home

Sunday Open Thread and Abu Ghraib

Happy Fathers Day, everyone. How about a Sunday open thread?

The must-read of the day in my view is Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article on Abu Ghraib, The General's Report.

Taguba also knew that senior officials in Rumsfeld’s office and elsewhere in the Pentagon had been given a graphic account of the pictures from Abu Ghraib, and told of their potential strategic significance, within days of the first complaint.

A sample of what we didn't see:

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....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.

Why didn't we see them?

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.

More on Rumsfeld:

.... Rumsfeld, in his appearances before the Senate and the House Armed Services Committees on May 7th, claimed to have had no idea of the extensive abuse. “It breaks our hearts that in fact someone didn’t say, ‘Wait, look, this is terrible. We need to do something,’ ” Rumsfeld told the congressmen. “I wish we had known more, sooner, and been able to tell you more sooner, but we didn’t.”

Taguba is portrayed a fall guy. Rumsfeld knew.

“The whole idea that Rumsfeld projects—‘We’re here to protect the nation from terrorism’—is an oxymoron,” Taguba said. “He and his aides have abused their offices and have no idea of the values and high standards that are expected of them. And they’ve dragged a lot of officers with them.

If you didn't follow the Taguba report when it was released:

Taguba was given the job of investigating Abu Ghraib because of circumstance: the senior officer of the 800th Military Police Brigade, to which the soldiers in the photographs belonged, was a one-star general; Army regulations required that the head of the inquiry be senior to the commander of the unit being investigated, and Taguba, a two-star general, was available. “It was as simple as that,” he said. He vividly remembers his first thought upon seeing the photographs in late January of 2004: “Unbelievable! What were these people doing?” There was an immediate second thought: “This is big.

Update: More from Raw Story.

< DOJ Bleeds Again | Stupid Prosecution of the Week >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    New Meme (none / 0) (#1)
    by JHFarr on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 01:58:29 PM EST
    Was just over at Digby's reading about "no shame, no conscience" on a related matter.

    Here's my Sunday morning take:

    It's so obvious,  yet so earthshaking that almost no one with the possible exception of Arthur Silber realizes what's going on: there simply is no "fixing" for all of this. The human race is (or has already) split into two different species. Everything, and I mean everything, is about to phase into an entirely new dimension. Amazingly, this will not be a bad thing.

    Works for me, I gotta tell ya.

    Morlocks and Eloi (none / 0) (#2)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 02:11:49 PM EST
    There's hardly any outrage conservatives haven't defended these past six years. Cannibalism might just be next.

    Parent
    I'd have no problem with that. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:09:31 PM EST
    As long as they only go after each other.

    Parent
    Ongoing Investigation (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 03:05:19 PM EST
    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.

    Tippity Top Secret,  Ed Meese is going to have a look, maybe even do a new report.

    Neocon quote of the day. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 04:13:49 PM EST
    U.S. Declares Victory In Gaza: Bush Policies Vindicated
    If you're a neocon, you might see everything that has happened in Iraq and Gaza as exactly what Bush planned all along:
    Five years ago, Middle Eastern extremists were killing Israelis and Americans. Today they are killing each other. Why is it that some people persist in claiming that Israel's and America's Middle East policy is a failure?" -- Alan Chamberlain
    Never mind all that stuff about cakewalks, natives tossing flowers, getting bin Laden and missions accomplished.  Victory and success are fungible concepts; or, to borrow a page from the Rumsfeld handbook of warfare, "you define success as the results you have, not the results you wanted."
    [h/t to Dr. X & Dr. Sanity]

    Edger (1.00 / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 06:05:22 PM EST
    Hmmmm.....

    Come to think of it, the dude has a point.

    Guess the conversion from terrorists to criminals didn't work.

    Parent

    The dude has a point. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 07:59:23 PM EST
    You noticed? How? You heard the whistling sound as it went past you?

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:16:32 AM EST
    The dude I was referring to is:

    Five years ago, Middle Eastern extremists were killing Israelis and Americans. Today they are killing each other. Why is it that some people persist in claiming that Israel's and America's Middle East policy is a failure?" -- Alan Chamberlain

    If Israel and the US had tried to change them into criminals we'd still at square one.

    As to how anyone would claim, even tongue in cheek, that the neocons planned this is well.... capable of believeing the terrorist to criminals bit.

    Parent

    I hate to point out the obvious, but (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Al on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:56:25 AM EST
    the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks, and those of bomb attacks against Israelis, are not Iraqis. And they certainly weren't the people that were sodomized at Abu Ghraib.

    And nobody is claiming that the neocons planned anything, PPJ. We all know that you are incapable of planning tomorrow's breakfast correctly.

