building manager (a funny, "get a load of THESE jerks!" outspoken Democrat type), and she says her Republican friends have been calling her all day, trumpeting about this biiig news. (I said, "Um... did you ask them what they thought about the Hersh article?")

No one has disagreed with this point, or suggested that something contrary is argued by Hersh. What our, and Hersh's, point is, is that this happened in the course of a covert program that was approved in vague, perhaps unwritten, terms by Rumsfeld and the President. Thus, they are responsible. You can argue that the sanction that should be imposed should be dependent upon the foreseeability of the results (or you can argue that it should not), but I find them entirely foreseeable, as did, it is claimed, the CIA and the intelligence community at large.

Spinktor thepoint is that in Iraq now the Administration can justify ANYONE as an unlawful combatant. The Geneva Convention applies to wars between nation-states! There is no "Iraqi army" at the moment, so no one can be part of it.

I don't think "Iraq Prisoner Abuse, Pt. 4: Rumsfeld Ordered It" is merely a harsh way of saying "It happened in the course of a covert program that was approved in vague, perhaps unwritten, terms by Rumsfeld and the President. Thus, they are responsible."

Like the mystery official wouldn't say that? The CIA has enough of a "Big Brother" image, as it is.

When will people get the idea that ANYONE can be declared this and not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but US CITIZENS as well!?!? Hello, Jose mofuckin'-Cubs-fan Padilla to thread!

Seriously, y'all need to watch, er listen, to the Supreme Court deliberations on "enemy combatants" on C-SPAN like this minute (I don't know if they're actually playing them now, but you get my drift).

chatterbox
Against "Make No Mistake"
Time to fight back against the worst Bushism of all.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Monday, May 17, 2004, at 3:38 PM PT

Here at Slate, we've been known to derive amusement from the endlessly creative ways President George W. Bush finds to mangle the English language. But even inarticulate presidents can influence the way the rest of us speak. "Misunderestimate," for instance, is well on its way to becoming a real word, just as Warren G. Harding's botch of the word "normality" in 1920 gave us the now-accepted (if ungainly) term, "normalcy." But Dubya's greatest influence on the way the rest of us speak may be his overuse of the easy-to-pronounce rhetorical phrase, "make no mistake."

I do not count myself among those who hate President Bush. But I do hate the expression, "make no mistake." It's a bully-boy phrase, meant to warn that the speaker really means what he is saying. But shouldn't we always mean what we say—or, if we're politicians, at least pretend to? Even if you buy into the phrase's swagger, it isn't half so creative as "read my lips," which speechwriter Peggy Noonan put into George H.W. Bush's mouth when he promised not to raise taxes. ("Read my lips" had to be retired after Bush père broke that promise in 1990, but that's hardly Noonan's fault.) "Read my lips" is funny—unless, of course, it's spoken to a deaf person—and swagger always comes across better when it's leavened with humor. "Make no mistake," on the other hand, are the words not merely of a bully, but of a bully who lacks panache. It practically begs for a defiant response. Listen, buddy, I'll make a mistake whenever I goddamn well feel like it. And, of course, it's especially galling coming from Bush, whose presidency has been one long string of mistakes, most especially the one we're currently grappling with in Iraq.

The current president did not invent the phrase, "make no mistake," but he uses it a lot. The search engine for the White House Web site displays 227 instances, and, even discounting for the fact that some of these MNMs emanated from Bush apparatchiks like former press spokesman Ari Fleischer and Tom Ridge, I feel certain that's a gross undercount.

It's the ripple effect that interests Chatterbox. For 1994, the Factiva news database finds 3,624 MNMs, with the phrase's usage heavily weighted to manly discussions about business or sports. MNMs climbed steadily through the 1990s, adding about one thousand references each year. Since the base number kept growing, the rate of growth actually declined. Then—bam!—MNMs jumped from 9,174 in 2000 to 12,062 in 2001, the first year of Bush's presidency. Last year yielded 13,141 MNMs, and the first four and a half months of this year have so far given us 5,223. Given that this is an election year, Chatterbox wouldn't be surprised to see MNMs break 15,000.

And look at who's MNM-ing. "Make no mistake, we also have to move the cause [of racial integration] forward," John Kerry said today. "Make no mistake, something similar could have happened in New York, too," read a Daily News review today of a new movie. MNM is no longer just the language of sports and business; it pervades discussions of "soft" topics like race and the arts as well. It's everywhere.

It must be stopped. Please join Chatterbox in silent protest. Sometime today, make a mistake. Any mistake. You'll be surprised at how good it feels.

Timothy Noah writes "Chatterbox" for Slate.

Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2100685/

What's so ironic about the administration's latest line of "well, Rumsfeld didn't directly order everything that happened himself" evasion is its contrast with the chain of responsibility dictated by No Child Left Behind. School principals are held directly responsible for the performance of their students and teachers even though they may not personally be to blame for a student's failure. Stuart, arew you really saying that because Rummy's name isn't signed on a sheet directly ordering the torure of Abu Ghraib prisons he's not at all culpable? That flies in the face of not only the way businesses, militaries and governments have always been run, but also in the model the Bush administration has recently developed for schools.

