A combination of blurring and smearing (Part 1)

By Greyhawk

An examination of the impact of the Abu Ghraib story on the resulting conduct of the war in Iraq.

February, 2004, saw 21 US deaths in Iraq. Twelve were due to enemy action, nine were accidental. But in the background, events were already transpiring that would ensure that such a low number would never be seen again.

The first public indication of the gathering storm came the month before, in this January 26 CNN report:

The U.S. military's criminal investigation into potential abuse of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers at Abu Gharib [sic] prison in Iraq now includes reports from soldiers that military police took photographs showing soldiers hitting detainees, CNN has learned.

Earlier, several Pentagon officials who declined to be identified by name confirmed to CNN that investigators were looking into the reports -- all coming from fellow soldiers -- of photographs showing male and female detainees with some of their clothing removed.
<...>
The Army's Criminal Investigation Division seized computer drives searching for the photographs and more evidence of abuse.

The CID is looking into whether the Iraqis were hit by military police or whether the photographs were staged. Even if staged, such pictures would be a U.S. military violation of the Geneva Conventions that prohibit subjecting prisoners to ridicule.

The CID investigation began earlier that month when an American soldier at Abu Ghraib provided authorities those now famous photographs of detainee abuse.

Among those rounded up for questioning in the investigation was Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II, a 38-year-old National Guard member whose civilian occupation was prison guard. Shortly after learning he was a suspect in the case, Frederick began writing his version of events at the prison:

Frederick began writing his journal on Jan. 14, only a few hours after Army authorities fetched him for questioning and searched his quarters at 2:30 a.m. that day. He mailed copies to his mother, father, uncle and sister, and decided not to send it by e-mail for fear that the Army would see it first.

By March 20, the investigation had concluded, and the soldiers were charged. The American Forces press release is here.

The March 20, 2004 CNN report is here:

Six U.S. soldiers have been charged with offenses related to the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at an Iraqi prison, the U.S. Army said Saturday.

The soldiers are charged with assault, dereliction of duty, cruelty and maltreatment, conspiracy and indecent acts with another, U.S. Army spokesman Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said.

Multiple sources said the allegations involve soldiers who took photographs of Iraqi prisoners in late 2003, including pictures that show the prisoners partially clothed or physical contact between soldiers and detainees.
<...>
CNN has previously reported that 17 personnel at the prison were relieved of their duties, including a battalion commander, a company commander, three noncommissioned officers, and 12 military police directly involved in guard duties.

Prisoners held by the United States in Iraq are accorded rights of dignity and may not be held up to public ridicule under the Geneva Conventions.
<...>
The Pentagon official said some computer drives were seized by the CID in the search for the photographs and additional evidence of abuse.

Although officers and enlisted through the chain of command had been implicated, guilt of the individuals actually participating in the abuses at Abu Ghraib would have to be determined prior to charging their superiors with any negligence or participation in the alleged crimes. Article 32 hearings - to determine if full Courts Martial were required, were scheduled for six soldiers at Abu Ghraib, including Staff Sgt. Frederick.

*****

Around this point in time, CBS News producer Mary Mapes' would learn of the story. Although certainly no secret, the various press releases and announcements regarding the case had attracted very little media attention beyond the reports from CNN. Mapes knew she was on to something - while she may or may not have known whether she could successfully claim to have "broken" the story she clearly knew that obtaining the actual photographs - if they were graphic enough - would enable her to elevate the attention it had received thus far.

But in her own telling of the tale, in her book Truth and Duty: The Press, the President, and the Privilege of Power, Mapes would portray herself as a crusading journalist, digging to uncover the story that the Pentagon was attempting to hide.

Here was our original tip: American military officials were investigating reports of abuse at Abu Ghraib. We were told that a number of US soldiers were involved and that an extensive collection of photographs, taken by the soldiers, was part of the investigation.

We were not told who the soldiers were, where they were from, or what they had done. All we knew was that the unit had already come back from Iraq and the soldiers under investigation were left behind in Baghdad.

We knew we could not call the Pentagon with questions because that would sound the red alert and likely end our chances of getting the story. So we turned to old fashioned, tried and true techniques to get the answers we needed. We found there had been a short, generally worded Department of Defense announcement made in Iraq about soldiers under investigation at Abu Ghraib. There were virtually no details given on the case, which was characterized as an ongoing disciplinary action.

With my less-skilled assistance, Roger Charles, our military consultant, set out to find which units had been at Abu Ghraib and when they had been there.

A veteran of the military and journalism, Roger Charles was uniquely positioned to "consult" with CBS:

In his spare time (not that he had any), Roger worked with Col. David Hackworth on his advocacy Web site, Soldiers for the Truth.
<...>
The site advocated a number of changes in Pentagon policy regarding the war, usually on issues such as up-armoring of military vehicles in Iraq. In return, SFTT received countless e-mail messages of support and chunks of raw information from soldiers in the field, their families, and sometimes people inside the Pentagon.

I wondered aloud if we might use the web site in a slightly different way. Why not use the information we had to put out an internet alert on the Abu Ghraib case?
<...>
Within hours of our posting our alert on March 23, Roger got an e-mail from a man named Bill Lawson. He was the uncle of one of the men being held in preparation for a court martial.

...Lawson left a phone number where he could be reached. Roger called Lawson back so fast his fingers nearly burst into flames.

