General Karpinski's take on Abu Ghraib:
Posted by DeLong at May 1, 2004 09:16 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postThe New York Times > International > Middle East > Officer Suggests Iraq Jail Abuse Was Encouraged: General Karpinski said the special high-security cellblock at Abu Ghraib had been under the direct control of Army intelligence officers, not the reservists under her command... she suspected that they were acting with the encouragement, if not at the direction, of military intelligence units that ran the special cellblock used for interrogation. She said that C.I.A. employees often joined in the interrogations at the prison, although she said she did not know if they had unrestricted access to the cellblock....
Prisoners were beaten and threatened with rape, electrocution and dog attacks, witnesses told Army investigators, according to the report obtained by The New Yorker. Much of the abuse was sexual, with prisoners often kept naked and forced to perform simulated and real sex acts, witnesses testified. Mr. Hersh notes that such degradations, while deeply offensive in any culture, are particularly humiliating to Arabs because Islamic law and culture so strongly condemn nudity and homosexuality.
General Karpinski said she was speaking out because she believed that military commanders were trying to shift the blame exclusively to her and other reservists and away from intelligence officers still at work in Iraq. "We're disposable," she said of the military's attitude toward reservists. "Why would they want the active-duty people to take the blame? They want to put this on the M.P.'s and hope that this thing goes away. Well, it's not going to go away." The Army's public affairs office at the Pentagon referred calls about her comments to military commanders in Iraq.
General Karpinski said in the interview that the special cellblock, known as 1A, was one of about two dozen cellblocks in the large prison complex and was essentially off limits to soldiers who were not part of the interrogations, including virtually all of the military police under her command at Abu Ghraib. She said repeatedly in the interview that she was not defending the actions of the reservists who took part in the brutality, who were part of her command. She said that when she was first presented with the photographs of the abuse in January, they "sickened me." "I put my head down because I really thought I was going to throw up," she said. "It was awful. My immediate reaction was: these are bad people, because their faces revealed how much pleasure they felt at this."
But she said the context of the brutality had been lost, noting that the six Army reservists charged in the case represented were only a tiny fraction of the nearly 3,400 reservists under her command in Iraq, and that Abu Ghraib was one of 16 prisons and other incarceration centers around Iraq that she oversaw. "The suggestion that this was done with my knowledge and continued with my knowledge is so far from the truth," she said of the abuse." I wasn't aware of any of this. I'm horrified by this." She said she was also alarmed that little attention has been paid to the Army military intelligence unit that controlled Cellblock 1A, where her soldiers guarded the Iraqi detainees between interrogations.
She estimated that the floor space of the two-story cellblock was only about 60 feet by 20 feet, and that military intelligence officers were in and out of the cellblock "24 hours a day," often to escort prisoners to and from an interrogation center away from the prison cells. "They were in there at 2 in the morning, they were there at 4 in the afternoon," said General Karpinski, who arrived in Iraq last June and was the only woman to hold a command in the war zone. "This was no 9-to-5 job." She said that C.I.A. employees often participated in the interrogations at Abu Ghraib, one of Iraq's most notorious prisons during the rule of Saddam Hussein.
General Karpinski noted that one of the photographs of abused prisoners also showed the legs of 16 American soldiers — the photograph was cropped so that their upper bodies could not be seen — "and that tells you that clearly other people were participating, because I didn't have 16 people assigned to that cellblock." The photographs of American soldiers smiling, laughing and signaling "thumbs up" as Iraqi detainees were forced into sexually humiliating positions provoked outrage just as the American military was trying to pacify a rising insurgency and gain the trust of more Iraqis before turning over sovereignty to a new government on June 30.
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. 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." She was referring to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has been given access over time to Iraqi detainees at the prison.
OK, the thing is this, the damage is done. It doesn't matter now what form the prosecution of alleged torture by coalition troops takes. In the war that is alternatively for 'hearts and minds' or against Iraq and terror, images matter. There is no Public Relations appointee from a Wall Street marketing agency that can fix the damage cause by these images.