-- hstencil (hstenci...) (webmail), May 17th, 2004 4:37 PM. (hstencil) (later) (link)

bush in absolutely thoroughgoing hypocrisy shocker.

this kind of thing offends me viscerally more than anything else, which is itself kind of offensive. does that make sense?

Yeah, the principal of the school, not the Secretary of Education.

I posted the Cicada pics...it rained pretty heavily and made a mess of a lot of their shells.

x-post what's goinon now is I just made some peppermint tea!

You're again trying to elide the precise distinction I'm making - you are arguing that Rumsfeld can only be held responsible if he had specific knowledge of what went on at the time it went on. I am responding that no one is arguing that he had such knowledge, however, his contemporaneous knowledge is irrelevant because what occurred occurred as part of a program he created and was done in the service of the goals of that program and is cosnsistent with what happened elsewhere and thus was a reasonably foreseeable, if not intentional, result of what he ordered.

(puts "Buy Spinktor a beer" on list of things to do)

-- Andrew Farrell (afarrel...), May 17th, 2004.

Several beers! And thus happiness is had.

-- Ned Raggett (ne...), May 17th, 2004.

...that shit has never happened before. Im shocked and moderately awed.

Well then.

Im shocked and moderately awed.

Just name the beer whenever we meet up.

Ill be in Oklahoma next weekend, we can meet half way? Thats about half way between MD and CA, right? Hehehe...

Really? How does one have knowledge of something that hasn't happened yet? Given that those are my words, I know what I meant better than you do. They mean exactly what I said in my last two posts.

There's a difference between "Rumsfeld should have known what he was doing. He was reckless and irresponsible" and "Rumsfeld ordered the abuse." You're saying no one is making the second argument, just the first, and I'm saying you're mistaken.

Once again, you're mischaracterizing my argument. I am saying that no one is arguing that there is evidence that Bush and Rumsfeld had contemporaneous knowldge. You are calling that an argument that Rumsfeld was reckless and irresponsible, which isn't even an acceptable inference, let alone an accurate characterization. Others have made that argument only in the alternative, assuming that we agree with you, for purposes of argument, that Rumsfeld did not intend this or was not indifferent to it occurring.

My thoughts more like that there are a slew of observations, counterarguments and more in this thread that you have either skipped over or only addressed quickly to the point of self-parody, Stuart, so if you're reduced to quarrelling over the thread title while leaving the rest mostly -- not entirely, but mostly -- untouched, I wonder about your confidence in your stances. Then again, I often wonder about them.

Thats about half way between MD and CA, right? Hehehe...

Time to break out my Lear jet!

This is similar to when, on one of the earlier abuse threads, I say "the argument that this makes us as bad as Saddam is ludicrous" and several people go "no one is making that argument" but at least then no one was making that explicit argument on that thread - even though a couple days later we got to hear Ted Kennedy say "Now Saddams torture chambers have been reopened under new management. US management." But here, the argument is in the thread title.

But (according to Hersh) Rumsfeld DID order Iraq prisoner abuse (which is what the title of the thread says), whether he ordered those particular soldiers to abuse those particular Iraqis in those particular instances, or not. So again, how is the title wrong?

I don't know why I'm humoring you, because I don't expect you to change your mind, so this is sort of insane. But oh why not - Rumsfeld ordered the extension of the covert program under which the abuse occurred, and under which similar tactics had previously been used, to interrogation of non-Al Qaeda and non-'high value' prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Because you insist on believing that Donald Rumsfeld is a wonderful, humanitarian human being who could not possibly want something like this to happen, you insist that Intent is relevant to these incidents. I don't consider intent relevant. Therefore, I have made no argument about intent, including in my statement in the thread title. The "it" that Rumsfeld ordered is every act performed by an individual in the SAP program in an effort to further that program. We have no evidence that any acts were off limits. Thus, there are no acts that Rumsfeld did not order. Intent, once again, is irrelevant.

Warning: Spoilers ahead!

1) When you first start off, you're hooded and naked in a cell, with wires attached to your genitals. A GI guard outside is manipulating the electricity. Urinate, and try to get as much of it outside the cell as possible.

2) When the guard leaves to get a mop, remove the wires and hood and get off the box. Pick up the electric wirebox and the American nickel that's under the box you were standing on. Reach through the door and use the nickel to pry open the electric door lock mechanism. Attach the wires to the two contacts on top of the door lock, and flip the switch to unlock the door. Retrieve the wirebox, you'll need it later.

3) Go left down the hallway and immediately hide behind the oil drums as the guard walks by. Quickly, continue down the hallway once she's offscreen, and go into the janitor's closet (2nd door on the right). Change into the janitor's uniform you find there, and shave off your beard using the razor on the top shelf. Also take the packet of beef jerky.

4) By now, the alarm should have sounded. Grab a mop and head out. Don't worry, the guards won't take notice as long as you are mopping near one of the red bloody patches on the floor. Make your way to the end of the hall, and turn right.

