Why does Bush hate Amnesty?

[Colleen Thomas]

Men (and women) in the field are already taking the blame and the punishment for political policy.

It is time to spread a bit of that blame and punishment up the food chain, to reach the well insulated policy-makers.

Sitting back and claiming it is caused by heat-of-the-moment battle conditions, or bad apples, will never get the job done.

And the job DOES need doing.

Ya know, there is pretty strong evidence that those being tried are guilty. Pictures tend to give you very little wiggle room. About your only defense then is that you were following orders, a defense that has proven not to work.

If you want to spread the blame upward, then you are going to have to provide proof of the same nature that the level of command above knew, and stronger still proof for the next level. The higher you go, the more solid proof you will need, because each level of command adds extra levels of plausible deniability.

It seems to me, people are engageing in a ton of speculation on who knew. It seems too that some of you are ready to issue courts martial and Big Chicken Dinners based on your speculation. Rules of evidence be damnned.

That kind of myopic mania is no more attractive on anti war partisans than it is on the chickenhawks.

As far as i know, there is no evidence of knowledge of what was going on beyond the Officer in charge. It is well within in the rules of military protocal to hold the base commander guilty of deriliction of duty, as he/she retains ultimate responsibility for acts on his/her post. To implicate the next level of command, you need orders from that level of command. Orders and directives that I note haven't seemed to surface as of yet.

It is one thing to be angry at a situation. It's an entierly different thing to assign blame where you like and demand action on your suspicions, as if those suspicions carried the weight of fact.

From what I have seen, read and digested, there is enough evidence to move against the perpatrators under the military's Uniform code of military justice. There is also sufficent evidence to issue a reprimand to the base commander, under the principal of ultimate authority for what occurs on the base being his responsibility. After that, I don't see much in the way of actionable evidence for a court martial of the divisional commander. Even less for the regional commander, signifiacntly less for the theatre commander, damn near none for the overall commander. By the time you get back across the ocean to the US, you are talking about evidence so thin as to be invisible. And when you jump from the actual military authority to the Civilain authority and office of the president? Pure speculation.

I find scapegoating to be reprehensible, but no more reprehensible than the Kangaroo court mentality of some of the posters here. Innocent until proven guilty still goes and there seems to be damned litle proof of guilt, just a lot of angst aimed at targets they already don't like.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm with you on the issue of kangaroo courts and witch-hunts, Colly, but it does bear repeating that there are few imaginable circumstances in which there would be likely to be evidence from higher up the chain of command, whether such orders were given or not. All a higher-up needs to do is to make it a verbal order, or even elide a little more and just go the plausibly deniable "I want results, whatever it takes" route. I'm not saying that we should rush to judgement without evidence, but while acknowledging that it's important to substantiate claims to the best of our ability, I think your comments on the ever-increasing burden of evidence as one moves up the chain of command have the practical effect of making it nearly impossible to ever hold anyone at the top responsible for anything. After all, if someone was foolish enough to make a habit of leaving written proof of illegal directives laying about, s/he would hardly be likely to have risen to a position of command in the first place.

This is a problem in more than the military; it also seems to plague most of our modern political and corporate ethical scandals. In the end, it's usually the footsoliders who end up taking the fall. We know that if they disobeyed the orders or strongly-worded (yet plausibly vauge) suggestions of their superiors that they would lose their jobs, rank, or pay, and yet when it all goes badly wrong they are held personally responsible and bear the brunt of the punishment because their involvement is the easiest to prove. The behavior of subordinate persons is often not actually the driving factor or the root of the problem, but it's the most immediate and the most easily documented.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I understand your point, Colleen. As I said, I don't believe torture is ordered from above, from either in either the military chain of command or from the executive office.

But neither is there a concerted effort to stop it. They'll act to mollify the public if the outcry gets too bad, but they think torture is useful enough to not make too big a fuss. Plus there's the whole 'being weak' thing to consider as well.

I also question whether they are getting useful information. It's been what, almost four years now? How many people have been charged or tried on information gained from torture? There might be secrecy involved, but surely they must have something. Considering this administration's penchant for crowing media, I can;t believe they wouldn't brag if they had accomplished something.