Roger listened to details of Chip Fredericks case and then asked the big questions: Had Lawson heard anything about the photographs? Lawson said that Frederick had acknowledged that pictures were part of the evidence against him. "Chip says that he is in only one of the pictures," Lawson told Roger. "I just hope he's not smiling"

Note the dates - three days after the March 20 announcement of the completion of the investigation, Frederick's uncle ("Frederick began writing his journal on Jan. 14, only a few hours after Army authorities fetched him for questioning and searched his quarters at 2:30 a.m. that day. He mailed copies to his mother, father, uncle and sister...") was in contact with CBS (perhaps unwittingly at this point - he may have been duped into assuming he was dealing with an advocacy group designed to "support the troops".)

But the story was still weeks away from its worldwide television debut. Other graphic images would claim headlines first.

*****

In March, 2004, the U.S. death toll in Iraq took a decided upswing. Though relatively low by today's standards, the numbers more than doubled from February, and culminated on the last day of the month. On March 31, 2004, a vehicle with four American contractors was ambushed as it passed through Fallujah. A mob mutilated and burned the bodies, dragging them through the streets and ultimately hanging them on a bridge. Photographs and videos of the event appeared within hours on front pages and news programs around the world.

Coalition forces demanded the handover of those responsible, but that demand was not met. In early April the United States Marines launched a major assault on Fallujah. Fighting was intense, and from the beginning the political factions behind the scenes were at odds with each other and with military commanders. News accounts focused on the suffering of the civilian population of the city. Then,

At noon on April 9, Marines and Coalition forces unilaterally suspended combat in Fallujah in order to hold meetings between members of the Governing Council, the Fallujah leadership and the leadership of the anti-coalition forces, to allow the delivery of additional supplies by the relevant departments of the Iraqi government and to allow residents of Fallujah to tend to their wounded and dead.

*****

Coincidentally, also on April 9th, the Article 32 hearing (in which evidence is presented, witnesses are called, and the decision to pursue court martial is made) in the case against Sergeant Frederick was convened. In addition to a military lawyer, SSgt Frederick had by then retained the services of Gary Myers, one of the military defense attorneys in the Vietnam-era My Lai case. After the hearing, the presiding investigative officer ruled that there was sufficient evidence to convene a court-martial against Frederick. Any evidence collected (confiscated photos, etc.) would be available to the defense at this point.

According to Mapes' account, on that very day...

I got about a dozen photos on Friday, April 9. In Dana's tiny office in New York, we sat grimly and looked at picture after picture. Dan [Rather] came rushing in from across the street and the three of us looked huddled around the desk, flipping through the photographs silently. Jeff Fager and Patti Hassler came to Dana's office to see the pictures and had the same reaction we did. They just stared.

No one said a word. We were speechless.

Jackpot, as they say. Later, after the story "went public", Bill Lawson would explain his decision - even as CBS attempted to "cover up" the involvement of the defense in their efforts:

"The Army had the opportunity for this not to come out, not to be on 60 Minutes," he said. "But the Army decided to prosecute those six G.I.'s because they thought me and my family were a bunch of poor, dirt people who could not do anything about it. But unfortunately, that was not the case."
<...>
Producers at "60 Minutes II" are not saying exactly how they got the photographs. But Jeff Fager, the executive producer, said, "We heard about someone who was outraged about it and thought that the public should know about it."

Some additional news from April 9, 2004, in Iraq:

U.S. troops fanned out across Kut, southeast of Baghdad, after meeting little resistance in the city, witnesses said, in a major foray by the American military into the south, where U.S. allies have struggled to deal with the uprising by the al-Mahdi Army, led by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Time appeared to be running out for the anti-American cleric.

*****

In background interviews with military experts, Mapes would be made fully aware of the impact of her photos on the war.

We were able to call on... retired Marine lieutenant colonel Bill Cowan, who'd had extensive experience in Special Operations...

Cowan told us that his son, who had been fighting in Iraq for months, stood a good chance of paying for this kind of ignorant and illegal behavior, that every American soldier would, in one way or another, pay for the rage and despair that this kind of abuse created.

But persisted in her efforts to script a story of American "cover-up"

Once our interviews were completed, I began working on the script. At the same time, I finally contacted the Pentagon and told them what we had. I hadn't wanted to call too soon for fear the military would hurt my efforts to get information. The first thing the public relations officer asked me was whether we had the pictures. I know that made all the difference in the world to the military in terms of deniability.
<...>
We told the Pentagon that we planed to air the story on April 14 and asked for someone who could be interviewed on-camera about the Abu Ghraib case. The public affairs people immediately began backpedaling, saying they didn't think they had anyone available who could speak authoritatively on the subject. They begged for more time.

According to Mapes, at least one other "cover-up" was definitely underway

While I was waiting for the people at the Pentagon to make up their mind, I had to do something on the Abu Ghraib story that has never been part of my producing experience before or since...

...I went to the control room across the street from the 60 Minutes office and carefully, with the help of a technician, digitally erased all the genitals in the pictures. We tried pixelating them, fuzzing them, blacking them out, finally settling on a combination of blurring and smearing. It was an odd feeling. Again and again, we would isolate someone's crotch and systematically erase every bit of his manhood. I felt these detainees had suffered enough and now look what I was doing...

But it was easier to digitally neuter dozens of men than it was to deal with the Pentagon.

Part two is here.

Posted by Greyhawk / November 14, 2006 2:28 PM | Permalink