I don't really give a goddam about what the implications are domestically, or even how the suspects will be punished. That is secondary level stuff (unless, of course, torture emerges in the US as a tactic of law enforcement). The primary stuff is what these images do for the overall view of America, and I would bet it ain't positive.
Heads should roll, yes, but the issue isn't who and how, it's about damage control, image control. If we proclaim to be doing a great service to humanity and the world, we better act accordingly. The photos may be of isolated incidents, but acknowledging that does not negate their potency.
Off topic: Buffett bets against the dollar, I'm sure you heard...
The wingnuts (Adrian, are you there?) are decidedly silent on this one. No good talking points have yet been issued from RNC headquarters, so they have nothing to cut and paste yet on this site.
The right wing spin to date is that this torture was (is) an isolated exception. Dave Neiwart meets that claim head on, with tons of research showing otherwise:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_04_25_dneiwert_archive.html#108344419469370098
Surprisingly, no one has claimed that the photos were faked. Perhaps because they know that claim would be debunked. Some "real" media outlets outside the US spent two weeks verifying the photos before publishing them:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=517304
Posted by: Dem on May 1, 2004 10:20 PM... She said that when she was first presented with the photographs of the abuse in January, they "sickened me." ...
* JANUARY? *
Posted by: ctate on May 1, 2004 10:28 PMYes. January. Which makes Bush's promise that ""there will be an investigation" into the abuse of Iraqi prisoners somewhat strange. The investigation into the Army's prison system in Iraq has been conducted already.
Posted by: Brad DeLong on May 1, 2004 10:32 PMKarpinski has now gone further than that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59750-2004May1.html :
"Karpinski, who commanded the 800th Military Police Brigade, also described a high-pressure atmosphere that prized successful interrogations. A month before the alleged abuses occurred, she said, a team of military intelligence officers from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, came to Abu Ghraib last year. 'Their main and specific mission was to get the interrogators -- give them new techniques to get more information from detainees,' she said."
And we have apparent independent confirmation of this:
"In an e-mail, a commissioned officer in the unit, the 372nd Military Police Company, based in Cumberland, Md., acknowledged that the abuses had occurred but attributed them to a far-reaching failure in leadership.
" 'I won't defend my soldiers,' the officer wrote, on the condition of anonymity. 'They knew better.'
"The officer added: 'I am extremely disappointed in the way the Army has handled the entire situation and feel the leadership has been made the scapegoat for a few individuals. I think the leadership problems go much higher than the brigade commander.'...
"According to a source familiar with the March findings of an administrative review conducted by the Army, the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, which helped oversee the questioning of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, pressed members of the military police unit, 372nd Military Police Company, to use rough tactics to prepare prisoners for questioning."
So -- even given that the supposed photos of women being tortured were a crude hoax (with me being one of those taken in by it, I'm ashamed to say) -- we are still in very, very deep shit. One conservative Republican friend of mine suggests that the only way for us to extricate ourselves from it even partially at this point is to hand ALL the accused, regardless of rank, over to the World Court for international war-crimes trials.
As for the RNC having no good response: when Sgt. Stryker is one of the first to absolutely hit the ceiling over this ("elephant shit" is one of his milder terms to describe the torturers), when virtually all his conservative readers agree, and when Gen. Kimmett says both that it is totally inexcusable AND that he's almost certain it is spread far beyond Abu Ghraib Prison, there IS no way to blunt it with political spin. (Note also here, however, the simultaneous proof that not all Iraq hawks by a long shot take a tolerant view of this -- so let's not attack them unfairly for doing so, hm? It will be interesting to hear what McCain has to say.)
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on May 1, 2004 10:52 PMUnfortunately, the smile and thumbs up next to a scene of sex abuse is pretty much similar to the image of the U.S. held in the imagination by many over there who have limited knowledge of American culture.