My biggest worry is what limits they'll set on the removal of rights and who they will use torture against next. Will the drunk put his bottle down once he's opened it?

I'm in total agreement that there has been an apalling lack of action to insure such things don't happen again. that inaction could be a sign of approval, it could also be a sign of indifference or it could be a sign of Beauracratic inertia. It could also be a sign of interservice rivalry, I.E. no authority wanting to take responsibe action, least they appear to have been the culpable party in already reported abuses. There are reasonable explanations for a lack of concrete restructuring that don't create implication of acceptance of the practice.

In my reading and study, the intelligence community generally agrees that tactical intelligence has a time limit. Depending on the rank of the captive and the scope of operations that can range from a few hours to a month or two. In general, nothing your captive knows will be of use in six months, especially if his capture is known of.

In an insurgant war, there is some intelligence that dosen't have a time limit. Organizational and methodological information, for example.

At bare bones, the problem with gitmo now, is that there is no doctrine of where to go from here. As I said in an earlier post, it wasn't well concieved nor well thought out when this expedient was decided upon. the potential for abuse being only one of the many short comings.

I don't pretend to have all the answers or in this case any answers. I feel pretty sure that most of those in charge are in the same boat. You can't prosecute them now as combatants. You have denied them POW status, which denies you legitimacy in trying them for war crimes. You have denied them the status of alien criminals, which also denies you legitimacy in trying them as criminals. You are stuck now with the other side of the sword. It was great to give them no status when it suited, but now that you need to deal with them, their lack of status give you precious few options. Some of those, while expedient aren't politcially viable, like letting them go.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I don't pretend to have all the answers or in this case any answers. I feel pretty sure that most of those in charge are in the same boat. You can't prosecute them now as combatants. You have denied them POW status, which denies you legitimacy in trying them for war crimes. You have denied them the status of alien criminals, which also denies you legitimacy in trying them as criminals. You are stuck now with the other side of the sword. It was great to give them no status when it suited, but now that you need to deal with them, their lack of status give you precious few options. Some of those, while expedient aren't politcially viable, like letting them go.

Most intriguing, and a genuinely interesting take on the situation.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm with you on the issue of kangaroo courts and witch-hunts, Colly, but it does bear repeating that there are few imaginable circumstances in which there would be likely to be evidence from higher up the chain of command, whether such orders were given or not. All a higher-up needs to do is to make it a verbal order, or even elide a little more and just go the plausibly deniable "I want results, whatever it takes" route. I'm not saying that we should rush to judgement without evidence, but while acknowledging that it's important to substantiate claims to the best of our ability, I think your comments on the ever-increasing burden of evidence as one moves up the chain of command have the practical effect of making it nearly impossible to ever hold anyone at the top responsible for anything. After all, if someone was foolish enough to make a habit of leaving written proof of illegal directives laying about, s/he would hardly be likely to have risen to a position of command in the first place.

This is a problem in more than the military; it also seems to plague most of our modern political and corporate ethical scandals. In the end, it's usually the footsoliders who end up taking the fall. We know that if they disobeyed the orders or strongly-worded (yet plausibly vauge) suggestions of their superiors that they would lose their jobs, rank, or pay, and yet when it all goes badly wrong they are held personally responsible and bear the brunt of the punishment because their involvement is the easiest to prove. The behavior of subordinate persons is often not actually the driving factor or the root of the problem, but it's the most immediate and the most easily documented.

Shanglan

But how do you move without proof Shang? the divisional commander probably had no idea what was going on. In a combat zone, I seriously doubt he gave more thought to risoners than getting them to the collection points and making sure they were disarmed. Are you going to court martial him and end what is most likely an exemplary career in the service of his country on suspicion? Obviously, you can't move up the chain of command to anyone above him, without trying him. Unless you can prove the theatre commander issued directives to people under the divisional commander's authority without his knowledge.

So do we rip the heart out out of the foces deplyed, scramble the commands, and end the careers of several officers to get up to the "ultimate" responsible authority. On suspicion that they might have issued verbal orders to the effect.

