Keep in mind that I'm trying to bottle my latest batch of brew and watch this at the same time. Also, I am limited in my note taking abilities, and while I'm writing, they may be clarifying what I may have understood them to say. With those caveats...
Testifying are Major General Antonio Taguba, who created the report on the Abu Ghraib "abuses" in February of this year, General Lance Smith, CentCom, and Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone.
James Inhofe R-OK:
Senator Inhofe uses his time to blow steam about the publicity the situation is getting. He says he is "more outraged by the outrage than the treatment" of the prisoners. These people are terrorists, insurgents, and probably some have American blood on their hands. In fact, prisoners at Abu Ghraib "probably wake up every morning thanking Allah that Saddam Hussein is not in charge of this prison." Thereafter he reads a list of Saddam's alleged heinous treatment of prisoners and asks for that list to be made a part of the record of these hearings. He says there are so many "do-gooders" and "humanitarians" crawling over Abu Ghraib right now, while our soldiers are still over there fighting and dying. There were only seven bad people who did bad things, and they are being punished.
I kid you not.
He also spends a while defending Don Rumsfeld and says that "for every picture of alleged abuse" that is shown it should be required to show a picture of mass graves or children Saddam killed and the four contractors killed and burned in Fallujah.
He actually does, at the end of his allotted time for questions, ask a question. Sort of. He wants to get it on the record that commanders "up the line" can serve as appellate judges, so that there's a question of "undue influence" (all of which I'm not fully understanding here), and wasn't that indeed the reason Taguba was brought in to make a report in the first place? General Smith affirms.
And then, in conclusion, Senator Inhofe reminds us that there are all kinds of accounts of abuse being told and many of them are probably fictitious.
Hey, Oklahoma, I know this is the pot calling the kettle black, me coming from ex-senator Ashcroft's home state, but, try to do better when elections roll around again.
Senator John Warner (Chairman) R-NE says that he has asked that the photos be made available to the entire Senate, not just this committee.
Senator Byrd D-you know:
Taguba says he discovered no policy nor order directing the soldiers to do what they did. He believes they did it on their own, perhaps with Intel officers. Some MPs received training, some didn't. He recommended a mobile training team to be sent to Iraq to correct that problem.
Pat Roberts R-KS:
Praising Taguba: "Many are called and few are chosen." Senator Roberts' questions are precise, pointed and rapid fire. No bullshit, just questions of fact.
"Softening up" prisoners for interrogation is not acceptable practice by the MPs, is that correct? General Smith affirms that it is not acceptable.
There are no policies or orders that permit this according to Cambone. General Miller (who was sent to Abu Ghraib from Guantanamo last fall to help them get better intel) made recommendations, and they were all technically and legally okay. MPs are not allowed to take part in interrogations.
Mr. Cambone: "I sitll don't know that there is a signifcant issue here." That is exactly what he said. I don't know if he meant to narrow that to any specific point in the overall issue. I will need to read the transcript.
Guantanamo is also undergoing investigations at this time.
Jack Reed D-RI:
Taguba: The "abuses" at Abu Ghraib began around the middle of October 2003. General Boykin (remember him?) was involved with Miller's recommendations.
Reed: What does it mean "to set the conditions" for interrogating prisoners (apparently Miller's recommendation)? Did anybody ever ask? He gets Cambone to admit that prisoners at Abu Ghraib were subject to "Article III or IV" of the Geneva Conventions, and then reads him Articles IV and 31, and then: You didn't ask any specifics about "conditions" patterned on Gitmo?!? People failed to ensure that the laws would be upheld by failing to ask appropriate questions.
Somebody mentions that General Miller didn't just give those recommendations and leave, but that he said a command staff judge advocate should look at them and rule on the procedures suggested. I think they said that General Sanchez (who was in charge at some upper level) didn't get that done.
Wayne Allard R-CO:
Senator Allard says we need to get these hearings done and move forward on to the good things that are happening in Iraq. Yes he did.
He also said that he echoes Inhofe in that these abuses are being politicized - in fact Inhofe had mentioned something that I didn't quite catch, and Allard is saying he is appalled that "these abuses are being used as a fund-raiser by the Kerry Campaign." I'm sure we'll hear more about that.
He says that if the prisoners are classified as terorists and not associated with any country, they are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Taguba says there was no one at Abu Ghraib classified as a terrorist. They were "security detainees" and detainees of other kinds, criminals.
