Much ado 'bout Abu

Greyhawk

Lynndie England, the "face of Abu Ghraib", pleaded guilty today to charges related to the abuse at the facility. CNN, in reporting the event, included some details I've previously never seen compiled anywhere other than this blog.

All of the incidents except the dog leash and the "rapeist" incidents took place on England's 21st birthday, November 7, 2003, when England -- a clerk, not a guard -- had come to the cell block to visit Graner.

The detainees in the photographs were suspected of starting a riot in another area of the prison and had been brought to the cell block for further questioning.

Those simple facts change the story of government sanctioned torture of insurgents that has long been associated with the photos from Abu Ghraib. It almost begs the question why they are so under-reported. Ironically, few people know that CNN 'broke' the story of Abu Ghraib last January, months before the infamous photos made Lynndie England the most recognizable American face of the War on Terror.

If none of this is the Abu Ghraib case you know from other media accounts, please read on. You are not alone. Here's why you don't know what you think you know about Abu Ghraib.

********

This post on Abu Ghraib at Assume Command prompted a comment from Kevin (who blogs at The Command TOC) that was a real eye opener for me:

To a civilian, it sure seemed like the military, specifically Rumsfeld, was trying to minimize or hide this event. There were Congressional hearings where they would ask Rumsfeld about pictures which were on the internet and he would say, "I have not seen those...". He did a lot of "I do not knows" in this process and therefore the information came out piecemeal.

Rumsfeld could have taken a lesson from the Tylenol case which is the standard bearer for American business on how to deal with "bad news". Come out totally, quickly, and aggressively with the facts. Be proactive in exposing the issue and be proactive in taking very decisive action. Don't "suspend" people pending some month long investigation. Take decisive action.

So, an example of what could have been done here. Once those pictures were known to the DoD they could have: 1) Come out aggressively.. shown them told the world they apologize told the world this will be fixed.

Kevin's point is a good one, but one for which there's an answer. It's one of those things I thought was obvious, but obviously it's not as obvious as I thought. Kevin's right when he states how a corporation should approach such an issue, but there's a big difference in how the military must deal with an episode like Abu Ghraib (or any other legal matter).

(Warning - oversimplification for the benefit of brevity follows.)

In the civilian world a corporation involved in any "bad publicity" issue involving some illegal activity obviously must act to protect it's image, or it's value will fall. Imagine a hypothetical situation in which employees of Company X are discovered to have been skimming profits, and they face criminal charges. It behooves Company X to cooperate fully with the investigating authorities and the resulting prosecution and handle the publicity in a forthright manner, perhaps even publicly releasing evidence that proves the wrongdoing was the work of those individuals - its requirement to obey the law and responsibility to its shareholders clearly trumps any 'loyalty' it owes it's employees.

There's a difference if "Company X" is a military organization, and the "employees" are members of the armed services. At some level "the company" is also the investigating authority, and the prosecution, and - in a way - the judge and jury. These functions are compartmentalized at lower levels - "the company" is also expected to act in the interest of the defense, and the lawyers for the defendant are not answerable to the lower level commanders who are involved in the prosecution. But obviously "the company" - at any level - can not release any information that might be prejudicial to the defense. Donald Rumsfeld (or the President, or anyone else in the Chain of Command) can't call a press conference and say "Look at these pictures. It's terrible, and we're going to get the people responsible." The result would be an instant mistrial, and the defendant(s) would go free. The pictures themselves are evidence in the trial. Further, under the concept of undue influence no commander can make any public statement whatsoever, with or without photographs, that might be construed as prejudicial to the case.

On the other hand... the defense is under less restrictive guidance. Unless so ordered by the authorities the defense is able to take its case to the public, the press, or just about anywhere it desires. There's an example in today's headlines of this concept in action.

Google the name Ilario Pantano and up pops the gateway to page upon page of news and opinion about the Marine 2nd lieutenant accused of murdering two Iraqis last year.

<...>

"There was a strategy," said Charles Gittins, Pantano's civilian counsel who, according to his resume, is a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve. "It's something we developed together - that is, his military lawyers, myself and his family."

By reaching out to the media, Pantano's defense succeeded at making his case fodder for philosophical debate. At best, they succeeded at manipulating public opinion.

A lot of folks think they know a lot about the Pantano case, but what's 'known' so far is exactly what the defense wants known. Donald Rumsfeld can't respond, President Bush can't respond, etc. etc. What you'll get from anyone "on high" is what you got in the Abu Ghraib case - comments to the effect of "those responsible will be found out and prosecuted, justice will be served", etc.

While Pantano's case illustrates a well funded, motivated, and coordinated defense in action, it's not the model followed by those representing the accused in the Abu Ghraib case. Let's backtrack a bit and review the events as they occurred.

In January 2004, an Army statement on an investigation was reported by CNN:

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

<...>

A U.S. military source said the pictures would constitute criminal activity unless it could be demonstrated they were taken for official reasons related to processing and handling of detainees.

However, a Pentagon source said there is no reason to believe any of these were official photographs, and notes the reports of abuse came from other soldiers at the prison.

A military official last week said the Army is concerned there are problems of "poor discipline, poor leadership, and a need for re-training," in the military police community.

Several officials say they cannot come to any conclusion about the matter until the investigation is complete, but they all reiterate that Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, head of coalition forces in Iraq is among the U.S. officials taking the matter very seriously.

By March the investigation was complete. Once again, CNN was there:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- 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.

Hardly a cover-up, but you see here a mix of official ('the US Army said') and "off the record" ('multiple sources' said') comments. (Speculation of those sources is pointless - the lowest ranking people in the unit and all their relatives probably knew something was up.) But these official anouncements represent everything "the Army" can do as far as being up front and public about a legal matter - the rights of the defendants, and not the good reputation of the US military, are paramount.

A few months later, however, the pictures were on every channel and every front page, from your home town paper to Al Jazeera. What happened? In the Abu Ghraib case we know. According to the NY Times, shortly after Ivan Frederick's Article 32 hearing his family released the photos to CBS through Col David Hackworth. (Probably one of the reasons that Lynndie England's face is so well known and Ivan Frederick's isn't.) Coincidentally, Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, an old friend of Frederick's civilian attorney, published the photos too. We could speculate as to the motive of the defense (Kevin Drum of The Washington Monthly thought blackmail was a possibility) in releasing those images - but whatever the purpose their publication did little to aid the cause. (Obviously although not good for the defense the photos were a great ratings booster for CBS and The New Yorker - but that's a side issue.) But at the time of their release the actual trials were still pending - and the military, as prosecution in the case, was unable to comment beyond those "justice will be served" types of statements that we heard.

In a perfect world, of course, the media would act as unbiased observer, report facts, note its sources, and reveal their bias.

In an imperfect world the blogosphere thrives.

(For those interested in more info, see this post and the links it contains.)