Must-read of the week. (updated)
Seymour Hersch’s infuriating piece on General Taguba and his hamstrung investigation of the Abu Ghraib atrocities.
If there was a redeeming aspect to the affair, it was in the
thoroughness and the passion of the Army’s initial investigation. The
inquiry had begun in January, and was led by General Taguba, who was
stationed in Kuwait at the time. Taguba filed his report in March. In
it he found:
Numerous
incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were
inflicted on several detainees . . . systemic and illegal abuse.
Taguba was met at the
door of the conference room by an old friend, Lieutenant General Bantz
J. Craddock, who was Rumsfeld’s senior military assistant. Craddock’s
daughter had been a babysitter for Taguba’s two children when the
officers served together years earlier at Fort Stewart, Georgia. But
that afternoon, Taguba recalled, “Craddock just said, very coldly,
‘Wait here.’ ” In a series of interviews early this year, the first he
has given, Taguba told me that he understood when he began the inquiry
that it could damage his career; early on, a senior general in Iraq had
pointed out to him that the abused detainees were “only Iraqis.” Even
so, he was not prepared for the greeting he received when he was
finally ushered in.
“Here . . . comes . . . that famous General Taguba—of the
Taguba report!” Rumsfeld declared, in a mocking voice. The meeting was
attended by Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy; Stephen Cambone, the
Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; General Richard Myers,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (J.C.S.); and General Peter
Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, along with Craddock and other
officials. Taguba, describing the moment nearly three years later,
said, sadly, “I thought they wanted to know. I assumed they wanted to
know. I was ignorant of the setting.”
In the meeting, the officials professed ignorance about Abu Ghraib.
“Could you tell us what happened?” Wolfowitz asked. Someone else asked,
“Is it abuse or torture?” At that point, Taguba recalled, “I described
a naked detainee lying on the wet floor, handcuffed, with an
interrogator shoving things up his rectum, and said, ‘That’s not abuse.
That’s torture.’ There was quiet.”
Rumsfeld was particularly concerned about how the classified report had
become public. “General,” he asked, “who do you think leaked the
report?”
(snip)
I learned from Taguba that the first wave of materials included
descriptions of the sexual humiliation of a father with his son, who
were both detainees. Several of these images, including one of an Iraqi
woman detainee baring her breasts, have since surfaced; others have
not. (Taguba’s report noted that photographs and videos were being held
by the C.I.D. because of ongoing criminal investigations and their
“extremely sensitive nature.”) Taguba said that he saw “a video of a
male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee.” The
video was not made public in any of the subsequent court proceedings,
nor has there been any public government mention of it. Such images
would have added an even more inflammatory element to the outcry over
Abu Ghraib. “It’s bad enough that there were photographs of Arab men
wearing women’s panties,” Taguba said.
Read the rest ASAP. For Andrew Sullivan’s take, go here.
Update: What would Taguba have found if his investigation hadn’t been handcuffed? Read Spencer Ackerman on the separate, harsher interrogation tactics permitted for Special Ops Forces. More from Dan Froomkin here (thanks again to Andrew for staying on this). Short of it: Bush knew, and did nothing.
I like to think that there will be some interesting books written about the characters in this administration once they’re out of there. Frankly it’s hard for me to conceive of a full accounting of their actions apart from some number of the books being authored by psychiatrists.
Though he has suffered professionally, it is good to know that there are people in our military for whom the end does not justify the means. As the legacy of Rumsfeld et al. continues to nosedive, the integrity and honor of General Taguba will stand out even more than it does now.
What else can we do but prayer that our nation will never be led by criminals again. Not to mention those approving clergy theocons.
The sorry fact is is that a holocaust is possible again as long as we elect street people to run our government.
I remember Susan Sontag’s essay, “Regarding the Torture of Others,” in which she concludes bluntly, “the photographs are us.” (She was responding to all the self-defensive patriotic rot about the photos “not being about the real America.”)
General Taguba may be a fine soldier, but like many of his peers in the top echelon, he chose to remain silent while senior civilians lied and misled Congress. He could have resigned and testified to the appropriate Congressional committees. Would Rumsfeld and Co. have lasted quite as long as they did? Would the prisoners at Abu Ghrab and Guantanamo have been abused as long as they have been (and perhaps still are)?
General Taguba has now safely retired, perhaps without that extra star, and spills the beans to Seymour Hersch. A little late in the day.
