Abu Ghraib Scandal: Where Does the Buck Stop?
ABU GHRAIB SCANDAL: WHERE DOES THE BUCK STOP? -- (House of Representatives - May 10, 2005)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss a vital issue that has not received nearly as much attention as it should, and that is the full accountability of those responsible for the prison abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and likely other abuses in other locations.
Last week, 1 year after the shocking pictures of prisoner abuse became public, a military judge declared a mistrial in the case against Private First Class Lynndie England, and I emphasize private first class.
England, one of just a few enlisted personnel charged in the case, attempted to plead guilty in order to receive a more lenient sentence. But Judge James Pohl threw her guilty plea out and the court-martial after determining that Private England could not have realized her actions were wrong. Maybe that is because exactly 1 year ago today, Private England told the media that she was ordered by her superiors to pose naked with Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison.
The case has more questions about Abu Ghraib than it answers, Mr. Speaker. Who was really in charge at Abu Ghraib prison? Who ordered the torture, abuse, humiliation of those prisoners? Why have only a few enlisted personnel, and very low-ranking ones at that, and one Reservist officer been punished? What was the real chain of command? Were contractors involved at any point? And how did their involvement compromise the normal chain of command?
According to the Christian Science Monitor, a study by the Army Inspector General, not yet released but reported last week by the media, has exonerated all senior Army officers in Iraq and elsewhere. How about that? Exonerated them all, except the single brigadier general in charge of U.S. prison facilities in Iraq. Why does the Pentagon refuse to look up the chain of command, only trying to place blame at those at the very bottom? Does anyone really believe that these soldiers acted on their own?
The Philadelphia Inquirer editorialized: "No one at the top ..... is blamed for wrongdoing," even though the "climate was fostered from the top down that tolerated, even encouraged, the abuse at Abu Ghraib."
In February, 2004, the International Red Cross released a report detailing dozens of serious human rights violations that occurred in Iraq between just March and November of 2003, including electrocution, forced nudity, and other lewd sex acts, forcing detainees to wear hoods and more.
Who should be held accountable? First, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He is at the top of my list. Personally authorized similar abusive interrogation techniques for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including the use of dogs for intimidation, the removal of clothing, the hooding of prisoners, and "noninjurious physical contact." He ordered several prisoners in Iraq, though not at Abu Ghraib, to be hidden from the International Red Cross so the organization could not monitor their treatment. Are we supposed to believe that such actions at Abu Ghraib were a mere coincidence and not orchestrated by anyone who had the power to order from the top down?
How about Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez? He is second on my list. Two Army investigations, one of which he stated he "failed to ensure proper staff oversight" of Abu Ghraib, but he has yet to be officially sanctioned, punished, or charged.
Third, Major General Geoffrey Miller. According to the Center for American Progress, he was sent to Abu Ghraib to "Gitmoize" the place. Under his command, the International Committee of the Red Cross found interrogation techniques at Guantanamo "tantamount to torture."
Fourth, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. When he served in that capacity, he advised President Bush that laws prohibiting torture do "not apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants" and an interrogation tactic only constituted torture if it resulted in death, organ failure, or serious impairment of bodily functions.
And last, but surely not least, President George Bush. The President is not last on this list for no reason. Harry Truman proudly proclaimed "The buck stops here." It would seem this Commander in Chief believes the buck stops far before the Pentagon, White House, or Oval Office.
Mr. Speaker, why is Congress receiving more information on these atrocities from the news media than the President or the Department of Defense? It is because they are a part of the culture of abuse that starts with loose slogans like "Bring 'em on." It sends that signal down the chain of command. They were not only operating in an atmosphere created, fostered, and encouraged by top echelon officials at the White House. They were propelled by that very behavior.
Mr. Speaker, I include my remaining remarks in the RECORD.
This Congress ought to ask for the truth.
[Begin Insert]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a vital issue that has not received nearly as much attention as it should-the full accountability of those responsible for the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and likely other abuses at other locations.
Last week, 1 year after the shocking pictures of prisoner abuse became public, a Military Judge declared a mistrial in the case against Private First Class Lynndie England.
England, one of just a few enlisted personnel charged in the case, attempted to plead guilty in order to receive a more lenient sentence, Judge James Pohl, a Colonel, however threw out her guilty plea and the court martial after determining that Pvt. England could not have realized her actions were wrong.
Maybe that is because exactly 1 year ago today Pvt. England told the media that she was ordered by her superiors to pose naked with Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison.
