Posted on 06/05/2004 6:11:35 PM PDT by maui_hawaii
As of late the Abu Graib prison has been in the news a great deal. Per the likes of our beloved Senator Shumer, he wants an investigation into the prison, and not just its military management.
Per that, I have done a little digging and found some tidbits that will make this story make more sense.
Shortly following the invasion of Iraq a team of outside contractors, experts in corrections, were sent to Iraq to survey the situation. As they did this they came to many conclusions and made recommendations. The military though was not waiting to capture criminals. As they caught them, they were housed in tent cities because there were no places available to put them.
Tent cities are extremely dangerous. One riot and hundreds could easily die. No cells, no walls, just groups of criminals in tents surrounded by barbed wire. Something had to be done.
The above mentioned outside contractors did their job and actually officially proposed building four brand new state of the art prisons from the ground up. That was-and still is-the proposal. That was the intended plan from just after the invasion took place and still is the plan that is being followed. The idea to demolish Abu Griab was not a reaction to the prisoner abuse issue. It was actually proposed to turn the facility to the Iraqis who wanted a monument placed on the site.
However, that plan to build four new prisons initially did not make it through congress. They needed the funds to build these new facilities, but congress did not act. We all remember that fight. It wasn't just body armor.
Now, acting on a mere portion of what they actually needed, they used the available funds to repair the Abu Griab facility as a temporary facility. This was Plan B from the get go regarding Abu Griab-if they couldn’t get what they needed for the original plan, they would have to refurbish the old structure for the time being. It was the only feasible option because all other buildings were just that-buildings with no cells and completely inappropriate layouts to house prisoners. Large groups of inmates would have to be grouped together had they chosen another site. It wouldn’t be that much of a step up from the tent city because the danger was primarily inmate on inmate crime.
Now, during the consultations on the tentative arrangements, many groups heard of the intention to use Abu Griab. They began to bellow about how it was cruel and unusual punishment to use the same ground that Saddam used. First hand accounts say that while Abu Graib was still a proposal the ACLU approached officials and contractors telling them, “we will have your faces on every newspaper in the world as human rights abusers”. Sounds like a threat to me.
Because of the urgency of the situation though and on the recommendation of the expert corrections team, the plan was still followed-for the time being. The idea not to bow to the ACLU (specifically) though kicked off a witch hunt and a political dog fight. There was blood in the water for months, long before even one prisoner set foot into the refurbished facility. While the plan was still only on paper the dye was cast. The Administration had to chose between listening to experts on the ground who predicted a disaster if nothing were done, and the ACLU who objected on philosophical ideas.
In short, the prison abuse ‘scandal’ was started long before hand, and through political wrangling. The ACLU had an objection and everyone else-including reality-be damned. The contractors told the ACLU that they themselves actually wanted different facilities and that the ACLU would be better off complaining to congress and trying to get funding for the four new prisons. This whole affair started over who was calling the shots vs. who wants to call the shots. Its an internal fight turned external, kind of like a bickering husband and wife who embarrass themselves fighting in front of the neighbors.
Now fast forward several months. The prison was completed. The team of contractors were home and were out mowing their lawns when the actual first prisoners were put in Abu Griab. The military had taken over the facility after the contractors saw the upgrades through. The contractors did things like put in real beds and clean up the physical facilities. That’s it.
The military began transferring people from the tent cities into Abu Griab. That was the plan. Fast forward a few more months…some entirely stupid military personnel were caught on film (imagine that) doing what they were doing. Wrong? Yes. No excuses. Was it a set up? No one knows. Was there a long anticipated hunt to find something wrong with the facility and to embarrass President Bush? Yes.
Putting it into every newspaper around the world for the purpose of embarrassing President Bush and to win political points? You make the call. Politics end at the shoreline? I don’t think so.
mega ping please
ping
ping
ping
What is or are your sources? Lack of funding does not explain human abuse and torture and dishonorable conduct.
"Was it a set up? No one knows."
Sure, evildoers made the "trailer trash" trailer trash.
American Civil Liberties Union in Iraq?
Would somebody please tell me just whatinHell the ACLU has to do with Iraqi POWs or enemy combatants?
Wrong? Hell, it was right.
When you have an opponent who is willing to strap bombs to his body to kill you then pain and fear will not produce accurate information.
Given the muslim culture, humiliation is the only way to secure "cooperation".
The idiocy--the utter, complete, stupid, moronic aspect--was taking photographs of the proceedings.
--Boris
Its politicizing the war effort, thats about it.
Abuse happens everywhere. In your local jail, in your state prison. It happens. Its just not put on the evening news every day for 30 days straight trying to blame the President for it.
In full force.
again, what are your sources? Politicizing the war, what else is this war than a political event?
I'll repeat what the original poster said, since you didn't seem to understand it.
You seem to be missing the obvious reason why the Iraq prison abuse has caused such great concern. If it is our military policy to okay the mistreatment of detainees and POW's then our enemies will do the same. The Geneva Convention and our adherence to it is for our troops protection. If we were not involved in a military conflict in Iraq, then this would not be a political matter.
Only Cheesy Chuck has such a fascination with grabasticism.
"to find something wrong with the facility and to embarrass President Bush? Yes"
I tend to believe this was intentionally used that way .. but it hasn't worked out; the public got fed up with the 24/7 pictures.
Remember several months ago when Hillary was bragging about an "October surprise". I keep wondering if this was the surprise but it just got out of the bag early.
This activity was first exposed in January. A memo went to the senate intel and armed services committees. Since Hillary is on the armed services committee, her office would have gotten the memo .. and who's to say Hillary didn't call General Karpinski and .......?? I would love to know when Hillary made that statement about the "October surprise".
I know it demands tinfoil .. but I just have this weird feeling about the general .. something is not right there.
You haven't been paying attention.
This post has nothing to do with the treatment of the prisoners. Only the administrative and political background that preceded their being placed in Abu Ghraib. It suggests that there was a political axe being ground even before the prisoners were incarcerated.
Thus, the Geneva Convention is irrelevant to the discussion. In more ways than one, since most of the prisoners held at Abu Ghraid were not subject to its provisions. They were "illegal combatants" -- out of uniform and not part of any organized military force.
As such, they could have been summarily executed upon capture. That we chose to treat them in accord with the Convention was totally at our option.
I'm not excusing the actions of a few. But you are making of this more than it is.
And what have you been drinking or smoking? We could have shot them summarily??? Oh, during combat we are allowed to just take civilians and shoot them. Didn't this happen in viet nam and weren't the soldiers tried for violating the law, despite the fact that they were ordered to kill??
I say again - if we were not in Iraq, we would not have to worry about where to house the prisoners and the bad press that ensued as a result of the mistreatment, abuse and torture of the prisoners.
The political axe being ground even before the prisoners were incarcerated was that of our administration invading Iraq. If the invasion had been done properly - if the administration had paid attention to the military experts at the Pentagon, then maybe, just maybe the "negative" press would not have left such a stain. Remember, the mission was completed a year ago! Give me a break.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.