Most Americans will not understand why this is such bad news.
The court martial has been in progress for some time. This business had been reported previously, but without the photos. The photos are what really inflame the Arab street. The US will have to live it down and it will take a long long time on best behavior.
Posted by: bakho on May 1, 2004 11:16 PM"One conservative Republican friend of mine suggests that the only way for us to extricate ourselves from it even partially at this point is to hand ALL the accused, regardless of rank, over to the World Court for international war-crimes trials."
That's pretty remarkable considering the general thrust of recent Republican postures regarding 'international law'.
The idea of turning over US troops to non-American authorities has been anathema to politicians for a long time, but has been particularly noticable in recent years as a Republican rallying cry.
Somebody on another blog mentioned turning over the alleged torturers to an Iraqi court. Could you imagine that? I don't think political expediency or objective assessments will ever convince this administration to swallow such a bitter pill. Not when it's about something Republicans have long laid claim to as a strong suit, being the protectors of American independence and exceptionalism.
Well, said Republican friend has himself spent years breathing fire and smoke about America placing itself under the control of international institutions -- but, as he says, in this case what the hell else CAN we do? And, given the quality of the evidence collected by the US itself, it's unlikely that the World Court would railroad anyone.
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on May 2, 2004 12:12 AMThe horror, the horror. The real horror is our kids are coming back to the States, or writing blog's from in-country in Iraq, telling just how overwhelmingly out of control the situation has become, to where the DoD is rehiring Saddam's secret police to run pacification for them in Falluja, as many US kids are dying now in Iraq as during the height of Viet Nam, and we have already spent as many $B's as all of Viet Nam, but the show ain't over, not by a long shot.
NONE OF THE TRUTH IS MAKING IT INTO THE MEDIA.
The real problem is we just lost the Brits public opinion, our only allie, although they weren't going to send any reinforcements anyway.
Bush has made America a pariah among nations.
Single-handedly, and all within four years.
The greatest pariah, and the greatest debtor.
Here's how bad the situation is. Ski resorts in Colorado that'd received donated Army howitzers for avalanche control are having them picked up. Our Army needs every piece of ordinance it can.
Take your Hummer to the nearest Defense Depot!
This would never have happened under Kerry or Gore.
The Bush administration is making mistake after mistake in Iraq.
American soldiers are dying because of this incompetent administration.
Posted by: Pamela Pointer on May 2, 2004 02:46 AMThe horror goes on - probably:
Seymore Hersh writes about Gen. Tabugas report on the torturing:
"He further urged that a civilian contractor, Steven Stephanowicz, of CACI International, be fired from his Army job, reprimanded, and denied his security clearances for lying to the investigating team and allowing or ordering military policemen"
Searched on google Stephanowicz and came up with this (itīs only in the google cache - the original seams to be deleted) from a military interogator at Fallujah:
21 April:
"... interrogation highlights to put these guys all together. The command was thrilled and once again the CACI folks have set a high standard for the young soldiers to follow."
25 April:
"This gave us a nice evening after dinner to head to the roof and play a round of golf. Scott Norman, Jeff Mouton, Steve Hattabaugh, Steve Stefanowicz, and I all took turns trying to hit balls over the back wall and onto the highway."
This is no hard proof, but interogation of prisoners in April in Fallujah with CACI as contractor and a Steve Stafanowicz involved makes me really really wonmder how much the recommandations of Gen. Tabuga were followed.
The URl of the google cached page is:
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:XYYOCOWnu_8J:www.am1500.com/personalities/joeryan.htm+Stefanowicz+CACI+International&hl=en
A few dots have been and will be connected. If some of the interregators are out of Guantanamo, we have close to proof positive of the kind of abuse going on there, and why a number of young detainees at the base committed suicide.
