The Abu Ghraib Spin [MEGA-Barf Alert]

New York Times ^ | 5/12/04 | New York Times

[conservative in nyc]

May 12, 2004

The Abu Ghraib Spin

he administration and its Republican allies appear to have settled on a way to deflect attention from the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib: accuse Democrats and the news media of overreacting, then pile all of the remaining responsibility onto officers in the battlefield, far away from President Bush and his political team. That cynical approach was on display yesterday morning in the second Abu Ghraib hearing in the Senate, a body that finally seemed to be assuming its responsibility for overseeing the executive branch after a year of silently watching the bungled Iraq occupation.

The senators called one witness for the morning session, the courageous and forthright Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who ran the Army's major investigation into Abu Ghraib. But the Defense Department also sent Stephen Cambone, the under secretary of defense for intelligence, to upstage him. Mr. Cambone read an opening statement that said Donald Rumsfeld was deeply committed to the Geneva Conventions protecting the rights of prisoners, that everyone knew it and that any deviation had to come from "the command level." A few Republican senators loyally followed the script, like Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who offered the astounding comment that he was "more outraged by the outrage" than by the treatment of prisoners. After all, he said, they were probably guilty of something.

These silly arguments not only obscure the despicable treatment of the prisoners, most of whom are not guilty of anything, but also ignore the evidence so far. While some of the particularly sick examples of sexual degradation may turn out to be isolated events, General Taguba's testimony, and a Red Cross report from Iraq, made it plain that the abuse of prisoners by the American military and intelligence agencies was systemic. The Red Cross said prisoners of military intelligence were routinely stripped, with their hands bound behind their backs, and posed with women's underwear over their heads. It said they were "sometimes photographed in this position."

The Red Cross report, published by The Wall Street Journal, said that Iraqi prisoners — 70 to 90 percent of whom apparently did nothing wrong — were routinely abused when they were arrested, and their wives and mothers threatened. The Iraqi police, who operate under American control and are eventually supposed to help replace the occupation forces, are even worse — sending those who won't pay bribes to prison camps, and beating and burning prisoners, according to the report.

The Red Cross said most prisoners were treated better once they got into the general population at the larger camps, except those who were held by military intelligence. "In certain cases, such as in Abu Ghraib military intelligence section, methods of physical and psychological coercion used by the interrogators appeared to be part of the standard operating procedures by military intelligence personnel," the report said.

It was alarming yesterday to hear General Taguba report that military commanders had eased the rules four times last year to permit guards to use "lethal force" on unruly prisoners. The hearing also disclosed that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander in Iraq, had authorized the presence of attack dogs during interrogation sessions. It wasn't very comforting that he had directed that these dogs be muzzled.

These practices go well beyond any gray area of American values, international law or the Geneva Conventions. Mr. Cambone tried to argue that Mr. Rumsfeld had made it clear to everyone that the prisoners in Iraq were covered by those conventions. But Mr. Rumsfeld's public statements have been ambiguous at best, and General Taguba said that, in any case, the Abu Ghraib guards had received no training. All the senators, government officials and generals assembled in that hearing room yesterday could not figure out who had been in charge at Abu Ghraib and which rules applied to the Iraqi prisoners. How were untrained reservists who had been plucked from their private lives to guard the prisoners supposed to have managed it?

General Sanchez did give some misguided orders involving the Abu Ghraib prison and prisoners in general. But the deeply flawed mission in which he participates is the responsibility of the Bush administration. It was Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld, not General Sanchez, who failed to anticipate the violence and chaos that followed the invasion of Iraq, and sent American soldiers out to handle it without the necessary resources, manpower and training.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top

[conservative in nyc]

This editorial makes me sick. I wouldn't expect anything less from the Slimes.

The only ones spinning are the media and the Democrats.

[The G Man]

As usual, the enemies of America can take much aid and comfort from the daily NY Times editorial.

[TomGuy]

The lib-spin from early morning FoxNews Dem analyst:

Lib spin. Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq when Saddam was in power. They only came in later.

