"What does this all mean? It means that Rumsfeld not only knew beforehand
what was going on at BOTH Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, but his delaying action
on such publicly released information occurred because he was trying to
figure out how to suppress or at least contain the photographic evidence of
abuse." |
|
Another Bush Cover-up
DISSENSION IN THE UPPER RANKS
Posted May 14, 2004 thepeoplesvoice.org
By: Ted Lang
It never fails to astound when simple, straightforward, facts are processed
through the Beltway insiders and their corporate media, and is then
regurgitated back in a form that is totally disconnected from any modicum of
truth or reality. Nowhere has this become more obvious than in the botchery
of the reported events surrounding the Iraqi POW scandal our troops were
involved in.
Here are some examples. First, whether or not every American soldier in
Iraq was or was not involved is not the issue. The focus should be on those
involved - period, end of discussion. And the focus should be on those who
elected to be involved in placing themselves in photos while still partially
in the uniform of the United States military. Not concerning oneself with
the possibility that such photos could eventually fall into the wrong hands,
as they have, demonstrates both stupidity as well as a reckless disregard
for the possibility of disgracing the military of the United States of
America. And please, enough already with 99.99 percent of our military
being offered as serving correctly - how was this statistic derived at and
via what collection of actual, documented facts and evidence? This
situation does not equate to an Ivory Soap commercial.
Secondly, extensive facts and information abound via the real press,
specifically the foreign press and the Internet, which assert that these
"interrogation" procedures were ordered via the highest levels within the
Pentagon - again, period and end of discussion. The Pentagon specifically
transferred the general, a two-star major general, who was formerly in
charge of Camp X-ray at Guantanamo, to Abu Ghraib to "soften up" Iraqi
prisoners of war that had been detained there.
Now for those individuals who are unfamiliar with the chain of command and
military rank, rank in all services, except the Navy, progresses grade-wise
at the general officer level as follows: second lieutenant, first
lieutenant, captain, major, lieutenant colonel, colonel, and then general.
Five-star generals are a rarity, but usually appear during major conflicts.
Starting with a one-star brigadier general, the stars and rank proceed as
follows: two-star, major general; three-star, lieutenant general; and
four-star is simply termed "general." A five-star general is designated as
"General of the Army."
Even a two-star major general, such as Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, must
follow orders, and those orders usually come from a three-star lieutenant
general, one star and one immediate rank below that of Generals Lance Smith
and Richard Myers, both of whom had just testified along with Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld before the United States Senate. What I am saying,
is that the transfer of Maj. Gen Miller from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib was
decided at the highest levels, and was decided for a specific reason.
The obvious conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Secretary
Rumsfeld was indeed involved in this decision before the revelation of
prisoner abuse and the now-infamous photos that have been displayed on TV
and the Internet. Secretary Rumsfeld has intimated that he didn't know
about these events until January, but that might be limited only to his
knowledge concerning the existence of those photographs.
What does this all mean? It means that Rumsfeld not only knew beforehand
what was going on at BOTH Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, but his delaying action
on such publicly released information occurred because he was trying to
figure out how to suppress or at least contain the photographic evidence of
abuse. Containing the abuse investigation, therefore, has two motives;
first, blame will be upon just the low-level participants offering their
behavior as having just been bad, isolated incidents; and second, to prevent
an investigation from spiraling upward to Pentagon leaders.
Rush Limbaugh and other Bush administration sycophants will point out that
the torture of Iraqi prisoners was either staged and therefore fake, or not
at all that bad when compared to what the Japanese did to American prisoners
of war at Bataan and during World War II, or what the North Koreans did to
American POWs. And if the North Koreans violated the Geneva Convention, and
the North Vietnamese did likewise, is that justification for US to do the
same, even on a much milder basis? And in all likelihood, the Geneva
Convention was drawn up specifically to address the ill treatment of
prisoners during WW II.
Suddenly, there are new standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.
And if that's the way things ought to be, why change the rules now during a
military action? Why weren't these rules changed sometime during the last
55 years since they've been in effect?
Already, the Bush spin-doctors are weaving their magic. In a Washington
Post article evaluating the cover-up machinations now in progress, a May
12th article entitled "Leadership Failure is Blamed in Abuse," staff writers
Bradley Graham and Thomas E. Ricks relate, "The Army general who
investigated the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad said yesterday
that he had found no evidence the misconduct was based on orders from
high-ranking officers or involved a deliberate policy to stretch legal
limits on extracting information from detainees." Notice how there is no
actual denial - only that "no evidence was found" that the misconduct was
based on improper orders generated from higher-ups. But shouldn't the
question be: Did such orders exist?