It's a catch-22. And if you choose the devil of action, you condemn some innocent people to pay for it. If you choose to not act without substanative proof, you obviously run the risk of letting those really guilty go.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

I don’t insist that where there is smoke, there must be fire. I do insist that where there is smoke, an effort should be made to check for fire.

With one incident in one prison, you may feel free to write it off to bad apples or stress, but when similar instances occur in numerous prisons around the Middle East, as well as Guantanamo Base, you are fooling yourself if you think it can all be the result of undirected action.

With Mahar Arar’s extreme rendition beginning stateside at JFK in New York, then proceeding to Washingon, D.C. before being transported to Syria for torture, someone above a Lance Corporal had to be involved.

Arar’s case (amongst others) in concert with the abuses at POW prisons indicates to anyone not consciously attempting to deluding themself is that there are people in the present (and perhaps a previous) administration who have a predilection for the use, or at least the accommodation, of torture.

 

[BlackShanglan]

But how do you move without proof Shang?

<snip>

It's a catch-22. And if you choose the devil of action, you condemn some innocent people to pay for it. If you choose to not act without substanative proof, you obviously run the risk of letting those really guilty go.

Oh, I agree. I wasn't suggesting that there was any easy solution - more just mulling the problems. As you say - whatever way you go, there are terrible risks and consequences.

The only thing that comes to mind in connection is one way that it's been dealt with, although in a very different context. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was introduced to deal with this sort of problem in the public/financial sphere by requiring the highest-ranking officials in companies to personally certify the companies' financial statements. The idea was to strip away some of the "plausible deniability" between them and the layers of accounting tricks that distorted their earnings. The basic premise is to hold the person at the top responsible for all that he supervises. It will be interesting to see how the act holds up under challenges, and how far down the chain of command one can reasonably ask the top figures to extend their reach and oversight.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don’t insist that where there is smoke, there must be fire. I do insist that where there is smoke, an effort should be made to check for fire.

With one incident in one prison, you may feel free to write it off to bad apples or stress, but when similar instances occur in numerous prisons around the Middle East, as well as Guantanamo Base, you are fooling yourself if you think it can all be the result of undirected action.

With Mahar Arar’s extreme rendition beginning stateside at JFK in New York, then proceeding to Washingon, D.C. before being transported to Syria for torture, someone above a Lance Corporal had to be involved.

Arar’s case (amongst others) in concert with the abuses at POW prisons indicates to anyone not consciously attempting to deluding themself is that there are people in the present (and perhaps a previous) administration who have a predilection for the use, or at least the accommodation, of torture.

I guess I'm just odd. While I do agree you need t investigate when there's smoke. I also want to see proof before I crucify someone.

Obviously, I don't know much about the case of Mahar Arar, but I do have a question. If he is a Canadian citizen imprisoned in Syria, why dosen't Canada deal with Syria for his release? It isn't like Syria is a friend to the US. Assuming he was deported, why is the US still ivolved? It should be a simple matter of the Canadian government assertaining why he is imprisoned and bringing diplomatic pressure to bear if there is insufficent reason.

Abuses are claimed all over, but as far as I know, only the abuses at Abu Grahib have been substantiated to the point where court martial has been brought.

I don't have the slightest problem admiting that there appear to be endemic, doctinal weaknesses that lend themselves to abuse. I'm still not seeing any proof that those weaknesses aren't the result of simple failure to appreciate the scope and magnitude of prisoners taken and the questions of how to effectively deal with an insurgancy. I admit, that view isn't as gratifying as blaming GWB and his cohorts, but it seems at least equally as plausible to me. Considering the SNAFU of the overall strategic thinking about Iraq, it seems far more plausible.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Oh, I agree. I wasn't suggesting that there was any easy solution - more just mulling the problems. As you say - whatever way you go, there are terrible risks and consequences.

The only thing that comes to mind in connection is one way that it's been dealt with, although in a very different context. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was introduced to deal with this sort of problem in the public/financial sphere by requiring the highest-ranking officials in companies to personally certify the companies' financial statements. The idea was to strip away some of the "plausible deniability" between them and the layers of accounting tricks that distorted their earnings. The basic premise is to hold the person at the top responsible for all that he supervises. It will be interesting to see how the act holds up under challenges, and how far down the chain of command one can reasonably ask the top figures to extend their reach and oversight.

