Untitled Document

During my service in the Navy I was fortunate to have had command of an aircraft attack squadron. For many of our training sorties it usually didn’t matter if a flight was delayed but on this particular day we were to drop live ordnance (500 lb. bombs) and we had a firm target time.

I pointed out to my maintenance officer that today’s flights were somewhat different and why it was important that we make our takeoff times. Later on the flight line I overheard a young petty officer in charge of the ordnance loading crew saying, “This is an operational necessity.” He was telling his crew that they had to get the bombs loaded and fused immediately and that the normal checklists would be bypassed. How, I wondered, could a seemingly casual remark on my part have eventually been treated as a full-blown operational emergency?

Ordnance men in their training have been instructed that safety is paramount in the handling of live ordnance. Why, I pondered did the crew leader feel it was necessary to disregard these fundamental principles that were ingrained in his training? I took responsibility for what had occurred because it was my initial remarks that triggered a chain of events that could have resulted in unintended consequences. If an incident had occurred, a formal inquiry would most likely have placed the majority of the blame at the lowest level because I never intended nor authorized any disregard for established procedures. I took no disciplinary action for none was necessary. Those involved had overreacted and were embarrassed by their actions and apologetic for what had occurred. It was a valuable learning experience for me, the Petty Officer in charge of the loading crew and for those in my chain of command.

Today, several Military Policemen (MPs) have been charged with abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. How did this occur? Were there triggering events at a higher level? What happened in the chain of command?

Having served in the military, I know how things work. If any officer in the chain of command had received a Red Cross report outlining that torture or abuse of prisoners had occurred, actions should have been taken to correct the situation. All that would be necessary would be to make a copy of the report and write in the margins a comment like, “What in the hell is going on down there!” and forward the report to the appropriate subordinate. That subordinate, after reading those comments would immediately know that he/she better come up with some answers very quickly.

In a like manner, when that officer informed his superior that, “We have a situation down here that you need to be aware of – Sir.” He/she would have received more help than he/she would have ever wanted. But, nothing like that apparently occurred. That implies that there must have been other factors at work within the entire structure of the chain of command.

Today investigators are starting at Abu Ghraib and trying to determine the source that precipitated these events.

It started at the top

On the afternoon of September 14th (three days after 9/11), after speaking at the 9-11 memorial service held at the national cathedral in Washington, DC and prior to his arrival in New York city to view the destruction of the World Trade Center, President Bush took time to review a document which would provide direction to the CIA. Quoting directly from Bob Woodward’s book Bush at War (bottom of page 68), we read about the actions that President Bush took.

“He then turned to editing the draft of the TOP SECRET intelligence order that the CIA wanted the president to sign. In his view, it was sloppy and carelessly done. The language was vague and open-ended, the authority too broad and sweeping. He marked up his copy with proposed revisions, cuts and clarifications. Authority that ought to reserved for the president or the CIA director was being given to subordinates.”

This was the mother of all documents for it gave birth to others that would follow that eventually led to the widely publicized prisoner abuses. I commend Bush for not giving the CIA carte blanche in its campaign against terrorism but rather limiting its actions to those that were authorized by him in writing. Several former members of the CIA have commented that there were two CIAs, one before 9/11 and one after. One of the CIA agents stated, “After 9-11 the gloves were taken off.” Since its inception, all presidents have had to constrain the actions of the CIA to prevent widespread abuse. The policy of restraint appears to have been altered dramatically at the express approval and direction by Bush after 9/11.

I suspect that Bush wanted to provide precise guidance and limit the implementation to a select few operatives of the CIA in a codeword program, but this would have been impossible to implement in a covert manner. At the start of the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, CIA operatives worked hand-in-hand with members of the Special Forces who worked directly with regular members of the Army and Marines. How was anyone to know what rules applied to whom? Wasn’t everybody fighting the same war against terrorism? Isn’t it rational to assume that “if he can do it, I can do it too?” Even at Abu Ghraib the CIA had their own prisoners and asked prison administrators to hide them from the Red Cross.

The situation was further complicated because we were not fighting an army in uniforms. Special rules most likely were to apply to the senior Al Qaeda leadership, but what about the thousands of those who attended their training camps? How about the Taliban who provided sanctuary for Al Qaeda? Bush has said we would not differentiate between terrorist and those who provide them sanctuary. How about foreigners who went to study Islam in Pakistan and then joined the Taliban in their fight against the warlords such as the Northern Alliance? Wasn’t this more of an internal civil-war type struggle that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda? What about the terrorists fighting against the reconstruction in Iraq? Is there a difference between them and an Al Qaeda terrorist? Hasn’t Bush said that it is all part of the greater war on terrorism?

