Replies

Yes, but Kerry's medals and post Vietnam activities weren't dominating the news back then.

SPOTREP

Goes to show (yet again) that photos are infinitely more powerful than the printed word.

"Yes, but Kerry's medals and post Vietnam activities weren't dominating the news back then"

Exactly! This was put out for us all just when Kerry was going to buried.
The SwiftBoat guys are not even being covered.

kattracks
You are one of the hardest workers on this site and for the cause as I see it. Once this blows over we have to make sure the Swiftboat guys get to the front pages. Any suggestions that you could send to me to help make this happen would mean the world to me.
Thanks!

Rec'd this a.m. via email. Proves that measures were being taken to prevent abuse long before the story broke.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Abuse and the Army
The military, not CBS, discovered the outrages at Abu Ghraib.

Thursday, May 6, 2004 12:01 a.m.

As President Bush and everyone else in America has said, any abuse of Iraqi prisoners is "abhorrent" and should be punished. Yet it seems to us that an overlooked story here, and ultimately the most telling, is the degree to which the U.S. military is investigating itself and holding people accountable.This isn't a popular thought just now, with the media and politicians in one of their bonfire phases. Every accusation against U.S. troops is now getting front-page treatment. Like reporters at a free buffet, Members of Congress are swarming to the TV cameras to declare their outrage and demand someone's head, usually Donald Rumsfeld's. "System of abuse" and "cover-up" are being tossed about without any evidence of either. The goal seems to be less to punish the offenders than to grab one more reason to discredit the Iraq war.

For a sense of proportion, let's rehearse the timeline here. While some accusations of abuse go back to 2002 in Afghanistan, the incidents at Abu Ghraib that triggered this week's news occurred last autumn. They came to light through the chain of command in Iraq on January 13. An Army criminal probe began a day later. Two days after that, the U.S. Central Command disclosed in a press release that "an investigation has been initiated into reported incidents of detainee abuse at a Coalition Forces detention facility." By March 20, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt was able to announce in Baghdad that criminal charges had been brought against six soldiers in the probe.By the end of January, meanwhile, Major General Antonio Taguba was appointed to conduct his separate "administrative" probe of procedures at Abu Ghraib. It is his report, complete with its incriminating photos, that is the basis for the past week's news reports. The press didn't break this story based on months of sleuthing but was served up the results of the Army's own investigation.

By February, the Secretary of the Army had ordered the service's inspector general to assess the doctrine and training for detention operations within all of CentCom. A month after that, another probe began into Army Reserve training, especially military police and intelligence. Those reports will presumably also be leaked and reported on, or at least they will be if they reach negative conclusions.

This is a cover-up? Unlike the Catholic bishops, some corporate boards and the editors of the New York Times or USA Today, the military brass did not dismiss early allegations of bad behavior. Instead, it established reviews and procedures that have uncovered the very details that are now used by critics to indict the Pentagon "system." It has done so, moreover, amid a war against a deadly insurgency in which interrogation to gain good intelligence is critical to victory--and to saving American lives.

None of this is to dismiss or rationalize the abuse reports. Accountability has to run beyond the soldiers immediately responsible and up the Army and intelligence chains of command. The Abu Ghraib procedures were clearly inadequate to a situation in which interrogators were given so much control over the fates of individual prisoners. Especially in a war on terror that will be long and require effective interrogation, this is unacceptable.

Reprimands have already been issued and careers ended, but courts martial can't be ruled out. President Bush's explanation to Arab media yesterday may help our public image, especially given that their own governments rarely admit mistakes. But the best way to impress Iraqis about U.S. purposes is to show that Americans guilty of abuse are being punished, and with more than letters of reprimand.

To start impugning the entire Army and Pentagon, however, is both wrong and dangerous. The majority of American soldiers are professional, disciplined and are risking their lives to win a war. (Note to those who want to revive the draft: If this could happen in today's highly trained volunteer force, imagine the risks in Senator Chuck Hagel's Army of conscripts.)

Another bizarre notion is that Abu Ghraib happened because the Pentagon decided to hold "enemy combatants" under other than "prisoner of war" status. Those detainees are still given Geneva Convention treatment, as well as visits by the Red Cross. The Pentagon has avoided formal Geneva Convention status because it doesn't want al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners to be able to hide behind "name, rank and serial number." As terrorists who attacked civilians and didn't wear a uniform, they also don't deserve the privileges of real soldiers. In any case, the soldiers who posed in those Abu Ghraib photos were clearly too thick to know any of this.The military has its faults and bad actors, but over the decades it has shown itself to be one of America's most accountable institutions. The Abu Ghraib episode is another test of its fortitude. But the political class would do well to heed Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, who said yesterday that "this immoral behavior in no way eliminates the justice of our cause in Iraq."

Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Com

The military itself begain acting proactively about allegations of specific abuse last August and reported to the world the basic, initial facts in January of this year.

This is not new news (outside of the photos) and most of the current hoopla is political opportunism in nature IMHO. The military is doing a good job at going after the very few animals in their midst who diod this and they will be brought to justice.

Rumsfeld's discretion, IMHO, is limited to the President not knowing specifically about the photographs in the secret report that was already circulating within the military criminal invetigation departments.

In light of the ongoing military investigations (some of which have already been completed and resulted in corrective action based on the earlier Red Cross reports), the briefings, the discussions of this in cabinet meetings, that singular issue is relatively minor IMHO.

The Post headlined its March 21 coverage unambiguously,
"U.S. Soldiers Charged in Abuse of Iraqis."

I think what we have here is an object-lesson on why Republicans/conservatives
hold reign in talk-radio...and Democrats/liberals shine on TV.

Democrats/liberals are apparently deficient in the mental capabilities of
extracting meaning from words (written/spoken).
They need pictures/film to get a clue about what's going on.
Just like two- and three-year olds.

Pictures are worth 1,000 words but they take up 100 times the memory.

Thinking the same thing. Everytime kerry support starts plummeting another "scandal" is conveniently brought forth with dems cries for independent commissions and resignations. I suppose this stunt will come back to bite their a$$es too--and deservedly so.

let's cut to the chase:
The Post headlined its March 21 coverage unambiguously,
"U.S. Soldiers Charged in Abuse of Iraqis."

That's all we need to know. The Dems WAITED to get the photos...then it's a big deal.