Extracurricular Activities


Abu Ghreib roundup: Independent report finds only "indirect" blame for civilian Pentagon leadership. Human Rights Watch's Reed Brody says report "seems to go out of its way not to find any relationship" between abuses and Rumsfeld approval of interrogation techniques. Report's language completes "few bad apples" jokes by referencing "Animal House" atmosphere at prison. Full text of report here.

NEXT: The Wisdom of Group Blogs

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. As of now they’re on Double SECRET Probation!

  2. Interrogation policies with respect to Iraq, where the majority of the abuses occurred, were inadequate or deficient in some respects at three levels: Department of Defense, CENTCOM/CJTF-7, and Abu Gharib Prison. Policies to guide the demands for DoD interrogation policies between December 2, 2002 and April 16, 2003 were an element contributing to uncertainties in the field as to which techniques were authorized.”

    pp.14 (16 of 126)

    There’s more than one place in the report in which blame is directed at the confusion over which “interrogation polices”, AKA acts of torture, were approved and where. People in the field already understood the Geneva Conventions; Rumsfeld’s memo of December 2, 2002 muddied the water. Isn’t that what we’re talking about when we talk about incompetence?

    …and I loved this disclaimer:

    …the Panel did not have full access to information involving the role of the Central Intelligence Agency in detention operations; this is an area the Panel believes needs further investigation and review.”

    pp. 6 (8 of 126)

    Really? Considering that the report points the finger at “military intelligence personnel” (pp. 5 or 7 of 126), the Panel thinks that there should be “…further investigation and review..”? Great! So when can we expect that report?

    Oh Shannon,

    Doesn’t that calculation of the chance of being abused in U.S. custody assume that everyone who was abused made an allegation, that the allegation was documented, etc.? And, out of curiosity, what, in your opinion, constitutes an acceptable chance of being abused in U.S. custody?

  3. Tim Cavanaugh writes:
    Report’s language completes “few bad apples” jokes by referencing “Animal House” atmosphere at prison.

    “I mean, what the fuckall does Limbaugh know about Skull and Bones? As far as I can tell, the fucking moron is saying that all this gay Iraq shit is the same shit that happens at Skull and Bones. Is he trying to say that the fucking President was put in a naked pyramid with a bunch of fucking other guys? In my book that shit counts as fucking slander. No fucking way was Bush doing shit like that.” — Dan Higgins

  4. Malak shows an astonishing lack of understanding about the scope of US military operations. It is physically impossible for the SecDef and the CinC to have day-to-day knowledge of everything that happens in every brigade.

    To demand otherwise is, well, like expecting the CEO of Ford to personally test-drive every car that comes off the line.

  5. My favorite part so far:

    (logical page 7 physical page 5)

    50,000 people apprehended
    300 allegations of abuse
    155 investigated
    66 substantiated
    22 at point of capture

    Chances of being abused in U.S, custody: 1 in 379

  6. Whether Rummy, or even GWB, knew about the abuse is NOT relevant. They are in the chain of command, and the old axiom applies: If they did not know, they should have. Shamefully, this “man” keeps his job.

  7. I do NOT demand that they “know” in the literal sense. Rather I expect that they take responsibility for those who serve under them. Feces, as they say, flows downhill. But it has to flow from somewhere. And GWB is at the top of a very smelly pile. Your Ford analogy is interesting. If there were a flaw in one of Ford’s designs (let’s say it blew up a lot), would not Ford be liable for damages? Would not there executives, right on up to Henry Ford (insert the appropriate Roman numeral here) also be held to account? THAT is what I’m driving at. Sorry about the pun.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.