Shanglan

I'm not an expert, by any means, but if history is an indicator, the base commander is usually as high as you can go in prosecuting. At Pearl Harbor, the failures were all the way up to Knox and Marshall, but only Kimmel and Short were charged with deriliction of Duty.

At Malmady, the German task force leader, Pfifer, was as high as the indictments went. yamashita paid for the defense of manilla, despite his orders not to defend the city.

I think, there is a fairly logical limit to which you can assign blame upwards. In this case, the base commander obviously bears some responsibility. He should know what is going on at his base. I don't think you can legitimately expect his commander, the divisonal commander, to know what is going on on every base his division inhabits. If he made it his job to know the day to day trivial details, non judicial punishments and operations of every base, he wouldn't have any time to deal with prosecuting his divison's part in the war.

It would be even more of a stretch to expect a theatre commander to know what's going on at every place his Corps or army group occupies. And even worse to expect the overall commander to know who is spending time in the brig across Iraq for minor infractions.

It seems to me, the only way to persue rsponsibility not with the soldiers themselves would be to work top down, issuing a condemnation of the Doctrine that allowed it to happen. In that case though, you have to make a decision on motive and intent, things that almost always are subjective.

 

[cantdog]

As far as i know, there is no evidence of knowledge of what was going on beyond the Officer in charge. It is well within in the rules of military protocal to hold the base commander guilty of deriliction of duty, as he/she retains ultimate responsibility for acts on his/her post. To implicate the next level of command, you need orders from that level of command. Orders and directives that I note haven't seemed to surface as of yet.

It is one thing to be angry at a situation. It's an entierly different thing to assign blame where you like and demand action on your suspicions, as if those suspicions carried the weight of fact.

The point is not Abu Ghraib alone, Colleen. There are dozens of known rendition cases. There is three years of Red Cross allegations at Gitmo. There are the policy memeos from the current Attorney General and others. There's the Gimo general who went to Iraq and changed the emphasis.

Who told Lynndie England to to what, exactly, is not going to be traceable too far up. In the initial hearings, according to the report they issued and the few minutes i saw on C-Span, they talked for a long time and nobody seemed to have a clear idea about chain of command.

To listen to the hearings you would have thought no one was in charge of anyone. Civilian "contractors," CIA dudes, plain MPs, each with their own chain, and nobody in the supervisor chair. the buck stopped noplace at all.

But that is beside the point when the discussion is policy. Policy is top down, and we have FOIA evidence confirming Hersch's book, point by point. We have renditions. A guy taken from Sweden, htis Arar fellow, and many others. These people were not sent to torturers abroad by chance or by Lynndie England. Rumsfeld defends the practice of extraordinary renditions.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Oh, I agree. I wasn't suggesting that there was any easy solution - more just mulling the problems. As you say - whatever way you go, there are terrible risks and consequences.

The only thing that comes to mind in connection is one way that it's been dealt with, although in a very different context. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was introduced to deal with this sort of problem in the public/financial sphere by requiring the highest-ranking officials in companies to personally certify the companies' financial statements. The idea was to strip away some of the "plausible deniability" between them and the layers of accounting tricks that distorted their earnings. The basic premise is to hold the person at the top responsible for all that he supervises. It will be interesting to see how the act holds up under challenges, and how far down the chain of command one can reasonably ask the top figures to extend their reach and oversight.

Shanglan

There is a military precedent too. probably several. What I am thinking of is the case of the Japanese general, Yamashita Tomoyuki. He was in charge of the occupation of the Philippines and when that nation was liberated, he was hanged for the atrocities committed by his forces. He claimed he didn't know about them but he was convicted and hanged anyhow. Of course, those atrocities were far worse than any the US forces have committed lately.

 

[cantdog]

I guess I'm just odd. While I do agree you need t investigate when there's smoke. I also want to see proof before I crucify someone.

Obviously, I don't know much about the case of Mahar Arar, but I do have a question. If he is a Canadian citizen imprisoned in Syria, why dosen't Canada deal with Syria for his release? It isn't like Syria is a friend to the US. Assuming he was deported, why is the US still ivolved? It should be a simple matter of the Canadian government assertaining why he is imprisoned and bringing diplomatic pressure to bear if there is insufficent reason.