    Parent

    Source of the Chamberlain quote (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:14:08 AM EST
    Every Thorn Has a Rose:
    A friend in Israel notes that, during the previous week, whenever the television news would announce a possible ceasefire between the Palestinian factions of Hamas and Fatah, her husband would shout towards the television, "No! No! Don't do it!"

    True to their schools of bloodlust, they didn't. And in victory finished off what enemies they could in classic Palestinian style, forced surrender followed summary execution in the streets, in front of the fighters' wives, mothers, and children whenever possible. No Gitmo for these combatants.

    The same friend also notes that rooting for the fighting to continue in Gaza is one of the secret or not-so-secret joys of being an Israeli this June. Rush Limbaugh in one of his waggish moments this morning noted that global diplomats relished the civil war because it would bring about a need for a three-state solution.

    Israeli defense officials were not quite so jovial in public, but did note that one of the future benefits of the "triumph" of Hamas in Gaza and elsewhere would be a target-rich environment.



    Parent
    Al (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 09:04:43 AM EST
    Uh, we have gone through this before Al.

    Iraq was an enabler of the terrorists.

    I have provided the links, etc. that show this.

    Simply put for the zillionth time, old enemies will unite against a common enemy. We have done it ourselves with the Soviets against Germany and Japan, only to resume our hostile activities against each other as soon as possible after their defeat.

    To not understand that is to deny common sense.

    The second issue is that you, because it is convenient, try to focus only on Iraq as a "war."
    This is a misnomer. Iraq is a battle within what some call WWIV...others a WOT..Others understand that it really is a culture war. We think because jihad, suicide bombing and the boiling hatreds against the west, as well as each other, is not understandable to us that if we could just get them to talk to us and each other, all would be okay. That's not true. We may not understand, but it makes perfect sense to them. As others have said

    We are in a new phase of a very old war.


    Parent
    repeating a lie ... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 04:16:22 PM EST
    ... does not make it the truth
    Iraq was an enabler of the terrorists.
    there is very little evidence of that, and bush is a much larger enabler of terrorism.

    iraq had no WMDs, no ability to harm us and no connection to 9/11. All of those lies were told repeatedly to panic bedwetters into going along with what has always been the neoclown plan for world domination.

    Parent

    How to win friends and influence people (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:49:10 AM EST
    One Iraqi's collateral damage:
    Ahlam Ahmed Mahmoud al Al-Jabouri, a 42-year-old mother of three, belongs to another category of imperiled citizens-turned-refugees whom no one seems to care about. She is among thousands of Iraqis who have worked in seemingly less exposed positions for the U.S. and Iraqi authorities, carrying out administrative tasks, rendering basic services or, as in Ahlam's case, doling out crucial humanitarian aid to the people of her country.

    But even delivering help to the poor, the handicapped and the displaced did not spare Ahlam from being labeled a traitor by some of her fellow Sunnis. In the past two years, Ahlam has been kidnapped and tortured, was forced to flee Iraq, and lost one of her teenage sons under dubious circumstances. Although she was officially recognized for her exemplary humanitarian work by the U.S. Army more than two years ago, U.S. authorities have done little to help her, and her struggle to find safe haven continues today.

    Ahlam's ordeal casts light on the depth of the resentment among Iraqis in general, and Sunnis in particular, over the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the resulting sectarian conflict that has engulfed their country in the past two years. The fact that a respected aid worker like Ahlam has faced brutal reprisal speaks volumes about the fractured state of Iraqi society.

    Nowadays, Ahlam lives with her family in a drab three-story building off "Iraqi Street," the new name of the main thoroughfare of Said Azainab, a destitute neighborhood of Damascus overflowing with tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees. This capital city has lured the vast majority of the more than 1.2 million Iraqis who have fled to Syria."

    Read the whole thing...

    The "terrorists" get younger every day (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:04:39 PM EST
    At Least Seven Afghan Children Killed in US Airstrike
    The Associated Press, Monday 18 June 2007
    Kabul, Afghanistan - Seven children were killed in a US-led coalition airstrike targeting suspected al-Qaida militants in eastern Afghanistan, a coalition statement said Monday.
    ...
    In an operation backed by Afghan troops, jets on Sunday targeted a compound that also contained a mosque and a madrassa, or Islamic school, in the Zarghun Shah district of Paktika province. Early reports indicated seven children at the madrassa and "several militants" were killed, and two militants detained, the statement said.
    The quick spin is that is was their own fault, of course.

    Couple that with the incompetency defense and you're home free.

    Besides, they were only Afghan kids. It's not like they were were real kids or anything, right?

    Lot's more where they came from. Probably were taking flight lessons. Why else would they be in school on Sunday?