In addition to Abu Ghraib, abuses have been reported at Guantanamo and other prisons. What about other “ghost detainees” held at secret locations other than Iraq or Afghanistan? What specifically authorization did Bush give the CIA? Were assassinations permitted? In Bush’s state of the union address in February 2003, he stated, “All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. And many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: They are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies.”

The Lawyers Got It Wrong Alberto R Gonzales, The White House counsel wrote “none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world." Justice department lawyers parsed the definition of torture to include “physical pain…must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” Other lawyers argued that as commander-in-chief, Bush was not bound by international law in his conduct of the war against terrorism.

During war, the basic rule in combat is kill or be killed. Over the years steps have been taken to outlaw certain types of weapons and to prevent innocent civilian casualties as much as possible. Mankind has not progressed to a point where he has been able to outlaw war but he has attempted to level the playing field (or killing field if you prefer) as much as possible and to keep the conflict among combatants.

But when someone is captured, the situation dramatically changes for one side now has total control over the other. It was in this situation that the Geneva accords were specifically written to ensure the humane treatment would prevail. I find it odd that Bush has chosen the word ‘enemy combatant” to be applied to detainees in the war against terrorism. The word combatant implies that the individual is actively involved in combat. That is not true. He is in fact a prisoner in all respects.

My father-in-law, a German citizen, fought for the German army in WW II. He was wounded and captured by the Americans in Italy. One of the first things his captors said to him was, “for you, the war is over.” These few simple words provide an understanding and clarity that has escaped the comprehension of the lawyers in the Bush administration. It clearly defines in simple terms the difference between a soldier in combat and one that has been taken prisoner. Perhaps, the lawyers are technically correct in that Afghanistan was a failed state and that the Taliban and al Qaeda were not states at all and that the Geneva Conventions did not apply. But that’s a technicality. The real reason behind the Geneva Conventions is the humane treatment of prisoners!

My father-in-law spent time in prison camps in Maryland and Oklahoma, learned to speak English, and acted as an interpreter for the British forces after the war. I never heard him criticize the Americans for his treatment. I wonder how many detainees in Iraq and other parts of the world feel about the Americans and the time they spent in captivity?

During the final days of WW II in Europe, German troops were advised to surrender to the Americans because they could expect more humane treatment. America had long been recognized throughout the world as a defender of human rights and the humane treatment for all people. Today, much of that prestige has been severely eroded by the Bush policies regarding the treatment of prisoners in the war against terrorism. If America no longer stands for the rule of law, human rights and the humane treatment of people, what does it stand for?

The American military once steadfastly endorsed the Geneva Accords especially with respect to the handling of POWs. But in the Bush administration that policy was changed at the insistence of the President. On Saturday, 15 September 2001 (4 days after 9-11), Bush met with his closest advisors at Camp David. CIA director Tenet distributed a briefing packet entitled “Going to War.” Robert Woodward in his book Bush at War describes what happened at that meeting. Quoting directly from the book (pages 76-78).

“At the heart of the proposal was a recommendation that the president give what Tenet labeled ‘exceptional authorities’ to the CIA to destroy al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the rest of the world.”

“Tenet had brought a draft of a presidential intelligence order, called a finding, that would give the CIA power to use the full range of covert instruments, including deadly force.”

“What he was proposing represented a striking departure of U.S. policy. It would give the CIA the broadest and most lethal authority in history.”

“Rumsfeld was enthusiastic about the broad concept, but he still wanted the order to be more carefully written and restrictive.”

“The president made no effort to disguise what he thought of Tenet’s proposal, virtually shouting, ‘Great job’.”

Pfc Lynndie England was the soldier in the pictures from Abu Ghraib with the naked Iraqi on a leash and was also photographed pointing to the genitals of a naked Iraqi.

In her sworn statement to Special Agent James D. Stewart, she was asked if "any of the treatment you were involved with concerning the detainees was inappropriate."

"I thought the masturbating was, but that was what they told us to do," she responded

"Who told you to do it?" Stewart asked.

"I don't know. I was just told we were doing a good job."

Just as the president told Tenet that he was doing a “great job,” so was Lynndie England. Everything had indeed flowed downhill from its source, except low-ranking soldiers were being held accountable for their actions while those who formulated the policies were not.

Just as the ordnance men in my squadron were eager to get the bombs loaded even if it meant short cutting procedures at the risk of their own lives, so too, were other servicemen willing to do their part in the war against terrorism.

When the intelligence information was not forthcoming from Guantanamo, Rumsfeld authorized a change in the interrogation procedures. The same thing occurred at Abu Ghraib. Everything flowed downhill and along with it many of the ideals that America had stood for in the rest of the world. The baby had indeed flowed out with the bath water.

It Flows Downhill