5) Open the door on the right side of the hallway and immediately hide in the dark corner of the room. Here you will see a GI using attack dogs to intimidate a naked prisoner. Use the wirebox on the mop to create an extended electric prod, and turn it on. Sneak up behind the GI and shock him, he'll be out cold. Feed the beef jerky to the attack dogs to tame them.

6) Take the papers and ID card from the guard's pockets, the screwdriver from the table, and the rope from the funny-looking setup in the far corner. Don't worry about the prisoner, he'll just gibber and you can't save him. Look through the window of the door until a guard passes by, then go out and continue down the hall.

7) When you get to the first window, unscrew the window fitting with the screwdriver, then use the rope on the radiator. Rappel out the window, and you've escaped!

Hands down now. Not many of you I see.

Now raise your hand if you think Donald Rumsfeld specifically approved of an operation in Iraq, where he knew some prisoners would be treated to abusive interrogation techniques without regard to the Geneva Conventions and it would be given the highest security classification and designed and managed in such a way that he would almost certainly be able to deny giving this order?

Um. Maybe it would be easier if we asked that the other way around. The counting would go a lot faster that way.

#1: "NEW IRAQ PRISON SHOCK: MALE DETAINEES FORCED TO WEAR WOMEN'S 'MAXI-PADS': Pfc. Lynndie England, the Army soldier seen laughing, smoking and flashing the thumbs-up in front of naked male Iraqis in photographs, has told investigators: Guards forced detainees to crawl on their hands and knees on broken glass and forced male detainees to wear women's 'maxi pads'... Guards also applied needle and thread to prisoners after beating them.... 'Would personally stitch up detainees if the wound weren't too bad' and take pictures of the work. One particular incident, a guard ran a former Iraqi general into a wall and split his lip. The guard than stitched up his lip'... MORE"

#2: Iraq-Born Swede Asks $100,000, Claiming Torture at Abu Ghraib this guy is now in the USA with his mother in Michigan!!! From prisoner of war to legal US alien in less than a week!!!

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/15/22827/0477

By Andrew Marshall

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. forces beat three Iraqis working for Reuters and subjected them to sexual and religious taunts and humiliation during their detention last January in a military camp near Falluja, the three said Tuesday.

The three first told Reuters of the ordeal after their release but only decided to make it public when the U.S. military said there was no evidence they had been abused, and following the exposure of similar mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

An Iraqi journalist working for U.S. network NBC, who was arrested with the Reuters staff, also said he had been beaten and mistreated, NBC said Tuesday.

Two of the three Reuters staff said they had been forced to insert a finger into their anus and then lick it, and were forced to put shoes in their mouths, particularly humiliating in Arab culture.

All three said they were forced to make demeaning gestures as soldiers laughed, taunted them and took photographs. They said they did not want to give details publicly earlier because of the degrading nature of the abuse.

The soldiers told them they would be taken to the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, deprived them of sleep, placed bags over their heads, kicked and hit them and forced them to remain in stress positions for long periods.

The U.S. military, in a report issued before the Abu Ghraib abuse became public, said there was no evidence the Reuters staff had been tortured or abused.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of ground forces in Iraq, said in a letter received by Reuters Monday but dated March 5 that he was confident the investigation had been "thorough and objective" and its findings were sound.

The Pentagon has yet to respond to a request by Reuters Global Managing Editor David Schlesinger to review the military's findings about the incident in light of the scandal over the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

Asked for comment Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said only: "There are a number of lines of inquiry under way with respect to prison operations in Iraq. If during the course of any inquiry, the commander believes it is appropriate to review a specific aspect of detention, he has the authority to do so."

The abuse happened at Forward Operating Base Volturno, near Falluja, the Reuters staff said. They were detained on January 2 while covering the aftermath of the shooting down of a U.S. helicopter near Falluja and held for three days, first at Volturno and then at Forward Operating Base St Mere.

The three -- Baghdad-based cameraman Salem Ureibi, Falluja-based freelance television journalist Ahmad Mohammad Hussein al-Badrani and driver Sattar Jabar al-Badrani -- were released without charge on Jan. 5.

"INADEQUATE" INVESTIGATION

"When I saw the Abu Ghraib photographs, I wept," Ureibi said Tuesday. "I saw they had suffered like we had."

Ureibi, who understands English better than the other two detainees, said soldiers told him they wanted to have sex with him, and he was afraid he would be raped.

NBC, whose stringer Ali Muhammed Hussein Ali al-Badrani was detained along with the Reuters staff, said he reported that a hood was placed over his head for hours, and that he was forced to perform physically debilitating exercises, prevented from sleeping and struck and kicked several times.

"Despite repeated requests, we have yet to receive the results of the army investigation," NBC News Vice President Bill Wheatley said.

Schlesinger sent a letter to Sanchez on January 9 demanding an investigation into the treatment of the three Iraqis.

The U.S. army said it was investigating and requested further information. Reuters provided transcripts of initial interviews with the three following their release, and offered to make them available for interview by investigators.