This is an administration led by a man who thinks that the ends justify the means. That position seeps down through the ranks on lines of communication none of us can know. I'm not claiming the Pres ordered abusive interrogation, or that he condones it; but a man who in every instance of his public life has followed 'ends justifies means' tactices sends an unambiguous message. Do what you have to do; just don't tell me about it.
The buck does stop there.
Posted by: knut wicksell on May 2, 2004 06:10 AMDo you think maybe it's time for us to stop pretending to be morally superior to all the world?
Posted by: Invigilator on May 2, 2004 06:57 AMPamela Pointer says:
"This would never have happened under Kerry or Gore."
I suspect many Democrats are building a big disappointment for themselves. During Iraq war I in 1991, how many Labour party members thought that a decade later we would see a Labour party lead the UK into this kind of mess?
Posted by: Tom Slee on May 2, 2004 08:30 AM"forgetting" says, in the first post:
"the damage is done" and he/she is right. If the situation were reversed (photos of Iraqi soldiers torturing US prisoners) and the Iraqi government said "we deplore this", how many outside Iraq would separate the government from the abuse? About zero, I imagine.
Posted by: Tom Slee on May 2, 2004 08:33 AMBruce writes " It will be interesting to hear what McCain has to say."
Surely you missed someone more important than Senator McCain? Don't you think it would be interesting to hear what the President of the United States has to say?
To hear him on NPR this morning was pitiful: "...I don't like this one little bit."
Since January... he hasn't liked this.
You're bloody right. Most of us are past the stage of being interested in what Mr Bush has to say. He is obviously not in charge.
It's hard to add to the outrage others have expressed. I keep thinking that eventually, all the American torturers and all the others involved, including the thousands of regular grunts in the foxhole, will eventually go home to their wives, children, and families back in the U.S. What's that going to be like for the lucky surviviors?...a few ticks up on the number spousal abuses, child beatings, divorces, broken families, alcoholism, depression, and admissions to American veterans hospitals.
Maybe America wants to use torture and this is why Republicans wanted the U.S. to be exempted from the ICC. Wasn't this war supposed to end a horrible regime that tortured and used fear to control people?
If the media is smart, anybody who tries to spin this will be painted as condoing the use of torture.
Posted by: phil on May 2, 2004 09:34 AMIn re, "This would never have happened under Kerry or Gore," and "I suspect many Democrats are building a big disappointment for themselves:"
Considering the number of top-tier Democratic politicians calling loudly for reform of the US prison system (my count: zero, though I could have missed someone), and the rather ludicrous misbehavior of various prison authorities from California to Texas and beyond, I have to agree. Voting Democratic is no panacea for an end to maltreatment of prisoners.
"This would never have happened under Kerry or Gore."
That's just silly. This kind of shit happens, it's always happened. And, yeah, perhaps a Gore or Kerry wouldn't have given so many different agencies as much free reign as Bush has; but, even so, I guarantee that the moral justification behind these atrocities is built upon outrage at 9/11, and that would exist regardless.
Posted by: Keith M Ellis on May 2, 2004 11:12 AM"I don't like this one bit", says President Bush.
It sounds like dialogue from a 50's teen chick flick or an Archie comic. How about:
"I don't like this one bit", said President Bush, making a face and stamping his little foot.
"You're cute when you're mad", said Osama, quickly exiting the room under a hail of stuffed animals.
Posted by: Zizka on May 2, 2004 11:20 AMAbout this happening under Kerry or Gore - "That's just silly. This kind of shit happens, it's always happened. And, yeah, perhaps a Gore or Kerry wouldn't have given so many different agencies as much free reign as Bush has; but, even so, I guarantee that the moral justification behind these atrocities is built upon outrage at 9/11, and that would exist regardless."
