Don't Stop at Rumsfeld: Blame for Abu Ghraib goes higher

[struggle4progress]

August 28, 2004

Independent assessments of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib should lay to rest White House attempts to limit blame to a few bad apples on the night shift. A panel headed by former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger found the Pentagon's civilian and military command responsible for conditions that led to "egregious abuses" at the U.S.-run prison. That includes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. A separate Army investigative report said the involvement of intelligence operatives with wider latitude in interrogation techniques also contributed to abuses at Abu Ghraib.

But responsibility goes farther up the line than that: All the way to President George W. Bush.
<snip>

Bush set the stage for abuse in February 2002 when he declared that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to al-Qaida prisoners and the Taliban were unlawful combatants unqualified for prisoner of war status. When the man at the top says the rules don't apply, abusive excesses are a predictable result.
<snip>

With 50,000 prisoners in all and 300 allegations of abuse, it's clear that most were not mistreated. But Bush's insistence that his word is law in the war on terrorists has cost the nation a big chunk of the moral high ground.

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpqabu283945107aug28,0,7477984.story?coll=ny-editorials-headlines

[gottaB]

1. Conspiracy to Commit War Crimes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1704513

Never found that Presidential finding, but it's got to exist. Spazito kept digging into it as the story of the Bush-Rumsfeld torture policy unfolded

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=614111



Did you see the report teryang posted in the Foreign Affairs/National Security forum?

Not to forget your posting on the Arar case:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=641157


And see the links in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=614111



Of course this is a systematic policy of torture--not a case of a few degenerate mps.

I don't anticipate Bush will every be made to face justice. He should be made to answer for Rumsfeld. He should be pressed to explain to voters how his policies led to innocent children being raped and tortured.

[struggle4progress]

4. Thanks. This stuff bears rereading. eom

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Who is responsible?

From Democratic Underground
Dated May 11

Who is responsible?
By Jack Rabbit

In light of the revelations of abuse of Iraqi detainees by American soldiers and civilians at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, many have called for the resignation or firing of Donald Rumsfeld and others. The outrage has been bi-partisan and should be. No matter how one felt about the wisdom and morality of invading Iraq, the barbarism that took place in Abu Ghraib cannot be defended. This is an affair that brings dishonor and disgrace to Americans.

To merely call for the resignation or firing of the Defense Secretary misses the point. He is responsible, but not simply because he failed to oversee the problem or inform either Congress or the President in a timely manner. The buck no more stops with Donald Rumsfeld than it stops with Lynndie England . . . .

It is Mr. Bush himself who is responsible for the crimes at Abu Ghraib. The circumvention of international humanitarian law is Bush administration policy. He is responsible whether he directly ordered any particular case of abuse at that prison or even whether he knew about it in January, as Mr. Rumsfeld said, or while watching 60 Minutes, as Mr. Bush said, or knew all along, which no one suggests. The crimes at Abu Ghraib are the result of the peculiar detention system established by Mr. Bush and his subordinates in the wake of the war on terror.

Read more.

[Catfight]

3. What would Bush do? I guess since Jesus changed his heart, that

means torture is a good thing, like a Crucifixion. I think Bush gets a hard on when people are tortured in his name. He's a sick man to claim he loves Jesus, and then condones torture of ANY kind to ANY human life. OH wait, It's George the Hypocrite, never mind.

[struggle4progress]

5. So why have most standard media outlets treated such ...

... an allocation of responsibility as if it were simply beyond the pale?

[hansolsen]

7. Because our once great American free press is now owned, lock

stock and barrel, by corporate America, and the CEOs of American business largely want Shrub back in for four more years. They like their tax cuts and they like being in power.

Any other questions?

[struggle4progress]

8. Of course media ownership is quite concentrated now, much more ...

... than at any time in my memory, and of course progressives have been warning about the trend and its effects for decades.

But one might reasonably expect some strong criticism to leak through from time to time, since not every member of the ruling class will be motivated by craven self-interest alone.

And for many years, the Democrats have been reluctant to address real issues of Presidential responsibility. For example, the horrors under Reagan's rule were generally not attributed to Reagan, even by many members of Congress who should have been willing to complain.

So I expect there's also likely to be some "conventional wisdom" issue here, some characteristic of current American culture to which we have become habitually blind.

[hansolsen]

9. Yes. CW being that a little torture is a good thing so long as we are the

ones dishing out the torture.

Put a little torture between two slices of revenge, slather on a coating of fear mongering, and you have a tasty sandwich. They're for sale at the Repub Convention. They're called a Dynasty Special. Voters can get all they want for about $200 billion a year and counting.