A summary of the investigation by the 82nd Airborne Division, dated January 28 and provided to Reuters, said "no specific incidents of abuse were found." It said soldiers responsible for the detainees were interviewed under oath and "none admit or report knowledge of physical abuse or torture."

"The detainees were purposefully and carefully put under stress, to include sleep deprivation, in order to facilitate interrogation; they were not tortured," it said. The version received Monday used the phrase "sleep management" instead.

The U.S. military never interviewed the three for its investigation.

On February 3 Schlesinger wrote to Lawrence Di Rita, special assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, saying the investigation was "woefully inadequate" and should be reopened.

"The military's conclusion of its investigation without even interviewing the alleged victims, along with other inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the report, speaks volumes about the seriousness with which the U.S. government is taking this issue," he wrote.

ABUSE SCANDAL

The U.S. military faced international outrage this month after photographs surfaced showing U.S. soldiers humiliating and abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison west of Baghdad.

An investigation by Major General Antonio Taguba found that "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees" in Abu Ghraib.

Seven U.S. soldiers have been charged over the Abu Ghraib abuse and the first court martial is set for Wednesday.

U.S. officials say the abuse was carried out by a small number of soldiers and that all allegations of abuse are promptly and thoroughly investigated.

cue Stuart: "Why'd they wait 'til now to come forward? Real suspicious," more apologist nonsense

Oh, y'know. Book to sell or something.

< /StuartthefuckingGOPhandpuppetimbecile >

Rule #7281: all allegations against Bushco are assumed to be true until proven otherwise.

Even that caveat doesn't extend to every story (for example, I'm pretty certain that Reuters didn't invent a story about their employees getting abused by American soldiers in an Iraqi jail) and at any rate I am more inclined to believe the spin put on these recent stories than not because I FUCKING HATE BUSH AND WANT HIM OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE RIGHT FUCKING NOW and when I'm viewing cold, hard facts through that level of red hazy fury I am bound to be biased.

I don't know about the nature of their allegations--what they were, exactly.

There is no corroboration reported of their charges, except that the military denies it.

Could the allegations be true? Of course.

Are they? We have no idea.

All this talk about Bushco jacking the Constitution, and there's not one bit of due process in the midst. Would that be the same if political affiliations were different?

If the political affiliations were different, would the same people in this thread find anything suspicious about the timing? In other words, is there some part of Reuters or any other news organization that doesn't find torture of its staffers by the US government to be "non newsworthy"? And that this wasn't newsworthy, say, three weeks ago?

I have no evidence that Reuters has any political bent, and neither do you, Don. I'd guess that given their specialty for reporting primarily international and business news, and their reputation for objectivity, that they have a far higher standard for reporting factual content as opposed to editorial content as, say, the Weekly Standard or The Nation.

I would also assume that since the story only broke today (news company in scooping itself non-shocker), that if the allegations proved to be false, there would be much in the way of apologies and hand-wringing from Reuters. I also assume that given the factual evidence THE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD HAS SEEN FOR THE PAST TWO WEEKS, that there is probably more than a hint of truth to these allegations. And since I can't think of American soldiers under the Clinton administration, or even Bush I's, targeting foreign press for death (already happened - soldiers were cleared by a US Army tribunal - that's military justice for you) or abusing foreign and domestic press, I'd say the burden of proof swings heavily in favor of the allegations being true.

Because now I feel even less guilty for thinking Bill Clinton lied every time he opened his mouth. Under your logic, it's a moral certainty. Clinton not only wagged the dog with missles and knowingly killed innocents, but he raped Kathleen Willey.

And I certainly feel even more self-satisfied in my belief that the federal government is not worth much of my trust.

A train-station drunk played Cassandra as usual and I later saw confirmation elsewhere.

waitwaitwait the Bush administration is soliciting FOREIGN political campaign donations?

Hey Morris -- I don't. Provide examples if you think I do. I guarantee that less than 5% of my posts have ever included his name unless that was the thread.

Oh, and did you notice that hstencil brought up Clinton here and not me? Or did you miss that?

As to your point hstencil, I realize Reuters isn't the Spectator or even the Nation. And I understand your passion in all things that kick Bushco in the nuts. My point is that it might be better to jump for joy once all the facts have been properly established--really, there are many other things to crow about with better evidence to support your glee.

Doesn't that always go without saying, regardless of who is in power? In any form of government?

That will change once I get into the White House.

Would that be the same if political affiliations were different?

and I don't think it's that effective since 1) Clinton had plenty of criticism from the Left, esp. as regards missle strikes and 2) nothing the Clinton admin did, even in regards to Kosovo or Somalia or the Sudan or a cigar in an intern seems to me as egregious as Bushco. And that bias should be pretty obvious from my posts, except when I'm just excerpting a freakin' news story.

xpost: Dan! Hahahaha!

Damn right Dan.

And I will be first in line to lead your campaign. Unless of course, you want to raise my taxes--we may have a parting of ways at that point.

Yes, Ned. I have large distrust of the State, regardless of who holds power.

