Abuse Whitewash

The Army's investigation of abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib prison has ended with the clearing top brass of any culpability. The only one to get a reprimand is Brigadier General Karpinsky, who if memory serves me right was actually removed from oversight of interrogations. Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch continues to continues to push for an investigation into Rumsfeld's role.

According to BBC's report on the investigation's findings, General Sanchez was cleared because he was short of staff, and under pressure to deal with the insurgency and locating Hussein ( Top brass cleared over Iraq abuse). His top aides were also cleared of any culpability (presumably for the same reasons).

The findings effectively fly in the face of other official findings:

An independent panel led by former Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger concluded last August that General Sanchez had failed to make sure that his staff was dealing with Abu Ghraib's problems. A separate Army investigation, called the Kern-Fay-Jones report, found that at one point General Sanchez approved the use of severe interrogation practices that led indirectly to some of the abuses.

The Schlesinger inquiry last summer also determined that General Sanchez's deputy, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, failed to act quickly enough to make urgent requests to higher levels for more troops at the understaffed prison.

But those inquiries were not empowered to impose any punishments; that was left up to the Army. NY Times 4/23/05

And the Army decided they weren't guilty because they had too much to do. In fact, it seems implied that the "pressures" Sanchez was under justified the use of torture at Abu Ghraib. But Karpinsky, who had interrogation supervision removed from her responsibilities gets a "reprimand," and the enlisted troops who followed orders get brought up for courts martial.

It is interesting that the Army investigation did not add that Sanchez was "following orders," which from documents released by the Pentagon and the White House seems to be the case. But that argument is being used by the enlisted person ell, and is certainly part of the push for putting Rumsfeld under the spotlight.

I think it is important to think about the implications of the Army's decision in light of how it looks to the rest of the world - and particularly to Iraqi's. If anyone thinks that this lack of accountability for abuse of prisoners is going to "close the books," then they are in a fantasy land. Here we have widely video documented abuse that was endlessly broadcast in the global press - and those in charge were too busy and under too much pressure to get "quick" answers. If you, or a loved one, had been tortured, would you feel that justice had been served?

With the ongoing U.S. military presence in Iraq and Terrified US soldiers killing civilians with impunity, while the dead go uncounted, would that dispose you to feel that everything is now OK? Not to mention that there are now more Iraqi's being "detained" than during the time of the documented abuse. One would think that the U.S. forces are under even more pressure now than they were then.

No, I doubt that this decision is going to resolve the issue - even if the Army thinks it has now put it behind them.