Abuses are claimed all over, but as far as I know, only the abuses at Abu Grahib have been substantiated to the point where court martial has been brought.

I don't have the slightest problem admiting that there appear to be endemic, doctinal weaknesses that lend themselves to abuse. I'm still not seeing any proof that those weaknesses aren't the result of simple failure to appreciate the scope and magnitude of prisoners taken and the questions of how to effectively deal with an insurgancy. I admit, that view isn't as gratifying as blaming GWB and his cohorts, but it seems at least equally as plausible to me. Considering the SNAFU of the overall strategic thinking about Iraq, it seems far more plausible.

Rumsfeld is the most clearly implicated, both in extracting the policy of no status from the president and in defending extraordinary renditions. There are a few folk around him at the Pentagon as well, with the same stains on them. What we see now is that the SNAFU began in the civilian leadership at Defense. They overrode the ordinary logistical office to deploy faster. The concept was a leaner force.

Arar is home now, in Canada, isn't he? The Canadians made an international incident out of his treatment. They did over Jalbert, too, in 2002. We bulldozed over the Jalbert affair, and Rummy defends what was done to Arar on the grounds that Canada did not agree to help.

 

[cantdog]

I agree with you, sadly, that there is no resolve, on either side of the aisle, to make sure this stops. The President himself says the allegations are absurd. The dems are quiet on it, except the black Caucus, and they get ticked about everything.

 

[patrick1]

Back at the original point...I'm on the far left of this debate usually, but I do think the use of the word 'gulag' was wrong, and has proved a hostage to fortune. It enables a smokescreen of Rumsfeldian indignation to fog over the underlying critique.

It is unnerving, as a Briton, to see the way the USA has moved under Bush. I used to argue against my British friends, when we interned suspected irish terrorists, for instance, that Americans would be faithful to the rule of law.

But now this doesn't seem to be the case. The legal black hole of Guantanamo and the 'rendition' of people to third countries are, to me, appalling. And there's a truly alarming undercurrent that even a cursory look at bulleting boards provides evidence of - a gung-ho American militarism (supported by the UK prime minister) that despises all international organisations, that denies evidence and repeats untruths about the UN or Amnesty or majority international opinion about climate change (to wander into another area). Across the pond this all looks truly frightening. I just hope there's a modern-day Joseph Heller somewhere in Iraq or the White House who is going to write the absurd and terrible truth about all this one day.

Patrick

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I just hope there's a modern-day Joseph Heller somewhere in Iraq or the White House who is going to write the absurd and terrible truth about all this one day.

Patrick

Alas, his writings will not be published, "due to the current political climate."

 

[thebullet]

My wife just re-read Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. I hadn't read it in about 20 years, so she read a few of the passages to me aloud. They were truly frightening in their accurate depiction of America today.

We are so close to a religious/fascist dictatorship in this country, and people aren't even concerned about our direction. This prisoner abuse is the tip of the iceburg. Most Americans shrug their shoulders and/or bury their heads in the sand. Our news organizations won't tell us what is happening for fear of retribution or because they themselves are fascist (read Fox News).

This government is fueled by the double-speak of its leaders and the indifference of the electorate. This country may be in serious trouble.

On a brighter note, perhaps due to the totally outrageous behavior of our leaders, even our running-scared news media are starting to report some of the more agregious deeds performed.

The emergence of Deep Throat from his self-imposed silence lets us look back upon those Watergate days with envy. We had a viable investigative press. We had people who were willing to be outraged by the sins of our leaders.

And what Nixon did is small potatos next to the gigantic misdeeds of our current leaders. Where is Deep Throat when we need him? And if he exists, is there a news organization willing to report his story?

 

[ishtat]

Alas, his writings will not be published, "due to the current political climate."

The reality of a world which fondly imagines itself to have free speech - in practise as well as in theory.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Our news organizations won't tell us what is happening for fear of retribution or because they themselves are fascist (read Fox News).