As for you hstencil, sorry to piss you off so. It was not intentional. Or if it was, I didn't mean to gall you quite so much. It is understandable that you would bring up Clinton, but he is only relevant because he was the most recent Democratic president. My point is that our political inclinations seem to have a bearing on what we see as truthful or not, or at least what we are inclined to believe. I'd say that your determination of egregiousness in Clinton vs. Bushco is also at least somewhat dependent on your political ideals. Which is fine by me.

Dan only wants to raise taxes on those who almost but don't quite have his first name, since those people are clearly heretics turning from the true light. To escape this, you purchase an 'a' for your name in a one-time fundraising scheme called 'buying a vowel.'

I'd agree with you here. I disagree with you about Roosevelt.

well too bad he was really jack the ripper.

Harding was more of a buffoon but he didn't have the power or the reach of the prez nowadays.

Memo to Don #1 -- dissemination of an allegation does not consitute acceptance of the truth of the matter asserted.
Memo to Don #2 -- many allegations against Bushco are assumed likely to be true because they corroborate or are consistent with previously-revealed facts or allegations often disseminated by multiple persons, many of whom are not predisposed to be opposed to the Bush administration, often because they are past supporters or members of same.

Could the allegations be true? Of course.

Are they? We have no idea.

OMG!!!! Don IS Rumsfeld!

Did I miss the part that explains how this is somehow a partisan issue? Fucking hell. You all know that this could just as easily happened under a Clinton administration. Of course we wouldn't have been there in the first place, but still.

Ah the World Bank. My favorite fucking people.

No, but you missed the part that explains why partisans seize the opportunity to take it all on face value--it's the exact same slight of hand that the Freepers used for 8 years under Clinton ("Is there not a part of the Constitution (aside from the 2nd Amendment, natch) that Bushco is willing to fucking shred?")

many allegations against Bushco are assumed likely to be true because they corroborate or are consistent with previously-revealed facts or allegations often disseminated by multiple persons, many of whom are not predisposed to be opposed to the Bush administration, often because they are past supporters or members of same.

This is the same logic that people use support Kathleen Willey's charges of rape.

Now--someone tell me again why a news organization saw fit to sit on information that their freelancers were sexually harassed by US armed forces. hstencil says that the reason is obvious--they didn't want to be embarassed should the allegations be proven false??? That's essentially the government's conclusion. Prison abuse was in the news in January already--yet three weeks into the deluge of pictures being published in April, Reuters says they have a story now that their three freelancers had their case thrown out?

I know nothing about these freelancers--their affilations, their work, their past work, their probable future in Iraq. All I know is that the government said they didn't have a case. But I'm supposed to assume that despite lack of hard evidence, I'm supposed to assume that the US is guilty. This is exactly like assume that, because Kobe's victim got laid three other times that weekend, that she willingly laid down for Kobe.

by the way my new band is called the Geirbot Parallels and our first single, "Don't Knock the Gothic Anus," will be ready for, um, "release" by June

furthermore, the fact that the reporters sat on it signifies NOTHING about its veracity. reporters in conflict areas are notoriously hard-bitten and loathe to reveal weakness. it's a recognized problem and leads many war reparters to suffer severe psychiatric breakdowns. add in the fact that these guys were iraqis and it's not strange to me at all that they didn't go public with allegations of being forced to stick their fingers in their own asses and lick them, at least not until the Army had addressed their complaints.

Anyway. Why did Reuters get a letter from Sanchez this Monday... that was dated March 3rd?

My point being that it's complex, and it hardly seems unlikely at all that any number of people along the line should wanna wait to start playing this story.

sorry cheap shot

To be honest, a lot of your arguments are prejudicial towards those who hold power.

In fact, the law does not recognize a different burden of proof for the party in power. It assumes that incriminating evidence holds all the power, that the burden of proof is on the accusor.

furthermore, the fact that the reporters sat on it signifies NOTHING about its veracity

No, but since there is very little to judge the veracity of the accounts here--than circumstantial evidence and hearsay--it seems at least somewhat appropriate to be curious about other elements of the case. Including issues of timing.

blount wins <x-post mania>

meanwhile, back to the headlines:

US soldier alleges cover-up in prison abuse
1 hour, 47 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A member of US military intelligence said that the army tried to cover up the extent of detainee abuse in Iraq, a US television network reported.

Sergeant Samuel Provance told ABC television that dozens of soldiers had been involved in the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

Seven soldiers have been charged. The first will face a court-martial Wednesday in the Iraqi capital.

"There's definitely a cover-up," Provance said in an interview with the World News Tonight programme released in advance of the broadcast. "People are either telling themselves or being told to be quiet."

Provance, 30, was part of the 302nd Military Intelligence Battalion stationed at Abu Ghraib last September.

ABC said the soldier, who is now in Germany, gave the interview despite orders from his commanders not to.

"What I was surprised at was the silence," Provance was quoted as saying. "The collective silence by so many people that had to be involved, that had to have seen something or heard something."

Provance ran the military intelligence computer network at the prison.