    Coalition troops had "surveillance on the compound all day and saw no indications there were children inside the building," said Maj. Chris Belcher, a coalition spokesman. He accused the militants of not letting the children leave the compound that was targeted.
    And if they're parents become filled with hatred for the US... a  few more airstrikes will fill them with love and gratitude. Right?

    How do we fight them when they hide among kids? (none / 0) (#15)
    by roy on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:28:03 PM EST
    Recall that Al Qaida are really real terrorists, not Hussein-era Iraqi bogeymen.  And they make a point of organizing in populated areas, including near schools.  Should we just let them use these locations as perfect unassailable fortresses?  It'd be like the school speed zones we have here, except they'd be terrorist free-for-all zones.  Or should we try to limit the collateral damage while still effectively attacking them?

    Or do you mean to imply that US forces are acting with total disregard for the innocent lives?  That's a holy mother of an accusation, and I'd expect you to back it up.

    The obvious and cheesy response is that if we were trying to "limit the collateral damage" we wouldn't have attacked while the school was in session, but that'd ignore the nature of intelligence gathering and guerrilla warfare.  Some opportunities to attack the enemy are fleeting.  You either respond quickly or give the enemy the chance to fight the next battle on his terms.

    Parent

    Simple. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:33:10 PM EST
    Don't attack schools. Period.

    Surround them if you want.

    And wait.

    Parent

    Re; total disregard for the innocent lives? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:36:51 PM EST
    I can back it up other cases. I have. Here. Many times. Disregard for the innocent lives was the motivator and cause behind 9/11.

    And in this case simply attacking a school is, imo, disregard for innocent lives.

    Parent

    Brilliant (none / 0) (#18)
    by roy on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:55:09 PM EST
    We may be wandering a little here, since the terrorists were near a school rather than in one, but oh well...

    Under your plan every opportunity to attack that allows time to drop a bomb, but not time to deploy troops, is simply lost.  Let's hope the terrorists who get away don't hurt anybody until the next chance we have to stop them.

    Can I also assume that you'll let the terrorists use human shields as a trump card?  So we "surround the school... and wait" until somebody comes out with a gun to a kid's head saying he'll shoot if anybody follows him.  Then we either let him get away (hope he won't hurt anybody 'til next time) we go after him and he kills the kid and you blame our troops for another dead kid.

    Or maybe they'll just wait around in there.  Now we've got our troops in an unfortified position known to the enemy.  They have to either A) wait there an indefinitely long time or B) let the enemy get away eventually.  Now what might Al Qaeda do with a situation like that?

    Your suggestion boils down to giving the enemy an unbeatable tactic.  You may as well install IED vending machines in those schools.

    Parent

    calling in airstrikes (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:52:25 PM EST
    on schools and  mosques is a war crime.

    What ratio of children to alleged terrorists is OK with you?

    Parent

    You can assume nothing about (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:18:34 PM EST
    what I'll agree with or not agree with.

    And if you continue that kind of dishonest tactic I'll dismiss you as being as not worth discussing with as I do ppj. But I know you are better than that, roy.

    You can ask. But don't try the tricks.
    ....

    9/11 was a punch in the nose. It was not "unprovoked". It was the logical reaction, that should have been expected (and was by many) for years, to nearly a century of incidents like this school bombing.

    And there will be more 9/11's. As long as the US and Britain keep creating them by killing innocent civilians.

    The WOT fantasy has killed hundreds of thousands of defenseless children and women in Iraq and Afghanistan over the years. It is a war on innocent people.

    It is a nightmare. A self creating one.

    You cannot do that kind of thing for years and turn around crying foul when they fight back.

    A simple policy change, "do not bomb schools" under any circumstances, will ensure that innocent children are never killed by airstrikes on schools.

    That is pretty simple a implies b reasoning. There is no argument against it. Or do you not agree with the logic of that?

    If you want to argue that it is ok to bomb schools then you take the discussion to a whole other level:  'Collateral Damage' as Euphemism for Mass Murder

    If we take this collectivist argument for "collateral damage" at face value, set aside the calculation problem with foreign central planning, and assume the U.S. government is honest in its intentions and able in its deeds, we would presumably agree that the U.S. government has a right to kill innocent people, so long as it is ousting a human monster that would kill more innocent people.
    ...
     In other words, the U.S. government, in overthrowing a foreign regime, can justifiably slaughter any number of innocents up to the number that regime would slaughter if left in place. Ousting Hitler in 1939 would have therefore justified the killing of millions of Jews, homosexuals, dissidents, Gypsies, and disabled people by the one doing the ousting - so long as the number killed was fewer than the number Hitler would have ultimately killed.