This case raises more questions about Abu Ghraib than it answers, Mr. Speaker.
Who was really in charge at Abu Ghraib prison? Who ordered the torture abuse/humiliation of these prisoners? Why have only a few enlisted personnel and one Reservist officer been punished? What was the chain of command? Were contractors involved and did their involvement skirt the normal chain of command?
According to the Christian Science Monitor, "for punishment, the military has issued either criminal or administrative charges against 125 soldiers and officers related to 350 cases in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a different story with senior military officers, however. A study by the Army inspector general-not yet released but reported last week by the media-has exonerated all senior Army officers in Iraq and elsewhere except the brigadier general in charge of US prison facilities in Iraq."
Why does the Pentagon refuse to look up the chain of command to thoroughly investigate and charge high-level military and administration officials, instead focusing efforts on low-ranking enlisted personnel?
Does anyone believe that these soldiers acted on their own? That they purposely perpetrated acts that the Pentagon's own report (prepared by General Antonio Taguba) defined as "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuse."
The Philadelphia Inquirer correctly editorialized "no one at the top-not military officers, certainly not Pentagon civilians-is blamed for wrongdoing. Never mind that a climate was fostered from the top down that tolerated, even encouraged, the abuse at Abu Ghraib."
In February 2004, the International Red Cross released a report detailing dozens of serious human rights violations that occurred in Iraq between just March and November of 2003. The report maintains some of the abuse was "tantamount to torture" and that methods included threats of electrocution, forced nudity and other lewd sex acts, forcing detainees to wear hoods and more.
WHO SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE?
First, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is at the top of my list. Secretary Rumsfeld, according to numerous reports, personally authorized similar abusive interrogation techniques for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including the use of dogs for intimidation, the removal of clothing, the hooding of prisoners, and "non-injurious physical contact." He also ordered several prisoners in Iraq, not at Abu Ghraib to be hidden from the International Red Cross so that the organization couldn't monitor their treatment. Now, however, we are supposed to believe that such actions at Abu Ghraib were a mere coincidence and not orchestrated by anyone?
Second, Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez: Despite two Army investigations, one of which stated he "failed to ensure proper staff oversight" of Abu Ghraib, he has yet to be officially sanctioned, punished or charged. Moreover, as the Washington Post reported this week, "Army intelligence officials in Iraq developed and circulated "wish lists" of harsh interrogation techniques they hoped to use on detainees in August 2003, including tactics such as low-voltage electrocution, blows with phone books and using dogs and snakes-suggestions that some soldiers believed spawned abuse and illegal interrogations." General Sanchez is known to have approved these rules of interrogation.
Third, Major General Geoffrey Miller: According to the Center for American Progress: "a Guantanamo commander, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, was sent to Abu Ghraib to "Gitmoize" it. Under his command, the International Committee of the Red Cross found interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay are "tantamount to torture." "Harsh methods" used at the prison include forced enemas, sleep deprivation and chaining prisoners to chairs and leaving them "to soil themselves." Just weeks after he visited Iraq, the now-infamous abuse occurred at Abu Ghraib.
Fourth, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez: Gonzales was instrumental in shaping U.S. policy on the interrogation of prisoners. In the now infamous 1/25/02 memo to the president he wrote, "the war against terrorism is a new kind of war" and "this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions." Gonzalez also advised President Bush that laws prohibiting torture do "not apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants" and an interrogation tactic only constituted torture if it resulted in "death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions."
Last but surely not least, President George W. Bush: The President is not last on this list for no reason, Mr. Speaker. Harry Truman proudly proclaimed "the Buck Stops Here." It would seem this Commander in Chief believes the buck stops far before that Pentagon, White House or Oval Office.
Mr. Speaker, why is Congress receiving more information on these atrocities from the news media than the President, his staff or the Department of Defense on? Moreover, why does he refuse to acknowledge that either he or his immediate advisers are primarily responsible for the culture of abuse "Bring em on" spawned by their reinvention of prisoner interrogation policies?
Privates and Corporals in the Army Guard and Reserves are not responsible for the atrocities at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. They were only operating in an atmosphere created, fostered and encouraged by top echelon at the Pentagon and White House.
Why are we not pursuing those truly responsible for these crimes? Harry Truman would fully assume the role of Commander in Chief-not just troop deployment but troop deportment and frankly, the truth.
[End Insert]
http://thomas.loc.gov