David Kay says:
Posted by DeLong at May 7, 2004 07:34 AM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postMorning News Online - Florence, Myrtle Beach | Inspector says he warned U.S. officials of Iraqi prisoner abuse: David Kay, the man who led the U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, says he repeatedly told people about problems with the interrogation of prisoners, but the military ignored him. "I was there and I kept saying the interrogation process is broken. The prison process is broken. And no one wanted to deal with it," Kay said. "It was too, too distasteful. This is a known problem, and the military refuses to deal with it."
Kay said in an interview Tuesday after speaking at the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs that the abuse of Iraqi inmates at an American-run prison west of Baghdad is a disaster for the United States. Anything less than severe action, which he described as a "hanging," against a two- or three-star general in charge means "in the Middle East, they are always going to believe we did it as part of a sanctioned process," Kay said. "I am terribly worried that if we only charge the seven or 15 reservists who were involved and condemn the contractors who were involved and maybe the one-star reserve general who was in charge of this overall military prison unit, I think we will have done a horrible mistake," Kay said.
"Who's responsible for their behavior? Or are they scot-free?" Kay asked. He said that contract employees could be charged by a federal prosecutor with "violating a normative international law" but cannot be touched by the military that hired them because "the only sanction the military has against them is removal. I can't tell you how revolted I am," he said, yet Iraqis are far more revolted at the photos broadcast worldwide the past week showing U.S. soldiers smiling and giving thumbs-up signs while naked prisoners were forced to assume humiliating positions.
In his speech at the Miller Center, Kay defended the decision to go to war in Iraq even though no one has been able to find weapons of mass destruction, which had been the main reason given for going to war. Kay also said he never saw any evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida. terror network. Kay, who previously worked in Iraq as the United Nations' chief nuclear weapons inspector, said that when American troops forced Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq was "within six to 12 months of their first nuclear weapon." Years after Iraq was defeated in the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein secretly decided in the mid-'90s to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, mostly chemical stockpiles, because they were too easy to find and could be rebuilt after world sanctions lapsed, Kay said.
Saddam kept up a policy of deception against weapons inspectors because he feared that the Iraqi people and his own army might overthrow him if they were not convinced he still had the weapons, Kay said. Every Iraqi general who has been interrogated was convinced the weapons were still in Iraq but had not seen them for years, he said. American intelligence agencies remained fooled because Iraqis who wanted Saddam toppled kept feeding them false stories about his hidden stockpiles of chemical and other weapons, Kay said. "They told us about weapons in order to get us to invade Iraq," he said. "They moved U.S. policy, and we didn't catch it."
The United States needs to massively rebuild human intelligence sources after too long a period of over-reliance on technology, Kay stressed. "As a nation, we've got to get serious about understanding the threats" and the conditions that build and foster terrorism, he said...
In wondering about how this widening shame on American honor could come to be, I have done some looking back. I remember the media stories about the collective punishment of villages wrapped in barbed wire. I remember the interviews with Major (or Colonel Sasserman) who allowed his troops "90 seconds of rage" against "suspects" during predawn raids. I remember a montage of footage covering all those predawn raids and the frightened faces of women, children and the elderly before the descending hoods delivered them to the darkness. Literal darkness. No media follow up stories on the detainees, no charges, no proceedings and not even confirmation of their captivity by the military. AND no question, concern or comment about this by any media story that I saw. I remember Rumsfeld laughing at a conference when asked whether he thought hooding was an abuse. I remember him saying that "enemy combatants" (no mention of any trial or even need of evidence for justification) deserved to be "killed or walled away forever". I remember the stories about family members of tribal leaders being detained in order to ensure the cooperation of tribal elders, again without any media comment. I remember all the checkpoint shootings and convoy shootings of civilians. I remember the military admitting that 6 of every 10 detainees, by their own admission, were innocent and released "at some point". I could go on, but hopefully, I have got you scanning your memory banks, looking at those old stories that show us the slippery slope to Abu Ghraib. Just connect the dots.
Posted by: 1MaNLan on May 7, 2004 08:25 AMI apologize for the double post. DIdn't seem to go through initially
Posted by: 1ManLan on May 7, 2004 08:30 AMOh yeah, now I recall those alledged Talibans -I guess most were, but how can we sure a bunch of innocent young teenagers weren't among them?- who were stuffed in US trucks until suffocation... That came as close to gasing them as one could technically get. In fact, I'd rather be gased then suffocate in a truck, if you ask me. If anything gas will make you unconcious rather fast. Now tell me, is it okay to remember these things or do I have some sort of social duty to scotomize these memories? Because I can't.
Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on May 7, 2004 08:33 AMWhat happens in a firm is always a direct result of the example that the CEO and other senior exec display. If they cut corners and cheat so willtheir employees. This is taught in every MBA program in the country or ought to be.