I’m glad to see that the Commonweal bloggers are pointing out the real evil in the world: The United States of America. Not terrorists (oh, I forgot; we are the terrorists). As eugene mccarraher (his choice of lower case, not mine) helpfully points out, using Sontag’s words, “The photographs are us”. Mr. mccarraher’s socialist (may we say Marxist?) perspective furnishes the proper substrate of hatred towrad America. In a 2003 article, “A Merry Marxy Christmas”, mccarraher seems fascinated by one Slavoj Zizek, and concluses,
“…If socialists must confront the “core of Christianity” for existential and political wisdom—and I think Zizek is right to assert that they must—then they must engage its religious form. As Zizek, Eagleton and other Marxists are realizing, left intellectuals must at least suspend if not cease their hostilities toward theology. When they do, they’ll discover a rigorous and vibrant tradition of social criticism and moral imagination. Welcome, it says, to the Paradise of the Real.”
All of this illustrates once again (as I have annoyingly reiterated more than one) where the emotions of you folks are really situated: The terrorists and enemy combatants are victims, and we Americans are malevolent trash.
How sad…
Wake up and smell the evil, Bob. There’s more than enough to go around.
I was taught as a child not to use the evils of otherss an excuse for my own evils.
While General Taguba may be late, the evils of our administration would not come to light unless he and others who escape the misuse of the levers of power come forward.
The think tanks and spinmeisters who try to justify both the evils be it torture or an unnecessary war that made things worse, or who then try to silence critics by pointing to the evils that terrorists do as a justification for our mistakes and bad deeds, only make the problem worse.
Better late than never, it’s true.
Still, what if Colin Powell and George Tenet had resigned rather than keep silent. General Taguba’s reticent may not be quite that egregious, but there does seem to be a pattern here of avoiding conflict with your boss and/or covering your butt that doesn’t serve the Republic. All of this is quite apart from the spin doctoring of think tanks and ethicists.
Mr. Gallicho:
You said,
“Wake up and smell the evil, Bob. There’s more than enough to go around.”
Forgive me my slowness, but what exactly does that mean?
Mr. Nunz:
I was taught never to trust the judgement or integrity of those who instinctively take the side of the perpetrators of evil against our nation. If I saw even ten percent of the passion directed against terrorists and enemy combatants with which you and your’s attack our president and our troops I might think differently. Perhaps that is an irrational stance; if it is, so be it. But I can say honestly that I don’t believe you feel any anger at all in that direction. In a larger sense, it is why so many Americans don’t trust the Democratic Party in matters of national defense and homeland security: They, and I, believe that you are inwardly sneering at the whole idea, and If the Democrats were to lose in 2008, that would be the reason.
Bob,
It means that pointing out the evil of torture doesn’t entail discounting the evil of terrorism. Since no one in this thread has shown even the slightest sympathy for terrorism, your note to Bob Nunz is baseless and needlessly provocative. Keep in mind that more than a few of your interlocutors on this blog are New Yorkers, and were in New York City on 9/11. I’m one of them. Don’t presume to know our feelings on this matter.
It’s dangerous being a whistleblower, and I’m not prepared to judge Gen. Taguba or anyone else for not revealing wrongdoing in a timely manner. If the general had blown the whistle, could he have then retired in a worst-case scenario? It’s easy to be a backseat driver here. You have responsibilities — bills to pay, mortgage payments, tuition for the kids, medical expenses, etc. What would each of us have done?
Bob, I’m frankly appalled by your reaction. No one on this thread is siding with terrorists. We are, however, criticizing government officials who clearly showed unethical and perhaps even immoral (amoral, perhaps?) behavior as described in the article. Two wrongs don’t make a right. One trait of leadership, whether civilian or military, is being able to step up to the plate and admit, “I f***ed up big time, and I’m prepared to take responsibility for what happened on my watch.” Bush et al have failed thusly so far.
FYI: Hersh isn’t always the most reliable reporter. See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/872872.html
Bob, we can’t control the terrorists, only the way in which we respond to them..
I am still waiting for Bush’s people to explain what we have gained, tangibly, from our actions in Iraq.
As far as I can see, we’re being asked to accept that investment of money and lives in what looks to be an increasingly chaotic social and political situation will pay off.
Given that the whole enterprise was predicated on faulty information (to put the most charitable light on it), forgive my lack of passion for this particular effort against terrorism.
2 more quick thoughts:
=Ideology and partisanship[ are npt useful in talking about our morality in this and the actions of our officials in this matter are matters of profound moral consequence.
The obfuscations of Mr. Rizzo in his confirmation hearing yesterday as a CIA attorney underscore the problems of not only our actions but the way in which we talk about (spin) them
Quote: All of this illustrates once again (as I have annoyingly reiterated more than one) where the emotions of you folks are really situated: The terrorists and enemy combatants are victims, and we Americans are malevolent trash.
