Posted on 05/07/2004 11:02:41 PM PDT by saquin
CUMBERLAND, Md., May 7 — Ivan Frederick was distraught. His son, an Army reservist turned prison guard in Iraq, was under investigation earlier this year for mistreating prisoners, and photographs of the abuse were beginning to circulate among soldiers and military investigators.
So the father went to his brother-in-law, William Lawson, who was afraid that reservists like his nephew would end up taking the fall for what he considered command lapses, Mr. Lawson recounted in an interview on Friday. He knew whom to turn to: David Hackworth, a retired colonel and a muckraker who was always willing to take on the military establishment. Mr. Lawson sent an e-mail message in March to Mr. Hackworth's Web site and got a call back from an associate there in minutes, he said.
That e-mail message would put Mr. Lawson in touch with the CBS News program "60 Minutes II" and help set in motion events that led to the public disclosure of the graphic photographs and an international crisis for the Bush administration.
It is still not entirely clear who leaked the photos and how they got into the hands of a "60 Minutes II" producer. What is clear, however, is that the furor over the photos is unlikely to dissipate any time soon.
And it may only get worse.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld disclosed Friday that there were "many more photos" and videos of abuse that have not yet become public. And he acknowledged in Senate testimony that the military might have mishandled the affair by not alerting members of Congress and the public to the growing seriousness of the military's investigation into the abuses before the images became public on "60 Minutes II."
"I wish I had been able to convey to them the gravity of this before we saw it in the media," Mr. Rumsfeld said.
The irony, Mr. Lawson said, is that the public spectacle might have been avoided if the military and the federal government had been responsive to his claims that his nephew was simply following orders. Mr. Lawson said he sent letters to 17 members of Congress about the case earlier this year, with virtually no response, and that he ultimately contacted Mr. Hackworth's Web site out of frustration, leading him to cooperate with a consultant for "60 Minutes II."
"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."
Many of the incriminating photographs appear to have been taken on a digital camera by a soldier in the 372nd Military Police Company who is now facing a court-martial. From there, they appear to have circulated among military personnel in Iraq via e-mail and computer disks, and some may have found their way to family members in the United States.
But there are still numerous unresolved questions about the photographs. One is why they were taken. Some officials suggest that soldiers wanted the photographs as souvenirs, but some relatives said they believed that the photographs were going to be shown to other prisoners to pressure their cooperation.
Then there is the question of how the photographs became public.
Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, deputy commander of forces in the region, testifying Friday before Congress, said he was still unclear how that happened. "It was a surprise that it got out," General Smith said.
Military officials were aware of two disks with photographs on them that were part of continuing investigations, one in Iraq and another in Washington, he said.
"That was the limit of the pictures, and we thought we had them all," General Smith said.
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."
Digital cameras have become so ubiquitous in the military that many relatives of personnel in the 372nd and other units in Iraq said they routinely received photographs by e-mail. But the photographs were usually tourist-type photographs of smiling sons and daughters, relatives said.
Officials said that the photographs showing psychological or physical abuse numbered in the hundreds, perhaps more than 1,000, with Mr. Rumsfeld hinting Friday that more may come out.
Among some prison personnel in Iraq, the photographs were apparently an open secret. "Some soldiers in Iraq had them — I'm hearing that soldiers were showing them to everybody," Mr. Lawson said. He said he did not have the original photos and did not turn them over to anyone.
The photographs have now turned soldiers like Mr. Lawson's nephew, Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick, and Pfc. Lynndie R. England into graphic symbols of military abuse. But for Mr. Lawson, they are evidence of a complete breakdown in training and authority in the Iraqi prison system.
He shared his frustration in his March 23 e-mail message to Mr. Hackworth's Web site, writing: "We have contacted the Red Cross, Congress both parties, Bill O'Reilly and many others. Nobody wants to touch this."
Less than five weeks later, images of his nephew — interviewed on "60 Minutes II" with Mr. Lawson's help — would be shown around the world. Far from untouchable, the story would become unavoidable.