    Ousting Stalin, Pol Pot, or any other mega-murderer would justify committing any crime less serious than the crimes committed by the enemy.

    The statistical utilitarian argument for mass slaughter is no more than a defense of mass murder on a grand scale, so long as it is known that the enemy would murder even more. This is not an individualist, libertarian, or even humane argument. It looks upon innocent human lives as mere numbers.
    ...
    This argument for "collateral damage" is effectively no less than a blank check to the State to go to oppressed countries and murder large numbers of their populations, claiming all the while that it is saving lives.



    Parent
    The rest of your argument there is crap. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:26:52 PM EST
    Surround the school. Shut off the power. Shut off the water. Allow no food in.

    Toss a note tied to stone through a window. Tell them to send the kids out - that you guarantee their safety.

    Wait. If they don't surrender it will be them that killed the kids, not you.

    ..

    By bombing the school this time, of course, you've ensured than the above would never work, because they won't believe you when you say you will guarantee the safety of their children. With good reason.

    Parent

    Same goes for churches. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:33:06 PM EST
    They use churches as firing positions! (none / 0) (#23)
    by roy on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:48:59 PM EST
    Again. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 02:05:37 PM EST
    Surround them. Stand out of range. Starve them out.

    Parent
    My assumption was for the sake of brevity (none / 0) (#22)
    by roy on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:43:00 PM EST
    It seemed to be a logical extension of your stance on attacking schools; I apologize for getting it wrong.

    I'll give you this: "do not bomb schools" will pretty much ensure that innocent children are never killed by airstrikes.  There's quibbling to be done over children at other locations, and ground attacks versus airstrikes, but the essence of your point is correct.

    And if you'd please dispel my assumption, what would have our troops do if a suspected terrorist comes out of a school with a gun to a kids head, saying he'll kill the kid if he's followed or otherwise hassled?  Or perhaps this possibility is so remote as to be irrelevant?

    ...

    I argue that it can be OK to bomb schools if it is necessary in order to beat the bad guys.  That is an absolutely critical bit of nuance that your quote disregards.  It would not have been acceptable to kill 5.9 million Jews to oust Hitler, because there was a better way to do it.

    Al Qaeda's nature and tactics mean we have to either A) find non-violent means to stop them, B) inflict substantial innocent casualties to stop them, or C) don't stop them.  Option A looks promising but I don't believe it's realistically possible, and Option C isn't acceptable.  So we're left with Option B.

    comes out with... a gun to a kids head? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:50:05 PM EST
    This again has nothing to do with bombing a school.

    But for the moment  I'll address it if you are not using it simply as avoidance tactic to try to divert the discussion.

    To the point: comes out with... a gun to a kids head?

    I'm not trained in hostage negotiations. Nor am I a sharpshooter. But both skills are well developed professionally and seem to me to be options for dealing with such a situation. Deal with it. Without an airstike.

    The fact the he came out at the very least saved you from having the deaths of all the kids on your conscience from bombing the school.

    Parent

    I think I'm done for the day (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by roy on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 02:08:37 PM EST
    Thanks for clearing that up.  I think we maybe got sidetracked by some muddling of "attack" broadly versus "airstrikes" specifically, and me trying to jump around a dozen different scenarios.

    I don't know about you, but I've reached the limit of my ability to discuss this without getting personal and nasty.  Movers are coming soon anyway.  Have a nice day.

    Parent

    Thanks, Roy. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 02:14:34 PM EST
    I think you get this.

    Parent
    As far as this is concerrned (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:53:24 PM EST
    I argue that it can be OK to bomb schools if it is necessary in order to beat the bad guys.

    NO. Absolutely disagree. 100%. No question.

    I addressed why above. Doing so is the cause of the problem in the first place, and the reason you are there attacking. You become the bad guy.

    Parent

    Abu Ghraib war crimes went to the top (none / 0) (#27)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:53:41 PM EST
    "These M.P. troops were not that creative," he said. "Somebody was giving them guidance, but I was legally prevented from further investigation into higher authority. I was limited to a box."
    rummy lied to congress. Indict him.

    Ken Rice... (none / 0) (#32)
    by desertswine on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 04:22:58 PM EST
    How many little old ladies (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 04:34:46 PM EST
    are bankrupt, without health insurance, and living on cat food, to pay for that Ferrari?

    Parent
    Not to mention... (none / 0) (#34)
    by desertswine on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 04:53:51 PM EST
    that they only get 8-9 miles per gallon.

    Parent
    Or about (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:16:57 PM EST
    a hundred miles per starving little old lady?

    Parent
    Yeah, about that... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by desertswine on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:57:32 PM EST
    the annual fuel cost alone will be pushing five grand.

    Parent