[struggle4progress]

10. There's no general consensus that "torture is a good thing"; if such ...

... a consensus existed, hardly anyone in Congress would have dared speak against it, and there would have been no further investigation into Abu-Ghraib. (It is, however, true that a well-organized group of dangerous lunatics, in power, seems to believe that torture is acceptable.)

What I'd like to understand here is the complete invisibility of certain ideas: for example, before the Iraq war, a huge number of people contacted Congress to oppose the adventure, and yet this contact was largely ignored, perhaps because there is some "conventional wisdom" to the effect "the President should have the power to wage war" (despite the Constitutional grant of this power to Congress).

In the matter at hand, what is largely invisible is the idea that the responsibility for the torture goes to the circle of power at the very top, where lawyers were asked to draft memos justifying ill-treatment. The other side doesn't even need to argue against holding Bush responsible, because the idea (that Bush might have some responsibility for the effects of these policies) hardly ever arises in polite discussion.

[hansolsen]

11. I agree there is no "general consensus", but the "conventional wisdom"

in mainstream media circles goes something like this.

1. They (the media bigfoots) think the people are mad as hell about 9/11. They're convinced a working majority of the people want strong action, which means military, not police action, and for many people, means they want revenge as part of the action. A lot of media bigfoots seem to want a little revenge too.

2. The media is acutely aware that polls show close to half the people think torture is justified in some circumstances. Many people in the media have advocated "strong" interrogation of detainees themselves. It is all part of being at war, and wanting to be on the side of supporting our troops.

3. Kerry and company have been reluctant to criticize the war directly. The meme that Bush is doing a bad job executing a good war is weak and ineffective. The idea that Kerry can do a better job executing Bush's war plan is a losing proposition, even if it has some basis in logic and reason. It flys in the face of giving "the man in the arena" the benefit of the doubt.

So when Bush, Rumsfeld and company authorize a little torture, the media is reluctant to take them on directly because:

A, They fear the "people" are behind Bush all the way, especially "people" who write their payroll checks.

B, They are loath to admit they (the media bigfoots) have been wrong about WMD, the war, and the prosecution of the war, all along.

In important ways every time a Democrat criticizes the President on the war, we are criticizing the media bigfoots who help determine who wins the election.

[struggle4progress]

12. There has, of course, been substantial manipulation of public opinion ...

... through the "framing" of issues: "abuse -- or torture," "systemic -- or isolated," etc. But nearly two-thirds of the public clearly opposes torture:

Terror Suspect Treatment
Most Americans Oppose Torture Techniques
By David Morris and Gary Langer
May 27, 2004— Americans by nearly 2-to-1 oppose torturing terrorism suspects — but half believe the U.S. government, as a matter of policy, is doing it anyway. And even more think the government is employing physical abuse that falls short of torture in some cases.

Given pro and con arguments, 63 percent in an ABC News/Washington Post poll say torture is never acceptable, even when other methods fail and authorities believe the suspect has information that could prevent terrorist attacks. Thirty-five percent say torture is acceptable in some such cases.
<snip>

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Polls/torture_poll_040527.html

[hansolsen]

6. George Bush authorized this torture and he will burn in Hell for it.

This week, on the front page of every newspaper in the land, we learn that American soldiers at the prison in Abu Ghraib in Iraq used unmuzzled guard dogs to terrify naked young Iraqi boys into urinating on themselves. We also finally hear the military admit what has been known for some time, that these kinds of abuses were widespread. Here are a few lines from two new reports on the abuse:

"The abuses were not just the failure of some individuals to follow known standards, and they are more than the failure of a few leaders to enforce proper discipline," said the report of the panel chaired by former defense secretary James R. Schlesinger. "There is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels."

Of course there is, and we know who is responsible. George Bush, Commander in Chief of the U.S. military, is responsible for this abuse. I call him The Prince of Abu Ghraib.

He set the tone from the top down that this war is different, that 9/11 changes everything, that the world is either for us or against us, and anyone against us in this war is not entitled to enemy combatant status as prisoners of war.

George Bush has trashed the United Nations, trashed the World Court, and trashed the Geneva Convention. His political appointees and Justice Department lawyers actually redefined the working definition of torture to specifically exclude abuse that didn't result in "permanent injury to bodily organs".

Well I have news for George Bush. Keeping young boys naked and using guard dogs to make them piss themselves is torture. In this sense, George Bush, too, is a terrorist.

George Bush is the boy emperor of American politics; he is a modern day Caligula in training pants. The abuse at Abu Ghraib and many other U.S. military and CIA detention centers around the world, is his legacy. As an American citizen, I say this is wrong, I don't like it, and I am mad as hell about it. Aren't you?