He said he did not see the abuse that has brought international criticism on the US military but that interrogators admitted they directed the military police to be rough with prisoners.

"Anything (the MPs) were to do legally or otherwise, they were to take those commands from the interrogators," Provance said.

The seven charged so far, who include three women, are all from a military police company.

Some have said they acted under orders but military officials have said the abuse seen in photos of naked prisoners at Abu Ghraib was limited to a few MPs.

Provance said the sexual humiliation began as a technique ordered by military intelligence.

"One interrogator told me about how commonly the detainees were stripped naked, and in some occasions, wearing women's underwear," Provance said.

"If it's your job to strip people naked, yell at them, scream at them, humiliate them, it's not going to be too hard to move from that to another level."

Provance told how US soldiers struck prisoners around the neck and inmates were knocked out.

"Then (the soldier) would go to the next detainee, who would be very fearful and voicing their fear, and the MP would calm him down and say: 'We're not going to do that. It's okay. Everything's fine,' and then do the exact same thing to him."

Provance also described how two drunken interrogators took a female Iraqi prisoner from her cell in the middle of the night and stripped her to the waist. The men were restrained by another MP.

The role of US military intelligence in the abuse is being investigated by Major General George Fay, the army's deputy chief of staff for intelligence.

Provance said that when Fay interviewed him, he seemed interested only in the military police, not the interrogators, and seemed to discourage him from testifying.

Provance said Fay threatened to take action against him for failing to report what he saw sooner.

"I feel like I'm being punished for being honest," Provance said.

"You know, it was almost as if I actually felt if all my statements were shredded and I said, like most everybody else, 'I didn't hear anything, I didn't see anything. I don't know what you're talking about,' then my life would be just fine right now."

Maybe not exactly what you have in mind, but.

People often must evaluate conflicting reports and testimony in an effort to reconcile them into a unified idea of what happened.
It is hard to be a totally reliable witness. Memory plays tricks. Details are missed. Sequences of events become uncertain. It is reasonable to discount such minor discrepancies as inevitable.

However, when two accounts by two sets of witnesses are fundamentally incompatible in such a way that they cannot be reconciled at all, the proper assumption is that one set of witnesses is lying. This is easier to believe than that the two sets of witnesses violated the laws of physics and occupied opposite realities in the same physical time and space. That's what we have here in the stories of the NBC and Reuters employees and the US Army report. As sure as we live and breathe, someone is lying. All we have to do is decide which report to believe.

I hate to say it, but, based on every conceivable measure, from comparing motivations of the two sets of witnesses, down to a dozen small corroborative details in the news report, everything runs in just one direction: these allegations are true and the denials are false.

Moreover, this news report doesn't actually make a single allegation about Bushco. But I can see your point.

As more of these credible reports come forward, it becomes less and less possible to believe the denials made by the administration, and their version of events (only seven soldiers out of control in one prison - god only knows why or how t happened) seems more and more false and fabricated. It's slowly becoming an inescapable conclusion that Bushco has unclean hands in this matter and they are lying their heads off.

I'm not sure what "logic" you're referring to. You have no complaint from me that prior allegations of sexual harassment/misconduct against Clinton lend greater veracity to Kathleen Willey's charges. But you are implying that the quality and source of the allegations against Clinton are comparable to those against Bush to which I refer. Let's compare: tabloids v. major news organizations; people belonging to, financially supported or managed by members of the political opposition v. former members of the President's own government.

"Open to all women, the Center is not owned or operated by any particular group or individual. Democratically elected women will run the Center. Activities offered at the Center will include:
-Women and children’s nutrition and health classes
-Literacy and English programs
-Internet café to teach computer and internet skills
-Democracy education"

which more than implies that the WfWI proposal was not accepted in full.

This is ALL ABOUT DONALD RUMSFELD, stay focused!
I was just about to say "If we keep arguing about this someone's going to accuse me of beating some drum about it, which wasn't the point." Heh.

A little more detail on the semi-recent history of women in Iraq.

xpost dammit Dan

You're not really serious are you?

Please note I am NOT talking about Saddam Hussein here. He is in custody, his regime as such no longer exists. You may continue to hold to his expulsion as an explanation for everything, you can even hold to it as a justification if you like, especially since WMD is now essentially a dead letter. But is the situation actually better six months after his capture? Do you think that the troops there are welcomed there by broad swathes of the population? Do you think our continued presence there in the face of active opposition or passive dislike is going to be something worthwhile, especially after June 30? Do you think the adjustments to recruit back Saddam/Ba'ath connected figures into the Iraqi army and police are acceptable?

These are just a few questions that could be asked.

can you 'win' a 'war' that you accidentally created in the first place?

also that link Stuart posted is hilarious! George Bush says unequivocally to Pervez Musharraf that Seymour Hersh is a "liar." Well daggummit it must be true!

(never mind that he also called Adam Clymer an "asshole" which I would disagree with based solely on Clymer's most recent piece on fly-fishing. How could anybody call a fly-fisherman an asshole? Vegetarians and animal rights wackos don't answer, please.)

