About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Wednesday, May 05, 2004

The End Result of Too Much Discretion



For the past two years, human rights organizations have requested the guidelines used to govern interrogation, the results of investigations of alleged instances of torture or mistreatment, information on individuals transferred to third countries for interrogation, and -- most important -- access to the detainees and their medical records to ascertain whether they have been abused. The administration either denied or failed even to acknowledge many of these requests, including those concerning findings of the investigation of the case of two detainees who died in custody more than a year ago. As for combatants sent to third countries, among them countries with a record of torture, the administration claimed to have obtained assurances that the countries do not torture detained combatants.

- Stopping the Abuse of Detainees



The End Result of Too Much Discretion: The mistreatment, including by disgusting sexual ways in some cases involving women soldiers (though there are now some staged pictures of Iraqi women having sex with service personnel, the report does make mention of some improper sexual contact and photographing of nude women prisoners), of prisoners in Abu Ghraib [former torture station for Saddam Hussein] is now well known. The problem was under investigation for months, though only became known to the wider public with the release of the now infamous photos on 60 Minutes and a New Yorker article by Sy Hersh. Mark Kleiman has an excellent set of insights about the matter. The troubling issue of military contractors, and how hard it is legally and in practice to punish them for wrongdoing, is discussed here.

It is comforting to view this incident as a single unfortunate case of a few bad seeds, but realistic people know differently. As one person told me, it is far from surprising that soldiers would be tempted to mistreat those they fight and believe (with reason, though the internal army report notes sixty percent of the detainees appear to be innocent Update: see comments) are guilty of some nasty things. A bit more insight and research will show how deep the problem truly is. There is the lack of proper training and oversight (the fact military contractors currently exist in a sort of de facto lawless zone is shocking and shockingly ignored) as well as the realization that this is not an isolated incident.

I recently had a debate with someone who wanted me to give the government some slack in the Padilla case given the stakes. I too care about the stakes -- this is what happens when there is not enough oversight, when we leave it up to the executive to ensure our prisoners are properly cared for, and the sad results (including the backlash, poisoning of the well, and even greater mistrust). Do you think there is not a possibility that domestic "enemy combatants" of the Padilla sort will not be treated in such a matter? Many of whom that very well might be innocent? I question it when even top members of the Justice Department feel our standards are currently too low, while other leading figures in the government have even a few days ago claimed not to even read the report on abuses -- one out there for months.

Anyway, the photos and behavior was shocking, but sadly, one must ask: just how much? I bet domestic prison guards are not the only ones saying, "sadly, not enough."

Update: I added a link to the Hersh piece and noted that the abuses were done in the same center where Saddam Hussein's forces tortured prisoners. Slate has some good coverage on this whole issue as well, including this excellent selection of quotes about how our invasion ended this sort of thing. Fred Kaplan also suggests why the President didn't say he was sorry. Is he a fan of the movie Love Story?

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Taguba report did not find that "sixty percent of the detainees appear to be innocent."

What it actually said was:

"U.S. Army report on Iraqi prisoner abuse: Executive summary of Article 15-6 investigation of the 800th: Military Police Brigade by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (PART TWO), Point 24: There are currently three separate release mechanisms in the theater-wide internment operations. First, the apprehending unit can release a detainee if there is a determination that their continued detention is not warranted. Secondly, a criminal detainee can be released after it has been determined that the detainee has no intelligence value, and that their release would not be detrimental to society. BG Karpinski had signature authority to release detainees in this second category. Lastly, detainees accused of committing "Crimes Against the Coalition," who are held throughout the separate facilities in the CJTF-7 AOR, can be released upon a determination that they are of no intelligence value and no longer pose a significant threat to Coalition Forces. The release process for this category of detainee is a screening by the local US Forces Magistrate Cell and a review by a Detainee Release Board consisting of BG Karpinski, COL Marc Warren, SJA, CJTF-7, and MG Barbara Fast, C-2, CJTF-7. MG Fast is the "Detainee Release Authority" for detainees being held for committing crimes against the coalition. According to BG Karpinski, this category of detainee makes up more than 60% of the total detainee population, and is the fastest growing category. However, MG Fast, according to BG Karpinski, routinely denied the board's recommendations to release detainees in this category who were no longer deemed a threat and clearly met the requirements for release."

Hersh lied/misreported/misread or otherwise screwed up his source.

Powerline and Judicious Asininity are on the case.

Joe said...

Hersh noted: "The Taguba study noted that more than sixty per cent of the civilian inmates at Abu Ghraib were deemed not to be a threat to society, which should have enabled them to be released. Karpinski’s defense, Taguba said, was that her superior officers 'routinely' rejected her recommendations regarding the release of such prisoners."

So, if anything, your beef should be with me. "Innocent" in my view means that they should not have been held any longer and thus were free to go. It doesn't necessarily mean they are clean of all wrongdoing. The Red Cross put the numbers even higher.

The wording is a bit loose, but your criticism is a bit overblown. Thanks though for the correction.

Post a Comment

Thanks for your .02!