We now have an organization, the us govt with a CEO that argues he needs the power to detain "enemy combatents" in violation of every constitutional division of power built into our constitutuion. This is the example set at the top and it naturally flow down throughout the organization.Atrocities happen in the heat of battle in every war and individual soldiers get carried awy. But this did not happen in the heat of battle, it is obvious that this is a
policy of misstreating prisoners that flows down from the top. It is even evident in the way they previously were very careful to define the type of pychological pressures seen here as to not be torure. What we need to assure that
this does not end up with a few lower level people punished and nothing done about the people at the top who are responsible for the policies that encouraged this behavior.
I guess David Kay also hates America now.
Adrian's response is so typical. Apparently, the only way we can condemn attrocities for which our institutions and our people are responsible is to first condemn every attrocity for which we are not.
Make sense?
How dare outraged Catholics criticize the Church for covering up abuse when not one of these critics held press conferences on the fact that *gasp* the Hindus abuse untouchables!
Make sense now?
There's a reason. It's a stupid argument.
I thought so.
"Adrian's response is so typical. Apparently, the only way we can condemn attrocities for which our institutions and our people are responsible is to first condemn every attrocity for which we are not.
Posted by Amitava Mazumdar"
Did you condemn:
the scores of murders at Waco?
the murder of a mother holding a baby at Ruby Ridge?
Clinton's rape of juanita Broderick?
Ted K's drowning of an innocent girl?
the killing fields in Iraq?
the abuse of women in Afganistan?
No? Why are you so selective in your condemnation? BECAUSE YOU'RE A PHONY.
Adrian
Posted by: Adrian Spidle on May 7, 2004 11:12 AMAdrian, I just don't understand your logic. I did condemn (if by this you mean "were offended by" -- there weren't blogs during many of those incidents for me to express my condemnation) some of things you listed, and I didn't bother for some of the other ones. Who the fuck cares? Do I have the time to write entries on blogs for every single social and legal transgression before I'm allowed to demand accountability for crimes committed by people representing me overseas?
And, by the way, I'll wager that I and my liberal friends condemned the "killing fields" in Iraq -- not to mention El Salvador, Guatemala, Burma, and South Africa, among others -- as the crimes were being committed a great deal more vociforously than you and your friends (meaning conservatives).
How does this make me a phony?
Maybe, to help the discussion along, you should provide a comprehensive list of incidents that I should have written publicly about before I'm legitimately allowed to be offended by people committing torture in my name.
Posted by: Amitava Mazumdar on May 7, 2004 11:35 AMI should ad by the way Adrian:
How many human rights violations and/or acts of violence did you condemn before you so wisely decided to support occupation of an Arab country, if only for their own good?
Unless you listed every single one which occurred prior to the onset of the Iraq war, it can only be
BECAUSE YOU'RE A PHONY!
Posted by: Amitava Mazumdar on May 7, 2004 11:46 AMThis had *little to do* with George Tenet's CIA or a "breakdown of US intelligence". That's the classic disingenuous red-herring double-speak of every "plausible denial" Chief Executive cadre:
"Mommy, Timmy did it, and I wasn't even there."
(you'll get it ... it takes a few moments)
Sure, US intelligence sucks, but that's the Fed.
This was a deliberate decision on Cheney's part,
the WMD and Niger purchase of uranium crap, and then pimping his dysphrenic Commander in Chief.
The Iraqi "nuclear scientist" on whose testimony the WMD was gyned up then wrapped in Niger paper
turns out to have been a lowly techie. On the US
payroll since invasion, he's been dismissed from
his post for derelection of duty and fraud.
Iraqi ex-patriot "businessman" (and convicted embezzler) Chalabi, the guy who promised "sweets and roses" to our liberating American troops, (then immediately started gunning for the job of Emperor of Ur), is still on the US payroll and hiding out, biding his time whether the US can somehow jigger a secure pullout, or whether he's going to abscond his bunko'd US$100M's off to some Greek isle to retire.
Look to Karl Rove and Paul Wolfowitz (and Arie Fleischer if the truth be told) for this CICA
debacle, aided and abetted by Donald Rumsfeld's
vain-glorious ambitions as a career wareaucrat,
all under à titre tout à fait, Richard Cheney.
As Mumia Abdul Jamar predicted, the Whitehouse
Whitewash is in full battle-rattle, going loud.
They've a lot of work to do before Re-election.
If any further evidence were needed that Adrian has a screw loose (besides his continuing enthusiasm over Limbaugh after Rush furiously defended the tortureers last night on the grounds that "they never resorted to violence"), this is it.
Er, Adrian, the "scores of murders of Waco" amounted to the FBI not being able to keep a flock of homicidal religious maniacs from setting fire to their own ranch after trying to murder those agents and then refusing to surrender for two months. (If you doubt that, you can take it up with John Danforth.) Juanita Broaddrick repeatedly told "60 Minutes" that she could remember every single detil of Clinton's rape of her -- except that she just couldn't remember what day, month, or season of the year it occurred in. You betcha. And, as Amitava says, I really don't see any evidence that he "didn't object to the killing fields in Iraq or the abuse of women in Afghanistan" -- one tends to take for granted that he did.
And, incidentally, while there's no law against members of the Looney Right putting messages on this site, I really wish they wouldn't pretend that they're actually Indignant Moderate Democrats for propaganda purposes. Lying is unquestionably a sin, Adrian. In fact, it's phony.