Dogleash girl that is knocked up.
Lynndie England is pictured in her 2001 senior portrait from Frankfort High School in Short Gap, West Virginia. England was identified as being pictured in some of the recently released images taken at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. REUTERS/HO
Sure looks that way. He must be proud.
JMO, Hack, does not. He is a McCain/Hagel clone, looking out for how much face time he can get by an adoring(for the day) liberal media.
Kinda of interesting seeing the "Hack" contingent on FR not as numerous or verbose. 4 years ago, Hack was the bomb.
JMO, shows that reading FR(baiscally deconstructing the liberal media, IMO), does some difference.
If you didn't serve in the Revolutionary War, I wouldn't go around disparaging a decorated war hero.
Nor did any of our esteemed Congress critters; it kind of makes you think they must all know.
Yep. Because the media and Dems want to make the public forget that leaking those photos, and showing them on TV, is illegal.
Does it list the name of the prison? I have a good friend in Va. employed in a prison.
MAKING THE JOB THERE NOT ONLY HARDER, BUT HURTING THE MILITARY as a WHOLE, SO VERY< VERY MUCH.
Disgraceful. Hurtful. DISGUSTING.
This is disgraceful. Why not take the photos to MR. RUMSFELD instead of CBS.
Hackworth has hurt our nation, deeply.
This is a betayal by people who WANT the Iraqi quest for freedom to fail.
If you mistreat prisoners you should be investigated.
So the father went to his brother-in-law, William Lawson, who was afraid that reservists like his nephew would end up taking the fall for what he considered command lapses,...
Command lapse? Was Federick commanded to mistreat the prisoners?
...some relatives said they believed that the photographs were going to be shown to other prisoners to pressure their cooperation.
No supporting evidence is given of any command to mistreat the prisoners.
We ARE angry at the abusers and what they did to the prisoners, the military and the country. We're ALSO angry with the leaker who did possibly irreparable damage to the country by leaking them to CBS AND at CBS for showing the damned things!
What's WITH you people?? WHY does everything have to revolve around exactly ONE aspect or ramification?? Too hard to keep track of more??
See excerpt of Centcom Briefing transcript for Januarary 16 at post# 508. What is the meaning of a guarantor?
What did the 17 members of Congress do?
My suspicion is that at first only word of abuse leaked out. The ones responsible took or had someone take posed pictures of the reservists in these various abusive positions to deflect any implication of themselves. Either that, or they took the posed pix to show to other inmates, possibly to hang them in their cells to make them talk.
Whatever the case, these pix looked staged and posed. These are not candid shots in my mind. Maybe some others will come out and be different. The ones I've seen so far look like a scene was set up, smile, click, etc. What they intended to use them for later is another question. It's all just so bizarre.
I'm not saying it was right, but this doesn't look like systematic abuse as much as it does systematic picture taking. However, I guess these pictures are mild compared to the body of an American's remains charred and hanging in the town square, or the ones of the people jumping from the WTC.
I think quite highly of Valerie's input on this board. I find her to be a thoughtful, honest, caring, individual. Not once has she played the victim card, though God knows she's had enough opportunities to do so. I consider Valerie to be one of the finest individuals to inhabit this board.
I guess you'll have to include me on your ever-growing list of "morons" whose opinions should not be recognized on FreeRepublic.
David Hackworth & his wife Eilhys England Hackworth
And what do you want to bet his choice of candidate for 2004 is is the flip-floppin' anti-war-except-for-when-he's-called-a-hero F'n Kerry? They had something in common back in 1971 and they still do in 2004.
After almost five years in Vietnam Hack's cup runneth over. In 1971, as the Army's youngest colonel he spoke out on national television saying, "This is a bad war ... it can't be won we need to get out." In that interview, he also said that the North Vietnamese flag would fly over Saigon in four years -- a prediction that turned out to be right on target. He was the only senior officer to sound off about the insanity of the war.
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.