Insomnia ([info]insomnia) wrote,
@ 2005-03-02 10:13:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Torture and ice cream.
While the Pentagon has made a handful of MPs and Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski the scapegoats for Abu Ghraib, all of the latest testimony is pointing out what some reporters knew a long time ago. The true chain of command for those orders looks something like this:

George W. Bush --> Donald Rumsfeld -->  Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez --> Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast --> Maj. General Geoffrey Miller --> Col. Thomas Pappas --> Lt. Col. Stephen Jordan.

As you see, this bypasses Karpinski entirely. The ultimate truth, however, is that there were multiple chains of command, with many cooks in the kitchen from rival agencies, with Donald Rumsfeld leveraging his power to gather his own intelligence seperately from the CIA. He did this through a command chain that looks somewhat different.

Donald Rumsfeld --> Douglas Feith --> Michael Cambone --> Lt. Gen. William Boykin --> Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller --> Col. Thomas Pappas --> Lt. Col. Stephen Jordan.

There was also other forces in the government at work, applying often contradictory rules on how to deal with detainees. These chains included:
George W. Bush --> Condoleeza Rice --> Fran Townsend --> Lt. Col. Stephen Jordan
AND
George W. Bush --> George Tenet --> CIA interrogators -->Pappas/Jordan

The CIA used Abu Ghraib as a place to interrogate prisoners "off the books", intentionally avoiding scrutiny of the Red Cross and other international organizations. Their methods of interrogation were not the same as those generally used by military intelligence, though it is unclear to what extent MI took its cues from the CIA operatives onsite and visa versa.

Basically, there were too many cooks, no clear chain of command... and Rumsfeld was at the center of all of it, playing several contradictory roles:
Official face of Pentagon: The US should abide by the rules of the Geneva convention in Iraq.
What he told his generals: We should toughen up the individual procedures to make our prisoners as uncomfortable as possible, in an attempt to get information from them.
What he told his intelligence wing: We should import questionable interrogation techniques used elsewhere, even if those techniques were used in a context where the Geneva Conventions don't apply.

Rumsfeld can't have it all three ways and still walk away with clean hands.

...and your hands won't be clean either, if you celebrate Yahoo's birthday by getting a free scoop of ice cream at your local Baskin-Robbins.

So, there you have it. Torture and ice cream. (Rumsfeld raspberry ripple?!)


(4 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]deedeebythebay
2005-03-02 06:46 pm UTC (link)
Thanks so much for the link on the ice cream. I created an account for each of my girls and we'll be getting ice cream this afternoon!

(Reply to this)


[info]kungfumegadevil
2005-03-02 11:20 pm UTC (link)
I notice that in the link you cited before, regarding the Senate hearing on Abu Ghirab, Rumsfeld described the intelligence brigade commander as being not only the officer in charge of the civilian interrogators, but also as having "tactical control" over the MPs.

I'm curious as to what that means. It's hard to keep score, but presumably he was referring to General Miller (former commandant of Guantanamo Bay, called in to assist with intelligence-gathering operations in Iraq) and not General Karpinski (commanding officer of the 800th MP Brigade). The degree of "tactical control" has yet to be explained, as does the curious omission of the officer's name in the Senate hearing.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]insomnia
2005-03-02 11:37 pm UTC (link)
It's kind of a dicey thing. He seems to be saying, basically, that MI was in charge of the interrogations, but that the problem wasn't the interrogations, but the behavior of the MPs... the ones that Gen. Miller leaned on, essentially, letting it be known that they were supposed to prepare the prisoners for successful interrogations. This was the clear inference in annex 20 of the Taguba report.

What is needed is for the Senate to demand access to all orders given by Gen. Miller relating to Abu Ghraib during that time period, as well as the Senate testimony of Miller, Pappas, and Jordan. That's not likely to happen, however.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]insomnia
2005-03-03 12:05 am UTC (link)
Specifically, Annex 20 of the Taguba report is a document that was written before the abuse at Abu Ghraib, based on recommendations that General Miller made on how to more effectively interrogate prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

From those findings:
Observation = Detention operations do not enable the interrogation mission.

Recommendation - Dedicate and train a detention guard force subordinate to the (Military Intelligence) commander that sets the conditions for the successful interrogation and exploitation of internees/detainees. This action is now in progress


In other words, Gen. Miller gave orders to Military Intelligence personnel somewhere during the Aug.-Oct. 2003 time frame that fundamentally changed the way that MPs should treat the prisoners, setting the psychological conditions necessary to make the prisoners break during interrogation.

During the months of October through December, "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees”in Tier 1A at Abu Ghraib (from Taguba’s report), including pictures date stamped October 24, 2003, of Pfc. Lynndie R. England holding leash tied to the neck of a naked detainee lying on the floor.

This is new sadistic behavior, being done under order to break prisoners. There is no coincidence.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(4 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…