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on May 7, 2004 01:52 PMAdrian's wingnut tendency is revealed. He's no longer a free lance loony.
I'll pass on most of your questions for the moment, but I can gladly condemn George H.W. Bush's heartless murder of Mrs. Weaver at Ruby Ridge. George the First should be brought to judgment.
Like most wingnut loons, Adrian blames Clinton for Ruby Ridge, but Clinton had nothing at all to do with it. He was still in Arkansas.
Posted by: Zizka on May 7, 2004 03:36 PMAdrian, if you don't get paid for the hours you spend reciting RNC talking points, you ought to be.
And I suspect you are. I know for a fact that there are paid right wing operatives posting comments on lefty blogs, and Brad's one of the top 10 leftly blogs, so he'd be sure to attract attention.
Your argument, as Zizka, Bruce, Amitava and others have pointed out, is illogical. But is it also a symptom of the projectionism that is so deeply a part of the wingnut psyche.
You are essentially accusing us of being hypocrits because we are criticizing the Bush administration for their widespread practice of torture, but (according to you) we didn't protest other abuses in the past.
No, Adrian, that is what your side does. Your side will change principles and positions in an instant if it will benefit the republican party. States' Rights? You think its a great principle if the states want to institutionalize racism. You think it's a horrible priniciple if the state wants tough environmental laws or to interpret its own election laws. Your side screams about Clinton's bombing in Kosovo then screams that "we need to support our President" when he launches an attack on Iraq.
As the posters above showed, most of the left is more nuanced that that. We all hated Ruby Ridge, which as Zizka pointed out was a Bush 41 production. We also hated Waco. (BTW, the wingnut moron who led Waco was also the leader of the Falluhah debacle ... check out Dave Neiwart's blog.) Funny thing about Waco, Clinton knew he made a mistake and did the whole post-mortem/lessons learned thing. A number of similar stand-offs occurred later in his term but you don't hear about those because they handled them correctly. See Neiwart for details. Too bad Bush and you wingnuts are constitutionally incapable of admitting mistakes.
Yes, I could never vote for Ted K in huge part because of Chappaquidick. Yes, I protested Hussein in the 1980s, especially Reagan/Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney's support of his gassing of his own people.
I knew the details of the evils of the Taliban back when you couldn't spell Afghanistan, and when your Dear Leader was praising them for their reductions in Opium crops. (The warlords who currently rule Afghanistan still abuse women, but you'll be glad to know that due to the actions of your Dear Leader the Opium crops are back at record levels.) Are YOU aware that women's rights are as bad now in Afghanistan as they were before the invasion? Do you care?
As to Brodderick, I condemn any rape. Being liberal, I honestly am torn as this is literally a he said/she said and there is no way to know what really happened. Unlike you, Adrian, I don't choose sides on a issue based on what the RNC and Rush say.
Posted by: Dem on May 7, 2004 04:32 PMDem, Adrian just plain isn't interested in the kind of thing you're saying. You can sometimes get a rise out of him by talking about how nice it would be if his grandaughters and great-granddaughters were forced to wear burkhas by lascivious Turks twirling their greasy mustaches.
Posted by: Zizka on May 8, 2004 08:48 AMDem: where did you get that part about paid republicans assaulting centrist blogs like this one?
I was wondering how Adrian Spidle had so much time to fool around on this blog, when obviously he has nothing in common with most of the posters.
Posted by: masaccio on May 8, 2004 11:37 AMBuy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system.
Posted by: direct TV on May 27, 2004 04:53 PMGet WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here!
Posted by: click here on June 1, 2004 09:59 AMGet WWW.I-DISH-NETWORK.ORG rid of cable and upgrade your living room by clicking here!
Posted by: satellite tv on June 3, 2004 05:19 AMWWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM
Posted by: click here on June 5, 2004 08:08 AMGet WWW.IDEBTCONSOLIDATION.ORG the debt relief you are searching for here!
Posted by: debt relief on June 7, 2004 10:46 AMGet www.all-debt-consolidation.org help with your credit problems here!
Posted by: consolidate debt on June 13, 2004 10:57 PMOnline Casino Directory
Posted by: online casino on June 23, 2004 05:47 AMNow you can Play Poker online any time!
Posted by: online poker on June 24, 2004 11:02 PMBuy Viagra online! its easy click here today.
Posted by: Buy Viagra online on June 28, 2004 10:34 PMyou can play blackjack here! http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com
Posted by: blackjack on July 20, 2004 03:32 PMonline casino
http://online-casino-i.greatnow.com
If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide is designed to give you a basic overview of the game concept and rules. After reading this guide you should be in a god position to play poker. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers.
online casino
If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers. You can also play blackjack online fo free!
Posted by: online casino on July 30, 2004 02:15 PM3069 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com
Posted by: Viagra on August 7, 2004 02:37 PM3214 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?
http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com
4884 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com
Posted by: cialis on August 10, 2004 12:55 PM665 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com
Posted by: poker on August 15, 2004 12:11 PM122 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com
Posted by: play blackjack on August 16, 2004 10:18 PM