[Bahbah]

"Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq when Saddam was in power. They only came in later."

Translation, it's all Bush's fault.

[The G Man]

Wasn't Al-Zarqawi the guy who recuperated from surgery right in the middle of Saddam's Baghdad? Pretty much puts the lie to that argument.

[Miss Marple]

Fox and Friends in full court press against the NYT this morning. They are holding up the front pages of all New York papers, all of which have a picture of Daniel Berg EXCEPT the New York Times. Brian is outraged, and tells everyone to NOT read their editorial page or your head will explode. Very excellent contempt for the Times shown.

[Izzy Dunne]

the Senate, a body that finally seemed to be assuming its responsibility for overseeing the executive branch

Show me the Constitutional passage that says THIS !
Sure, there's confirmation of appointments, and stuff, but "overseeing" ??

I'll bet they didn't call for this "overseeing" in 1998 (impeachment).

[just me]

I think they will work hard to try and hide the fact that a lot of the abusers were homosexuals. So I read most of the pictures are homosexuals soldiers having sex with each other.... Clinton once again should claim the spot light for some of this.

But I could be wrong...

[Izzy Dunne]

the prisoners, most of whom are not guilty of anything,

And the evidence for this is... ???

[Peach]

Ollie North was just on FNC and called the NYT the "hate America first newspaper".

Old Media is becoming increasingly irrelevant, just like the UN.

[PogySailor]

I expected nothing less from the NYT. Now I just heard Linda Albin (sp?) on ABC radio spinning the Berg's murder as Bush's/military/FBI/CIA fault. I wish I could do without listening today because I KNOW the MSM is going to be parroting the DNC talking points fax all day.

My doctor is going to end up putting me on high blood pressure medication by November at this rate....

[The G Man]

Well, the NY Times to their credit is consistant however. For instance, when those 4 US contractors were butchered, and burned, and hung from a bridge, they didn't have that picture on page 1 above the fold ...

Oh, wait. Sorry. Nevermind, people. Move along. Nothing to see here.

[OldFriend]

Typical of the left, they never blame the crime committed on the perpetrator, they always seek root causes.....society, capitalism, republicans, conservatives, religious zealots (meaning anyone who happens to attend Church regularly) and the favorite whipping boy of all time.......the military.

[sergeantdave]

Just as Duranty and the Times covered up Stalin's crimes against humanity, today's Times "reporters" will do their best to cover up the crimes of the Islamofascists.

Left wing monsters, including Times "reporters," are what they are - left wing monsters.

[Brilliant]

If the far left nutcases, line the editors of the NYT, would stop taking every opportunity to defame America, maybe our prestige worldwide would not be declining.

[Brilliant]

The NYT portrays these terrorists as victims of American abuse because they were forced to wear women's underwear on their heads, but there is not mention of the brutal beheading of an American contractor by the same folks who the NYT portrays as victims of American abuse.

[canuck_conservative]

Sadly, the New York Times and its Democratic allies appear to have settled on the same OLD way to deflect attention from their dying election campaign chances.....

[Lacey]

All through the Clinton years this same jokers said that sexual misconduct does not rise to the level of impeachement. Well now they want us to believe is "rises to the level" of an atrocity. Mistreatment, yes....atrocity? give me a break.

[PogySailor]

Atrocity.

Since the media has used that word to describe the Abu Gharib events, what word can they use to describe the brutal murder of Nick Berg? They are once again changing the meaning of words to suit their purposes.

It's Newspeak.

[rebel_yell2]

The hearing also disclosed that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander in Iraq, had authorized the presence of attack dogs during interrogation sessions. It wasn't very comforting that he had directed that these dogs be muzzled.

Oh really? Let's see the NYTimes run a "poll" on this question: Would you rather face attack dogs with or without muzzles?

Also, isn't this evidence that those in the prison violated these orders, based upon the pictures showing un-muzzled attack dogs?