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.
Although it has been quite a few years since I was in the military, I can't imagine it changing so much that such actions would be initiated by anyone below command level. Anyone who shows any signs of individual thought won't make it past boot camp. Their entire training is aimed at excising individual thought and enforcing obedience to orders and they do that job very well. Oh, there may be an occasional soldier who gets through the system, with his individuality still intact, but they are few and far between. The chances that so many would end up in the same place, at the same time is far greater than that of you winning the lottery on your first attempt. There is no doubt in my mind that those soldiers were following orders. I just don't know how far up the ladder it goes.
I don't think that Rumsfeld knew about it or would have condoned it. But I would bet that ultimate responsibility goes high enough up the ladder that when the secret part of the investigation is over and Rumsfeld reads that report, he will recognize the name(s) of the man (or men) who was responsible. That person will probably be quietly forced to retire, but the public will never hear about it and that's all that will happen. That's the way it has always been done. Even when the politicos have no knowledge of the wrongdoing, they want to keep the responsibility as far from themselves as possible, so the scapegoat is almost always a non-com.
In my opinion, Rumsfeld is the only person in the administration, including Dubya, with any real integrity. It would be a shame if Dubya were to fire him, though I have no doubt that he would, if he thought that it would improve his chances of re-election. Even if Rumsfeld were to be fired, the command officer who was ultimately responsible, will probably never be known to the public.
Hack wants his buddy Bubba back as CIC. Pardon me while I puke.
When you show pictures of all the bad things our military has done Iraq and you don't show any of the good things that our military has done in Iraq and you don't show the bad things that have been done to our military in Iraq, then you have not painted an objective picture of what our military is doing in Iraq.
The pictures of this war presented by the media are mostly bad. The work being done by our troops is mostly good.
Please explain in some semblance of reason how the above scenario DOES NOT endanger every one of our troops in Iraq, our objective in Iraq and our country.
If we care about the revenge that has played out against these Iraqi prisoners, then we should care about the revenge factor that may be played out against these six and more importantly all of our troops in Iraq.
The pictures were classified and should not have been leaked.
Other possibility mentioned above is a gay porn ring. I really hadn't thought of that angle.
There was NO reason to publish these photos, since the Army already had investigations well underway and were revamping the system. People were already in custody. The report listed the offenses.
But that wasn't enough for CBS...they had to show the pictures. And in the process, violated the Geneva Convention and made certain that those prisoners in the pictures were humiliated not just before the prison guards but before the entire Arab world.
There are two wrongs here. The first is that of the guards and officers in the prison. They should get the maximum punishment available.
The second wrong is that of the media, who in the process of getting the pictures out in order to damage Bush, have indeed endangered the troops in Iraq, and in fact have given us a setback in the war on terror.
If it is against the Geneva Convention to humiliate prisoners, why is CBS broadcasting the photos. They are, in my opinion, as guilty of war crimes as the guards at the prison.
"The public's right to know", don't you know? (Does that even have to be stated anymore?) Or, to translate it into everyday language - the mob's right and demand to be titillated 24/7!
No, that excuse won't wash. Any REPUTABLE news agency would have checked that out before airing the photos.
Hmmmm, seems like they were doing that already. Or did you miss the reports on the hundreds of brave soldiers that have died since we 'won'? This changes nothing. Islamonuts hate the occupation force no matter what would have been done.
There was NO reason to publish these photos, since the Army already had investigations well underway and were revamping the system. People were already in custody. The report listed the offenses.
In our history, the stories that don't make the media and get to the public tend to be covered over
And in the process, violated the Geneva Convention and made certain that those prisoners in the pictures were humiliated not just before the prison guards but before the entire Arab world.
As if the soldiers didn't violate the Geneva convention in doing it in the first place. Have you even read part II or part III of section I? Practically everything it said not to do, these men and women did. Frankly, I think it's a good thing they're out in the open. Gives the citizens of the respective states a little taste of what these young people have been ingrained from the television media and entertainment divisions of our society.
Of course one couldn't expect anything further reaching to come out of this, say perhaps a responsibility factor on our society for breeding such 'free thinkers' but heck let's blame CBS for throwing it in our face shall we?
The second wrong is that of the media, who in the process of getting the pictures out in order to damage Bush, have indeed endangered the troops in Iraq, and in fact have given us a setback in the war on terror
And this is where you've lost me. Reporting what the youth of this society are doing over there does not threaten them in anyway. Islamics weren't going to love us under any circumstance. Or perhaps you missed the 'popular' US backed newspaper shutting down the other day when the entire staff walked off because of censorship. I want to know this is happening. And from many of the polls out there, the majority of the citizens of the respective states want to know it as well. Frankly, I've already sensed a change in some of the people I work with who served in Desert Storm I compared to older veterans I know
What amazes me is the double standard. Instead of getting upset, 'conservatives' cheer Rummy for standing up in the face of Congressional questioning. I know the era is long gone of expecting our Armed Forces to act a cut above the enemy. Even if they didn't follow the Geneva Convention, our Armed Forces expected themselves to do so. But on this thread, there is cheering when the Armed Forces do stoop to the level of the Islamics. That and lambasting a news organization for telling us they did so with photographs. I don't know what concerns me more. The fact that I see praise for those that would debase a man because they did it to us first or that we shouldn't be told what those who are 'spreading democracy' are doing to accomplish this job.
The rambling WOST continues..
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.