United States Special Operations troops employed a set of harsh, unauthorized interrogation techniques against detainees in Iraq during a four-month period in early 2004, long after approval for their use was rescinded, according to a Pentagon inquiry released Friday.
The investigation is the last of 12 major inquiries to be made public that focus on allegations of detainee abuse by American personnel in Cuba, Afghanistan and Iraq, and the first to focus on Special Operations troops, who operate with more latitude than other military units. It detailed harsh treatment that continued at isolated bases even after the abuses first surfaced at the Abu Ghraib prison. ...
Despite the findings, General Formica recommended that none of the service members be disciplined, saying what they did was wrong but not deliberate abuse. He faulted "inadequate policy guidance" rather than "personal failure" for the mistreatment, and cited the dangerous environment in which Special Operations forces carried out their missions. He said that, from his observations, none of the detainees seemed to be the worse for wear because of the treatment. "Seventeen days with only bread and water is too long," the general concluded. But he added that the military command's surgeon general had advised him "it would take longer than 17 days to develop a protein or vitamin deficiency from a diet of bread and water."
So noted a NYT report. A few immediate thoughts. Sigh. It is telling that repeated governmental reports underlines something that human rights groups (who shouldn't be mutually exclusive with members of the U.S. government) have been telling us for years as well: "inadequate policy guidance" is at the core of the current detainee (human/fellow souls) abuse and mistreatment mess. [Admitting the fact abuse exists is sometimes hard to come by.] But, hey, actually pushing for new leadership should not forcibly include pushing for true oversight. So says various naysayers of the commentariat.
Not to worry though -- extended exposure to harsh temperatures, violence, tiny cells where one can not move, bread/water diets, and so forth is not something to cause one to be "worse for wear." To be fair, this does not appear to be in reference to the various prisoners who died. After all, Bill O'Reilly said that after visiting Gitmo (not interviewing the prisoners, but hey, not too important -- it probably would be cruel to allow that) said he saw no evidence of maltreatment. To be snarky, is he one of those journalists that required officials to kick out various others in part for equal time reasons?
Anyway, in an article respecting the investigation of the civilian deaths at Haditha, we have this tidbit:
"Saying who's a civilian or a 'muj' in Iraq, you really can't," the marine said. "That's how wishy-washy it was. This town did not want us there at all." Mr. Puckett, the lawyer, said that the marines in Haditha believed that they were operating within established rules when they cleared the house.
One wonders why. Aren't we good neighbors? It furthers my overall sentiment that we don't belong there. This is more of an occupation than a war at this point, one that is pretty lethal, of course, but it does not change the fact. Anyway, can the "a few bad apples" lie be toss to the wayside now?
On the subject of loud mouth media stars of the Right, it is interesting how Bushco thrives on personal attacks. Bush's alleged popularity (approval ratings under 40, even after his "surge") is/was based on his likeability and "honesty" (how ironic). But, a major tool in the last few years has been nastiness. And, part of the strategy has been to personalize everything. It has a certain childish/immature aspect to it that is totally fitting into the character of its putative leader.