Hold on just a minute. Under Nixon we had death squads and secret wars in Southeast Asia, and near impeachment for crimes against the Constitution. Under Carter & Clinton we had a human rights policy (mocked by Republicans.) Under Reagan and BushI we had death squads and secret wars in Central America, and Iran/Contra. Now "The Party" is back in charge, we have perpetual warfare, plans from day 1 to seize Iraq's oil fields, torture is rampant, "Death Squad" Negroponte is sent to Iraq...
You don't see the pattern? Democrats = human rights. Republicans = secret wars, political persecution of opponents, foreign policy to enrich a corporate few... am I exaggerating? Seriously, am I?
Posted by: Dave Johnson on May 2, 2004 01:08 PMAmerican arrogance towards other people in the world breeds comtempt and blunders. Our past, present, and future blunders in Iraq will simply add another chapter to "The Ugly American" as earlier described by Lederer and Burdick.
Posted by: bncthor on May 2, 2004 01:31 PM"as many US kids are dying now in Iraq as during the height of Viet Nam"
I offer the above as an almost perfect example of the type of ignorance that is pervasive among the left.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on May 2, 2004 01:51 PMDave Johnson says
Under Carter & Clinton we had a human rights policy (mocked by Republicans.) Under Reagan and BushI we had death squads and secret wars in Central America, and Iran/Contra ... am I exaggerating?
Well, I wouldn't be responding if I agreed with you :-). How about -- under Johnson, Vietnam (part of), under Kennedy, Bay of Pigs. Under Carter, support for Somoza in Nicaragua and the Salvadoran government. I don't have references to hand, but it is certainly the case that US involvement in Central America did not begin with Reagan.
Posted by: Tom Slee the oldfashioned on May 2, 2004 02:41 PMThe reason that this wouldn't have happened under Kerry or Gore is that they wouldn't have gone into Iraq under the same circumstances (and perhaps not at all). Insofar as what happened here, I honestly don't think the current administration either condones or ever encouraged what occured. Now, basic torture by intel pros...that might be a different matter.
Posted by: Mike B. on May 2, 2004 03:21 PMWould this have happened under Kerry or Gore? Or Clinton? Or McCain? Or Hagel? Or Dole? Or Schwarzenegger? Or half a dozen other possible leaders who would have been miles better than the current Pres?
Well, who knows?
However, the defeatist liberal I-told-you-so squad has been asleep at the switch here, so I will step in.
Didn't people say that using Sadam's old prison was a bad idea? Didn't people say that the CPA's haphazard and careless (or malicious and callous, or maybe illegal and contravening international law) incarceration system in Iraq was a bad idea?
This is a very very bad thing, isolated incident or not. Sure shit happens, but this kind of shit is bad regardless of who it could have happened under, or regardless of whether other countries have done worse. If we let what other countries have done, or how much worse it could have been be our standard, or "shit happens," be the standard then we permit ourselves to do anything. But as far as I can tell, we let a pointlessly unjust detention system in Iraq fester until this happened, and that makes it a complete disgrace to this country.
If we really are in Iraq to bring US democrativ values there, and to bring democracy and rule of law, what was the excuse for the system there? To do it on the cheap? That also makes it a complete disgrace to this country.
And another giant mess-up that just hit this administration in the face.
Posted by: jml on May 2, 2004 03:49 PMU.S. Casualties in April: 140
Vietnam casualties by year:
year number per month
1965 1,863 155
1966 6,143 512
1967 11,153 929
1968 16,592 1,383
1969 11,616 968
1970 6,081 507
1971 2,357 196
first 2 columns from National Archive third column by calculation
I'm as anti Bush as anyone, but the claim that this would not have happened under a Democrat is over the top. OK, they would not have invaded Iraq. But this is the type of thing that happens in war. In Vietnam we pushed prisoners out of helicopters regularly to get other prisoners to talk.
Why do you think the Marines call officers, professional killers and EM, trained killers?
It is just that Marines are honest about what we were doing and did not try to sugarcoat the way war is. There is no difference between
looking a man in the face when you kill or torture him and dropping a bomb on him from
an airplane. This is what happens in war.