Why were they taking pictures? (There have been some accounts that these pictures were taken for interrogation reasons - to intimidate other prisoners into cooperating.) Smith says he believes they were taken on personal digital cameras. Taguba affirms. He says they had nothing to do with security at the prison or interrogation. So here's an important clarification of those incidences, which could well hang those few bad apples out to dry, I would think. Taguba says "as far as we know", they were personal cameras used by individuals doing this on their own.
Bill Nelson D-FL:
"I don't think General Miller is where the problem lies. I think the problem is elsewhere." Which pretty well sums up the whole tenor of the hearings as far as I'm concerned, with the exception of Hillary Clinton's questions, which I'll get to later. It looks as though everybody has already made a decision as to what they believe happened. I thought the Senate hearing was to investigate, but maybe I'm wrong.
Nelson reads Taguba's list of horrors from the report, and then asks Undersecretary Cambone when he became aware of what was happening. Cambone says he knew at the beginning of this year that there were photos, but he was unaware of the "character, scope and scale" of the situation until he saw the photos and read the Taguba report this week. He says that "corporately" the DoD was aware in February.
Nelson asks what Cambone's role was in his position politically in making Defense Secretary Rumsfiend aware of what was happening. Cambone doesn't answer, he just repeats the information about knowing generally of investigations but not being aware of the specifics. Nelson asks again what his personal responsibility was to tell Rumsfiend, and again he repeats a variation of the same information. So, then Nelson, says, okay, why was Rumsfeld unprepared to share the information with the Senate when he talked to them just before this story broke? Cambone's answer is that he can't speak for Rumsfeld, and when questioned further says he told Rumsfeld that there were investigations under way before Rumsfeld's Senate visit in which he didn't tell the Senate anything.
Jim Talent R-MO:
Jim wants to know why this particular unit (the 800th MP reserve unit at Abu Ghraib) was so below the level of discipline and military conduct of the rest of the army. (I'm not sure that's a valid assumption, but that's his question.) He thinks it's due to not having the wherewithal to keep the whole army "sharp" and so some parts of it are allowed "to rust". He says he wishes we as a country had had the interest in the 90s about funding the army and maybe then "we wouldn't all be sitting here". WHOOMP there it is! It's Clinton's fault.
He says the Air Force has a special office to deal with these kinds of issues so as to avoid the problem of "command influence" that Inhofe was talking about. And Cambone says that is a recommendation that they are looking at.
Ben Nelson D-NE:
Ben says, "I'm going to ignore some of the partisan sniping that's been going on by the other side today because I don't think that's especially helpful." He asks Taguba if it is accurate that this is the fault of only a few or is it a policy problem or something else? Taguba says that it's the fault of a few, but - and here I think is a shoe dropped - "there were others, but we couldn't track them down." There are some bad apples out there that haven't been tracked down. This should become important when they talk about having done the honorable, legal transparent and American thing and punished the guilty. But I won't hold my breath.
Taguba also mentions something about Karpinski talking about some CPA officials, but that he "didn't go after that". I don't know what that was about.
He says Karpinski challenged the authority given to Col. Pappas (the MI commander), and that created confusion and friction. He also says that any abuses in other prisons consisted of things like slapping.
Saxby Chambliss R-GA:
Chambliss has Taguba confirm that the 800th MPs - the "internment and resettlement brigade" reserve unit was poorly trained and lacked knowledge. Taguba says he didn't interview the battalion commander, because the battalion commander "invoked his rights", but that the soldiers said they didn't have training in internment and resettlement.
Mark Dayton D-MN:
Senator Dayton never did get a question out. He says the committee was overshadowed by the pReznit yesterday saying that Rumsfeld did a great job and everything's hunky-dory, and by Cheney saying that everybody should "get off his (Rumsfiend's) case" - "in other words, we should stop meddling and let them get back to running the war." Dayton says the pictures defy the sanitizing that's being done, which includes using euphemisms about inappropriate acts of a sexual nature to describe forced masturbation and rape. "If you go elsewhere" like the Red Cross report, Dayton says, there is the unsanitized version and facts, and Dayton says he doesn't think "we would find this out any other way" (than going "elsewhere" for information.) He also says he takes umbrage at being bad-mouthed for wanting to get to the truth and with those who want to suppress it.