The goals are pretty clear, and specific to a degree: A free Iraqi democracy will act as an example and an alternative to the current array of authoritarian and oppressive governments in the middle east which, for a variety of reasons, have given rise to international militant Islamist terrorism.

The mission plan changes and adapts to the situation on the ground, but the general outline consists of doing things to promote and enable the formation of a democratic Iraqi government - things like rebuilding infrastructure, organizing government ministries and programs, providing security while training Iraqi defense and police forces to provide it in the future, etc.

Yes, the security situation is a huge problem. It is probably our greatest obstacle. But I think most of the Iraqis who are mad at us are mad because they aren't safe, not because they think we're infidels or imperialists or we want to steal their oil. If things were calm, Iraqis would be more patient and receptive. That sounds obvious, because it is obvious. It's obvious to the various factions who don't want to see us succeed, too. I don't think many of the people fighting the coalition are doing so out of concern for the welfare of Iraqis. They don't want an arab democracy in the middle east. The easiest way for them to attack our progress is through terrorizing the security situation, so that's what they're doing. They're not preaching the merits of a theocracy, or arguing the particulars of the interim constitution, or denouncing the coalition for it's abuses and mistakes and demanding orderly justice be served. They're blowing shit up. They're blowing up coalition soldiers, and Iraqis who cooperate with us. They're threatening administrators of schools and telling them not to accept reconstruction assistance from us. They're terrorizing businesses that don't put posters of al Sadr in their windows. I'm not saying all this because I need to convince anybody that these are bad guys. You all know that. My point is that what we're seeing is the best and only tactic they have against us. If they just stood back and waited for the populace to revolt, it would never happen. If they antagonize the system from every possible angle, and make as many people in Iraq as miserable and angry as possible, and hope people elsewhere see that misery and anger and lose confidence in the mission, only then do they have a hope of defeating us.

do you think that that current mission is succeeding

Like I said, the lack of security is a big obstacle. It's our job to overcome it, and I think we can. We're making lots of progress all over Iraq in ways that don't get reported on or stressed much. On one hand I hate that because people don't necessarily see the big picture and think everything is going to shit. On the other hand, if those Women's Centers were all over the papers and the tv news, they'd probably get blown up within a week.

I think we're also making progress against the insurgents themselves. It's urgent and key to find them and take them out faster than they can sway new recruits. I think we are. I don't think they have a large enough perpetual supply of manpower because, like I said, their goals aren't in sync with the general welfare of Iraqis. Al Sadr's hired gang was made up of impoverished street kids for a reason. The insurgents are still dangerous, though, and they're receiving assistance and supplies from who knows where, but they're not winning.

Short term measures of long term progress aren't easy to make. It's a matter of perspective, I guess. I think we're winning, but I understand how someone could disagree. They're equally valid conclusions, based on different assumptions. Anyway, it's the long term that matters. We can't win in a matter of months. We could only lose that fast if we just gave up. Whatever mistakes we make, however fallible we are in living up to our own standards, I think we're better than the guys we're fighting - better for us and for the Iraqis, despite our flaws. If we're better, and our intentions and our capabilities are better, and we apply constant pressure to improve our flaws, then all it takes is the right strategy and constant will. I think we have a strategy that'll work. We have to keep an eye on it, and adapt it and adjust it, and if it doesn't work we'll replace it. It doesn't matter how good the strategy is if the will to implement it is missing, though. We've got to keep watch over both.

I need an editor.

and the U.S. had nothing to do with this, of course

hstencil: Do you really think what we see in those picture contributed to our progress? I doubt it. If the accusations of using horrendous techniques on random Iraqis are true, I don't see how that fits into or contributes to a strategy against the insurgents. Gathering intelligence about a shadowy and well organized guerilla army by torturing and blackmailing random Iraqis is not a very efficient way to go about it. We have to get to the bottom of what happened at Abu Ghraib and punish those responsible - whoever they may be. Right now, I don't think it was Rumsfeld. I don't see the evidence or the motive. But we're investigating, and there's tons of attention being paid to what happened and what we're doing about it. That's how we preserve our dignity and honor and laws.

If that's true, then I guess we had better do something about that then, hmm?

how true this is.... wonder if we'll get a soul-searching doc about rumsfeld in 2038.... "i made some mistakes."

"The internal Army report on the abuse charges, written by Major General Antonio Taguba in February, revealed that [Major General Geoffrey] Miller urged that the commanders in Baghdad change policy and place military intelligence in charge of [Abu Gharib] prison. The report quoted Miller as recommending that 'detention operations must act as an enabler for interrogation.'" {emphasis mine}

"Miller's concept, as it emerged in recent Senate hearings, was to 'Gitmoize' the prison system in Iraq -- to make it more focussed on interrogation. He also briefed military commanders in Iraq on th interrogation methods used in Cuba -- methods that could, with special approval, include sleep deprivation, exposure to extremes of cold and heat, and placing prisoners in 'stress positions' for agonizing lengths of time.'" {emphasis mine}

this plausable deniability shit has to stop. MI and Rummy and many high-ranking officers and officials, while not directly responsible, are certainly culpable.