It does not make it right, and US policy is not to do this type of thing, but it always happens.
When you decide to go to war, do it with the knowledge that it dehumanizes everyone concerned
and will always lead to this type of thing.
Spencer, if you're not willing to spend the money and troops to pacify a very large, poor and unruly country after you invade it, torturing prisoners for military intelligence is a very poor substitute in trying to control the place. (Especially when your official goal was to win the Hearts and Minds of the locals, which now seems just a wee bit unlikely.)
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on May 3, 2004 09:41 PMGetting good intelligence information is part of controlling the place. The locals I'm sure would like to see who is finally in control there -- so they know whom to support. So, winning " the Hearts and Minds" to a very significant degree includes being simply in control of the situation (torture or no torture; surely they don't just grab whoever off the street, just for kicks), whereas NOT being in control, is certain to win you no hearts and minds at all.
Posted by: Disgusted on May 4, 2004 01:56 PMSo, Disgusted, you're going to argue that torturing Iraqis WITHOUT being able to maintain control of the country anyway (or rebuild it) isn't the worst of all possible worlds?
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on May 4, 2004 09:49 PMIn this connection, I reprint Kevin Drum's devastating response to Tacitus, the people who think the proper solution to Fallujah is for us to blitzkrieg it, and all the other advocates of the "let them hate us as long as they fear us" schtick.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_05/003825.php :
"Tacitus had a long and agonized post on Friday condemning our retreat from Fallujah and suggesting that it is the latest in a long line of ignominious Western retreats from inferior Islamic forces. It includes this:
" 'Imagine, if you will, a world in which Jimmy Carter stood strong against theocratic barbarism in Iran; a world in which Ronald Reagan displayed the fortitude to not bend to terrorists and Syrians in Lebanon; a world in which the Russians did not bow to Islamist guerrillas....'
"In the world that Tacitus imagines, main force always works -- if only you keep applying it long enough. Unfortunately, the real lesson of the past quarter century is not the one he draws. The real lesson is that we are trying to square an impossible circle.
"In a war of conquest and occupation, the kind of brute force that many on the right think we should have brought to bear in Fallujah is routine. If you are a conquering and occupying power, therefore, it's perfectly appropriate.
"However, wars of conquest and occupation are no longer acceptable in the West, even to conservatives, and so George Bush and Tony Blair have characterized Iraq as a war of liberation. But in a war of liberation, you are expected to liberate. You are emphatically NOT expected to raze entire cities at the cost of thousands of civilian lives.
"Even if this dilemma was not clear before, the events of the past year should have brought it into sharp focus for anyone who thinks seriously about these things. In a war like the one we're in, the tactics of conquest are the only ones that will work, but conquest itself is both unacceptable to us and conterproductive to our long-term goal of engaging moderate Muslims a goal accepted by both liberals and conservatives alike as key to long term victory.
"The conclusion is hard to escape: conventional military force is simply not the right weapon for the war on terror. Conquest and occupation in the heart of the Arab world are exactly what Osama bin Laden hoped for from us, and we should never have allowed him to dictate the terms of the fight like that. It's true that various forms of military force will be necessary now and again for us to eradicate terrorism, but a head-on battle with thousands of regular troops is precisely the form of military force that is least likely to produce victory.
"Tacitus is right that George Bush has fought this war foolishly, but that's been clear for over a year at least. We need to fight on our terms, not theirs, and we need a president who understands that. George Bush doesn't."
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on May 4, 2004 09:56 PMKarpinski should resign or be fired.
The General does not have the stomach to be a leader.
Whoever is her Inspector General needs to go too!
Online Casino Directory
Posted by: online casino on June 23, 2004 06:01 AMcool
Posted by: ismail on July 7, 2004 05:01 PMgreat pages
Posted by: hamide on July 7, 2004 05:02 PM