Senator Cornyn R-TX:
This
Hillary Clinton D-NY:
Nobody disagrees with the importance of making sure America is safe, she says, but the question is whether the subject of these hearings undermines that goal. According to her questioning of Taguba, the MPs under Janis Karpinski were the only problem. (It becomes evident that Taguba has no love lost for Janis.) Clinton remarks that General Miller (from Gitmo) coordinated or directed the MP involvement in "conditioning" of detainees, and if he were sent from Gitmo to Iraq to try to get more "actionable intelligence", the subsequent actions of the MPs were connected to Miller's visit. She wants to know exactly what Miller's recommendations were and whether there were any follow-up reports. She wants to determine the precise connection between Miller's arrival at Abu Ghraib in the fall of '03 and the abuses that occurred immediately afterward.
Clinton agrees that Karpinski has responsibility, but she wants to have Taguba explain to her Karpinski's remark upon seeing the photos that she didn't think anything was improperly done by the MPS, that they were instructed to do what they did according to new procedures they were given. Taguba's response is that there was friction between Karpinski and Pappas - who was in charge of who and when, and they never gave him an explanation. He says Karpinski challenged Pappas' authority, and continues to rip her for a few minutes.
Clinton wants to know who Pappas reported to - was it Miller? Smith says he reported to - I don't know what - some letters and numbers he reeled off - and that Miller had no power of command at Abu Ghraib, so nobody reported to Miller.
Lindsey Graham R-SC:
Senator Graham says "we are overly politicizing this", that it should be a situation that binds us, not tears us apart. "When you say you're the good guys, you've got to act like the good guys." He blesses Taguba and Smith for their willingness to investigate and do the right thing (something several members of the Committee have done). "You've got one prison run differently than the others." He wants to know if "that guy wired up" in the picture was the work of a few or was there something else going on. Taguba says it was the work of a few people only. Then Graham wants to know, "how about the dogs"? Taguba says again it was the work of only a few people. Graham asks the same question about other pictures, and Taguba makes the same response to each. Graham says that those people, whom we will be trying, are going to say they were directed to do those things, is that true? Taguba says they were "probably influenced" but they were not directed.
There again, I think that a lot is going to hinge on the definition of "directed" and the interpretation of what constituted "influence".
Graham gets somebody's affirmation that the Code of Military Justice prevents (I think he meant to say "prohibits" - as obviously nothing was prevented) this kind of stuff, regardless of the Geneva Conventions. He points out that there is definitely dereliction of duty, and that he doesn't think letters of reprimand are sufficient punishment for dereliction of duty when it comes to the actions of commanders. He also says he doesn't think Rumsfeld should be held accountable for the illegal actions of anyone below him.
Evan Bayh D-IN:
Bayh remarks that Bremer raised warnings of a general nature in August and more specific after the Red Cross report in February. He wants to know who had tactical control of the prison. Taguba says it was Military Intel, Smith says it wasn't - that MI had control of the facility, but not the people running it. (Kind of like the contention and confusion between Karpinski and Pappas, I suppose.) Taguba says Pappas' mission was security of the detainees and force protection, and that he (Pappas) "establishes priorities". Cambone chimes in that that doesn't address whether Pappas could give unlawful orders. And Smith says it doesn't matter, that they can change priorities, but the soldiers still have to follow policy. Taguba says that finally, the problem is that some leaders didn't comply with standards.
Bayh says it's important that we get timely and accurate intelligence, and at the same time we maintain our integrity and honor, because that is what will determine in the long run whether we reach our goal.
Now here's something that got dropped in here somewhere that I caught, but didn't get the full deal: apparently exceptions to the rules of interrogation - I think that's what they were saying - are allowed if the commander (which would have been Sanchez, I think they're saying) so deems, but that no exceptions were granted. Huh? What's all this hammering and yammering about rules and following the rules if the rules can be excepted by a commander?
Cambone assures the Committee that if they find anything at all was done wrongly by military intelligence at Abu Ghraib, "we'll come right back here and tell you about it." No doubt.
Dumbshit Howard Cole R-NC:
Paraphrased: "I'm sick of this shit. Nobody's asking any of those evil-doing, inhuman terrorists to apologize." And much, much more drivel to that effect.
That's about it.
And then there was some coverage of little five-minute speeches at the House of Reps (reptiles, isn't that?), which I quit watching shortly after catching this little blurb: according to the Pentagon, one in four American soldier casualties in Iraq have been unnecessary, but for the lack of preparation and equipment. One in four!!