The use of emotional judgments to make ethical appraisals is called emotivism and it is as American as apple pie. Some people who consider themselves religious confuse emotion with faith and elevate their emotivism to the level of a virtue. But emotivism is a great source of moral error, which is why the Church insists on rational criteria when making ethical appraisals.
Using national criteria to make moral judgments of individual acts is a peculiar Right wing nationalist twisting of patriotism, or the love of one’s country.
Because the moral world of the emotivist resides inside of the emotivist’s head (or rather, gut), I don’t see any reason to take it seriously. Perhaps that is a rational stance; if it is, so be it.
Unagidion:
I’m so glad you’re the bastion of rationality and we’re just fools talking out of emotional hats.
That makes it quite convenient for you not to come to grips with the ethical dilemma here.
But enough. It’s clear that rational discussion here is impossible in some quarters.
Quote: I’m so glad you’re the bastion of rationality and we’re just fools talking out of emotional hats.
That makes it quite convenient for you not to come to grips with the ethical dilemma here.
But enough. It’s clear that rational discussion here is impossible in some quarters.
You really don’t need to be so hard on yourself.
There’s no dilemma here that I can see. Abu Ghraib was evil, pure and simple. It would have been evil whether we did it, Saddam did it, or the Pope did it.
It was also stupid. Some of the torture done there was meant to intimidate people outside of the prison. It wasn’t, in other words, meant to be kept a secret. When people argue that it should have been kept secret, what they mean is that it should have been kept secret from us, so we could continue to support this stupid war in good faith. Is there a dilemma there? Only if you think that it is sometime necessary to commit the expedient lie, murder, or torture in support of the larger good.
Did General Taguba have an ethical dilemma? He had a personal dilemma in that he had to decide whether to show moral courage or not. He decided not to, at least at the time. And ironically he got punished anyway.
What good was obtained from all of these people doing the wrong thing for the Right reason? You tell me.
Bob:
Wow — nothing gets past you. I call upon left-wing intellectuals to learn some theology, and you discern in that an excuse for terrorists. What a sharp eye you have — you’ve found me out.
With that keen moral sense of yours, perhaps you could discern and explain the goodness of rectal violation as it was practiced at Abu Ghraib. Perhaps you could delineate the differences between “torture” and “abuse.” No doubt such a comprehensive moral treatise would include Augustinian bromides about how, with the proper interior inclination, one could lovingly sodomize a defenseless prisoner.
Mr. mccarraher:
As they come to mind, and in no particular order, I would define the following practices as torture:
Chopping off fingers and toes
Searing the flesh with hot irons
Squeezing the head in a vice
Yanking out fingernails
Whipping with barbed wire
breaking limbs and fingers
If You are prepared to say that there is no difference between the above and what went on in Abu Ghraib then we would be at an impasse.
You said, “No doubt such a comprehensive moral treatise would include Augustinian bromides about how, with the proper interior inclination, one could lovingly sodomize a defenseless prisoner.”
Yikes! But you are an excellent writer, Mr. Mccarraher (the lower case thing is making me crazy), and it’s hard to remain angry with someone who expresses himself with such wit and irony. As a former atheist and wannabe Marxist, I found the “Christmas” article fascinating. And you are absolutely right: Iwent off on a big tangent – a senior moment!
Mr. Schwartz: If you would like for the U.S. to abandon the Geneva Conventions, that’s one thing, but much of “what went on” at Abu Ghraib incontrovertibly violated the Geneva Convention and even Convention against Torture. It’s important to distinguish — not all violations of the GC are torture and sometimes people talk as if the two are the same when they are not.
But torturers the world over have tried to devise techniques that don’t leave marks precisely so that they can deny that it was torture. You don’t need to rely on a lefty like me for the definition of torture — if our personnel had been subjected to those same tactics our military and our government would have deemed them to be torture. In fact, many of the same tactics have been used against our personnel in Viet nam and in WWII by the Japanese and we definitely considered them to be torture. One of the reasons that we were so knowledgeable in many of those tactics is because knowledge of them is required in order to train our personnel how to cope in the event that they are captured and tortured.
I’m not saying that every harsh tactic is torture, but many of the tactics that were used at Abu Ghrait (and certainly at Guantanamo) are considered to be torture.
I find it interesting that two Asian-American generals had the guts to tell Rumsfeld et al what the latter obviously didn’t want to hear.
Maybe something to do with professionalism and integrity?