The Army officer referred to in the Post article was of course Maj. Gen.
Antonio M. Taguba, who was neither investigating Abu Ghraib nor intelligence
methods. His report and investigation concerned military police control of
prisons and detention centers, and that did not include Abu Ghraib
specifically. Why has this report come up, and why is it now being used as
a standard for the Baghdad prison?
Actually, the only viable investigative and independent monitoring authority
in this sordid affair is the International Committee of the Red Cross, or
the ICRC. This is the independent organization specified in the terms and
conditions entered into by the 191 nations that signed the Geneva Convention
in August 1949.
In another article on the subject on the same day, and also writing for the
Post, R. Jeffrey Smith and Josh White come closer in their assessment,
offering "The U.S. general who was in charge of running prisons in Iraq told
Army investigators earlier this year that she had resisted decisions by
superior officers to hand over control of the prisons to military
intelligence officials and to authorize the use of lethal force as a first
step in keeping order - command decisions that have come in for heavy
criticism in the Iraq prison abuse scandal." Now how does that square with
the Bush sycophants saying that our prison troops were just clowning around
and the Abu scandal is much ado about nothing? These are the Army's own
reports!
The article entitled "General Asserts She Was Overruled on Prison Moves,"
goes on to state: "Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski, head of the 800th Military
Police Brigade, spoke of her resistance to the decisions in a detailed
account of her tenure furnished to Army investigators. It places two of the
highest-ranking Army officers now in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller and Lt.
Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, at the heart of the decision-making on both matters."
Now consider these revelations against what has been offered by the Bush
administration as reported by the Post's Graham and Ricks article: "Instead,
Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba attributed the scandal to the willful actions of
a small group of soldiers and to 'a failure of leadership' and supervision
by brigade and lower-level commanders. Similarly, the Army's top
intelligence officer, Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, sought to portray the
abuse as the deeds of a handful of military police soldiers, with the
peripheral involvement of U.S. military intelligence personnel in Iraq."
See what's going on? The military police command is accusing the
intelligence command, and vice versa. And that's good --nothing like
competition to root out the incompetent and the product failures. It will
be interesting to see how the Bush administration solves this dissension in
the higher ranks. In all likelihood, the Bush cover-up machinery will
figure out the best way to b.s. US and get away with yet another
unconscionable crime against the people of America and the United States
Constitution.
The Smith and White article provides even more insight on how this POW
disgrace came to be: "[Brig. Gen.] Karpinski said the decision about
transferring control of the prison to military intelligence officials was
broached at a September 2003 meeting with Miller, who was then in charge of
the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, known colloquially as
'Gitmo.' Miller had come to Iraq at the insistence of top political
officials in the Pentagon, who were frustrated by the meager intelligence
coming from prisoners. Two weeks ago, he was appointed to reform the
U.S.-run prisons in Iraq. Karpinski, the first female general officer to
lead U.S. soldiers in combat, was a beleaguered field commander trying to
cope with what she and others have described as constantly shifting
assignments, poor living conditions and near-daily mortar attacks on Abu
Ghraib. Karpinski recalled that Miller told her he wanted to 'Gitmo-ize'
the prison -- a concept that critics have said opened the door to the use of
aggressive interrogation techniques suited to loosening the tongues of
terrorist suspects at Guantanamo, not Iraqis in a common jail. Miller said
through a military spokesman yesterday that he does not recall using the
word 'Gitmo-ize.'"
I think we can all safely assume, that whether Miller used the term or not,
that term describes precisely his intent and the Pentagon's mission for him.
In a previous article, I cited only a handful of the Geneva Convention rules
violated by this high-ranking Bush bunch that have disgraced America in the
eyes of the world. And the idiotic neoconservative ploy to compare our
level of compassion in terms of degrees of torture to the brutal and
disgusting savagery that was the Nick Berg murder, has absolutely nothing to
do with this POW scandal. Those five masked killers do not necessarily
represent all Muslims, but the responsible high-ranking generals, the
Pentagon and the President of the United States do represent ALL the
American people.
-###-
©
Copyright THEODORE E. LANG 5/12/04 All rights reserved. Ted Lang is a political
analyst and a freelance writer.