Miller recommended establishing a joint interrogation center at Abu Ghraib, and Taguba testified that tactical control of the Abu Ghraib facility was taken from Karpinski and turned over to Col. Thomas Pappas, a military intelligence colonel. The abuse documented in photographs that have caused an international furor started in October, not long after Miller's recommended changes took place.
...Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, defended the arrangement at Abu Ghraib that divided authority between Pappas and Karpinski. He maintained that Pappas, the military intelligence chief, did not control the military police guarding the prisoners.
But Taguba disagreed, saying it was his understanding that Pappas had authority over the MPs.
SF Gate article
...Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, defended the arrangement at Abu Ghraib that divided authority between Pappas and Karpinski. He maintained that Pappas, the military intelligence chief, did not control the military police guarding the prisoners.
But Taguba disagreed, saying it was his understanding that Pappas had authority over the MPs.
So why then is Karpinski reprimanded if control was turned over to Pappas? I can begin to see why Karpinski has been a bit hostile about this whole thing.
This is Juan Cole's analysis today:
No one is a better friend to historians than a military or civilian official who doesn't know he is supposed to lie about some things. The WP reports,
What is going on here is that Taguba is giving an honest and faithful account of what happened. He says that the militiary intelligence guys got command control of the MPs. Cambone knows that this is against army regulations and should be denied, not openly admitted. Either way, Taguba is right that this is what happened.
"Taguba said that when control of the prison was turned over to military intelligence officials, they had authority over the military police who were guarding prisoners. But Stephen Cambone, the Pentagon's undersecretary for intelligence, said that was incorrect, that authority for the handling of detainees had remained with the MPs."
What is going on here is that Taguba is giving an honest and faithful account of what happened. He says that the militiary intelligence guys got command control of the MPs. Cambone knows that this is against army regulations and should be denied, not openly admitted. Either way, Taguba is right that this is what happened.
And some clarification on the Kerry campaign charge (from the SF Gate article):
Partisanship at the hearing broke into the open when Sen. James Inhofe, R- Okla., produced a fund-raising letter from the campaign of the Democrats' likely presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.
The letter decried the Abu Ghraib abuse, "the slow and inept response by President Bush," and invited recipients to sign a petition calling for Rumsfeld's resignation.
The letter decried the Abu Ghraib abuse, "the slow and inept response by President Bush," and invited recipients to sign a petition calling for Rumsfeld's resignation.
Okay, and so? Oh. Kerry's campaign is politicizing the abuse.
"I don't recall this ever having happened before in history," Inhofe said.
What a load of crap. I guess he can't recall Bush's first campaign ad with the WTC deaths in the background.
Josh Marshall comments on Inhofe's Senate hearing rant:
As I said earlier today, I don't think I can remember a more shameful spectacle in the United States Congress, in my living memory, than the comments today of James Inhofe, the junior senator from Oklahoma.
