More On Abu Ghraib
According to the New York Times, Brigadier General Karpinski refuses to take the fall for the abuse, rape, and torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. It must be so disconcerting to the top brass when those so ordered do not fall on their swords.
Not that she does not bear responsibility; she just is not solely responsible. She was, it seems, a weak, weak commander.
"General Karpinski, who has returned home to South Carolina and her civilian life as a business consultant, said she visited Abu Ghraib as often as twice a week last fall and had repeatedly instructed military police officers under her command to treat prisoners humanely and in accord with international human rights agreements.
"'I can speak some Arabic,' said General Karpinski, a New Jersey native who spent almost a decade as an active duty soldier before joining the Army Reserve in 1987. 'I'm not fluent, but when I went to any of my prison facilities, I would make it a point to try to talk to the detainees.'
"But she said she did not visit Cellblock 1A, in keeping with the wishes of military intelligence officers who, she said, worried that unnecessary visits might interfere with their interrogations of Iraqis."
Just so we've got this straight: she did not visit a part of a prison under her administration where the intel people were. It is a commanding officer's privilege and duty to inspect all of his or her command. A strong officer would have told the intel people to back off. However, it's quite probable that Gen. Karpinski didn't want to know about what was going on:
"She acknowledged that she 'probably should have been more aggressive' about visiting the interrogation cellblock, especially after military intelligence officers at the prison went 'to great lengths to try to exclude the I.C.R.C. from access to that interrogation wing.'"
The ICRC, of course, is the International Committee of the Red Cross. Ding ding ding! Red flag! They didn't want the Red Cross coming around, of course, because they were torturing prisoners. I'm a simple man--I went to public schools, and I possess no advance degrees--but I do have some idea as to why you'd want to keep a watchdog group away. Doesn't seem that difficult, does it?
Just so you don't think that this incident is isolated, or indicative of general American depravity, you should note that the Brits are also rather morally challenged in dealing with prisoners.
The Glasgow Sunday Herald article, unlike one in the NYT, is more lurid. Also, and more importantly, it talks of systemic abuse; for example, it quotes US Gen. Mark Kimmitt as saying: "I'd like to sit here and say that these are the only prisoner abuse cases that we're aware of, but we know that there have been others."
(Emphasis added)
Being a UK paper, the Glasgow Sunday Herald is free to editorialize in the news: for example, they refer to US soldier Lynndie England, who prominently figures in many of the photos, as being from a trailer park in West Virginia. I'll leave it to you to ponder the irony of the Scots calling others rednecks.
Seriously, though, the Glasgow paper gives a lot of detail about the private contractors in the prison--something notably absent from many of the stories on this issue in the US press. Notably, the Scottish story also talks about the link between the contractors and the Bush Administration. Consider:
"But these soldiers aren't simply mavericks. Some accused claim they acted on the orders of military intelligence and the CIA, and that some of the torture sessions were under the control of mercenaries hired by the US to conduct interrogations. Two 'civilian contract' organisations taking part in interrogations at Abu Ghraib are linked to the Bush administration.
"California-based Titan Corporation says it is 'a leading provider of solutions and services for national security'. Between 2003-04, it gave nearly $40,000 to George W Bush's Republican Party. Titan supplied translators to the military.
"CACI International Inc. describes its aim as helping 'America's intelligence community in the war on terrorism'. Richard Armitage, the current deputy US secretary of state, sat on CACI's board.
"No civilians, however, are facing charges as military law does not apply to them. Colonel Jill Morgenthaler, from CentCom, said that one civilian contractor was accused along with six soldiers of mistreating prisoners. However, it was left to the contractor to 'deal with him'. One civilian interrogator told army investigators that he had 'unintentionally' broken several tables during interrogations as he was trying to 'fear-up' detainees."
Really makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?
According to the New York Times, Brigadier General Karpinski refuses to take the fall for the abuse, rape, and torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. It must be so disconcerting to the top brass when those so ordered do not fall on their swords.
Not that she does not bear responsibility; she just is not solely responsible. She was, it seems, a weak, weak commander.
"General Karpinski, who has returned home to South Carolina and her civilian life as a business consultant, said she visited Abu Ghraib as often as twice a week last fall and had repeatedly instructed military police officers under her command to treat prisoners humanely and in accord with international human rights agreements.
"'I can speak some Arabic,' said General Karpinski, a New Jersey native who spent almost a decade as an active duty soldier before joining the Army Reserve in 1987. 'I'm not fluent, but when I went to any of my prison facilities, I would make it a point to try to talk to the detainees.'
"But she said she did not visit Cellblock 1A, in keeping with the wishes of military intelligence officers who, she said, worried that unnecessary visits might interfere with their interrogations of Iraqis."
Just so we've got this straight: she did not visit a part of a prison under her administration where the intel people were. It is a commanding officer's privilege and duty to inspect all of his or her command. A strong officer would have told the intel people to back off. However, it's quite probable that Gen. Karpinski didn't want to know about what was going on:
"She acknowledged that she 'probably should have been more aggressive' about visiting the interrogation cellblock, especially after military intelligence officers at the prison went 'to great lengths to try to exclude the I.C.R.C. from access to that interrogation wing.'"
The ICRC, of course, is the International Committee of the Red Cross. Ding ding ding! Red flag! They didn't want the Red Cross coming around, of course, because they were torturing prisoners. I'm a simple man--I went to public schools, and I possess no advance degrees--but I do have some idea as to why you'd want to keep a watchdog group away. Doesn't seem that difficult, does it?
Just so you don't think that this incident is isolated, or indicative of general American depravity, you should note that the Brits are also rather morally challenged in dealing with prisoners.
The Glasgow Sunday Herald article, unlike one in the NYT, is more lurid. Also, and more importantly, it talks of systemic abuse; for example, it quotes US Gen. Mark Kimmitt as saying: "I'd like to sit here and say that these are the only prisoner abuse cases that we're aware of, but we know that there have been others."
(Emphasis added)
Being a UK paper, the Glasgow Sunday Herald is free to editorialize in the news: for example, they refer to US soldier Lynndie England, who prominently figures in many of the photos, as being from a trailer park in West Virginia. I'll leave it to you to ponder the irony of the Scots calling others rednecks.
Seriously, though, the Glasgow paper gives a lot of detail about the private contractors in the prison--something notably absent from many of the stories on this issue in the US press. Notably, the Scottish story also talks about the link between the contractors and the Bush Administration. Consider:
"But these soldiers aren't simply mavericks. Some accused claim they acted on the orders of military intelligence and the CIA, and that some of the torture sessions were under the control of mercenaries hired by the US to conduct interrogations. Two 'civilian contract' organisations taking part in interrogations at Abu Ghraib are linked to the Bush administration.
"California-based Titan Corporation says it is 'a leading provider of solutions and services for national security'. Between 2003-04, it gave nearly $40,000 to George W Bush's Republican Party. Titan supplied translators to the military.
"CACI International Inc. describes its aim as helping 'America's intelligence community in the war on terrorism'. Richard Armitage, the current deputy US secretary of state, sat on CACI's board.
"No civilians, however, are facing charges as military law does not apply to them. Colonel Jill Morgenthaler, from CentCom, said that one civilian contractor was accused along with six soldiers of mistreating prisoners. However, it was left to the contractor to 'deal with him'. One civilian interrogator told army investigators that he had 'unintentionally' broken several tables during interrogations as he was trying to 'fear-up' detainees."
Really makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?
posted by Jude at 4:59 PM