That's how we preserve our dignity and honor and laws.

'honor'

I don't believe that's what I saw in those photos.

How?

so by the end of this paragraph, you should be able to realize what Stuart's last name is, right?

but how is even what Hersh/Taguba suggesting legal or moral or unflawed? and why do you not see the possibility that the condoning of certain illegal acts could lead to even greater illegal acts?

Ain't no lions or tigers-ain't no mamba snake
Just the sweet watermelon and the buckwheat cake
Ev'rybody is as happy as a man can be
Climb aboard, little wog-sail away with me

Sail away-sail away
We will cross the mighty ocean into Charleston Bay
Sail away-sail away
We will cross the mighty ocean into Charleston Bay

In America every man is free
To take care of his home and his family
You'll be as happy as a monkey in a monkey tree
You're all gonna be an American

Sail away-sail away
We will cross the mighty ocean into Charleston Bay
Sail away-sail away
We will cross the mighty ocean into Charleston Bay

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too

Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one no

that's a slippery slope if I've ever seen one.

Stuart: "The what?"

x-post

(unlike our crybaby soldiers)

"The four Geneva Conventions that are in effect today -- covering the treatment of the wounded on land and at sea, prisoners of war, and civilians in time of war -- were drafted in 1949, in the aftermath of the Second World War. Some two hundred countries have ratified them, including all the members of the United Nations." {emphasis mine}

"'We were dealing here with a broad pattern, not individual acts. There was a pattern and a system." - Pierre Krahenbuhl, director of operations for the International Red Cross

Who was the International Red Cross founded by? Henri Dumant, who also codified the Convention of the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field - the first Geneva Convention.

Hmm...and yet a couple of posts before:

The Geneva Conventions cover people who wear UNIFORMS and STOP FIGHTING once they've been captured.

I have to say I have yet to see you NOT backtrack. Over anything, really.

Anyway, some other stuff:

Berg's father sends a message to the Stop the War Coalition

Stivits trial about to begin in Baghdad; al-Jazeera among the media attending, but no direct broadcast allowed.

ICRC official expressing doubts over improvements from February to March. And he adds this:

Speaking about the original report in February, Mr Krahenbuhl added: "We had identified a series of elements and patterns in terms of treatment and conditions that appeared to us contrary to some of the provisions contained in the Geneva Conventions.

"Some of the aspects that we documented appeared to us to be tantamount to torture, certainly elements of inhuman and degrading treatment."

Boy, that stress treatment, lemme tell ya.

when you don't know who the insurgents are, you'll interrogate anybody. That's straight outta the Vietnam playbook.

oh right, "we don't ask for permission slips." Right.

It's not a black and white issue.

But what does it matter? They weren't civilians and they weren't POWs so they weren't covered by the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, why should we even care? Should you care?

We've got the American Jesus
See him on the interstate,
We've got the American Jesus
He helped build the president's estate

I feel sorry for the earth's population
'Cause so few live in the U.S.A,
At least the foreigners can copy our morality,
They can visit but they cannot stay,
Only precious few can garner our prosperity,
It makes us walk with renewed confidence,
We've got a place to go when we die
And the architect resides right here

We've got the American Jesus
Bolstering their ship of faith
We've got the American Jesus
Overwhelming millions every day

He's the farmer barren fields, (In God)
The force the army wields, (We trust)
The expression in the faces of the starving millions, (Because he's one of us)
The power of the man. (Break down)
He's the fuel that drives the Klan, (Cave in)
He's the motive and the conscience of the murderer (He can redeem your sins)
He's the preacher on TV, (Strong heart)
The false sincerity, (Clear mind)
The form letter that's written by the big computer, (And indefinitely kind)
He's the nuclear bombs, (You lose)
And the kids with no moms (We win)
And I'm fearful that he's inside me (He is our champion)

We've got the American Jesus
See him on the interstate
We've got the American Jesus
Exercising his authority
We've got the American Jesus
Bolstering their ship of faith
We've got the American Jesus
Overwhelming millions every day

http://victoryatseaonline.com/war/ww2/images/great-escape.gif

"oh, fuck"

Since when did first hand testimony from alleged victims = hearsay?

The 'investigators' didn't even speak to the accusers before coming to the conclusion that there was no abuse. Going back to a previous analogy how does "We didn't need to speak to Kathleen Willey because she wasn't raped" sound?
And then you talk about due process?

(multiple x-post, it's been a long read)

I'm referring to evidence other than the direct testimony of the two parties involved.

The 'investigators' didn't even speak to the accusers before coming to the conclusion that there was no abuse.

From the stories linked here, we do not know if the accusers provided written testimony; it seems that we can assume some sort of written complaint must have been filed. We don't know anything about the investigative process from the reports filed, except for aspects favorable to Reuters. I assume that if this story has legs, more details will follow.

rockist!
but also: basic officer's duty is to escape, n'est-ce pas? and brit soldiers lack uniforms...

I've never known don to have this much faith in the way media operate.