I almost wish this were true, because then at least there would be some sense and purpose in it. Alas, I think that the more likely explanation is that they are too busy with their orgiastic frenzy over Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton, and whatever other rattle-headed celebrity they can focus on today. In democracy, we're told, the people get the government they deserve. We also appear to be getting the media we deserve, and it's a sobering and repulsive spectacle. We get the news that sells, and apparently we're not very avid consumers of news that doesn't involve sex and celebrities. Possibly the reason we're only hearing about the most egregious deeds of our government is that those are the only ones deemed "juicy" enough to sell papers.

I'm becoming quite an ardent advocate of personal privacy rights. It's not merely that I think at least some of the less media-whoring/Madonna-esque actors and singers deserve the chance to live semi-normal lives; it's that I increasingly think that we began a dangerous process of erosion when we let the media define the pursuit of photographs of celebrities at awkward personal moments as "in the public interest." It's led not only to ugly mobs of paparazzi and dangerous, nasty behavior, but also to a public increasingly unable or unwilling to differentiate between gossip and news, and between that which they need to know and that which is titillating. We've grossly distorted our sense of what is newsworthy and what people need to know about their country, having sold it out to focus on whatever makes a good 2-minute soundbite. The sooner we weed out the junk news infotainment puff pieces, the better.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I almost wish this were true, because then at least there would be some sense and purpose in it. Alas, I think that the more likely explanation is that they are too busy with their orgiastic frenzy over Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton, and whatever other rattle-headed celebrity they can focus on today. In democracy, we're told, the people get the government they deserve. We also appear to be getting the media we deserve, and it's a sobering and repulsive spectacle. We get the news that sells, and apparently we're not very avid consumers of news that doesn't involve sex and celebrities. Possibly the reason we're only hearing about the most egregious deeds of our government is that those are the only ones deemed "juicy" enough to sell papers.

I'm becoming quite an ardent advocate of personal privacy rights. It's not merely that I think at least some of the less media-whoring/Madonna-esque actors and singers deserve the chance to live semi-normal lives; it's that I increasingly think that we began a dangerous process of erosion when we let the media define the pursuit of photographs of celebrities at awkward personal moments as "in the public interest." It's led not only to ugly mobs of paparazzi and dangerous, nasty behavior, but also to a public increasingly unable or unwilling to differentiate between gossip and news, and between that which they need to know and that which is titillating. We've grossly distorted our sense of what is newsworthy and what people need to know about their country, having sold it out to focus on whatever makes a good 2-minute soundbite. The sooner we weed out the junk news infotainment puff pieces, the better.

Shanglan

I'll add to that, that the Media in general has been caught unprepared for the information age. They have done themselves unquantifiable harm by not following their own rules for vetting and following up.

Reporters making it up as they go along and it's the bloggers, not the editors that catch them. Dan Rather doing a hatchet job on a sitting president, less than two weeks from a general election and again, it's the bloggers who catch him, not his editors or the executives.

The news media no longer enjoys a corner on information, sources or reports. They have been slow to get their screening procedurs up to the new standard under which they are going to be critiqued. And it has seriously hurt their credibility as a whole.

We may get the news we deserve, but celebrity scandals and juicy sex stories may be the only news our current media is fit to report. There is no Walter Cronkite, no Edward R. Murrow, in whom there is a vast repository of public faith any longer.

It may well be that we trust them to tell us about Jacko, because it dosen't matter in any real sense. But we don't trust them any longer to tell us about things that a news worthy, because their credibility is at an all time low.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Amen to Colly's post. There's a very interesting film out there called "George Orwell Rolls in His Grave" - good viewing for anyone interested in the culture and practice of modern media. They are particularly enlightening on the degree to which political reporting now involves almost nothing but presenting statements issued by the politicians themselves. It's a slanted film; they're very exercized about what they perceive as a conservative bias in the media, and rather blind to any possible liberal bias. But if you can weed that out (and ignore the biting irony of such bias in a piece on media responsibility), they've got very good things to say about the degeneraton of investigative reporting and the power of corporate ties and multi-armed media conglomerations. It's difficult to place any faith in people whose practices are so dubious, investigation and analysis so hasty, and financial motives so omnipresent and entangled.

Shanglan