The Belgravia Dispatch: Where Are the Accountability and Leadership?

February 28, 2006

Where Are the Accountability and Leadership?

Another America hater (but one who served in Iraq at least):

When an Army investigator asked Col. Thomas Pappas, the top military intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib, how intimidation with dogs could be allowed under this treaty, he gave the chilling reply, "I did not personally look at that with regard to the Geneva Convention." Colonel Pappas later testified that he was taking his cue on the use of dogs from Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who took over detainee operations in Iraq after running them in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
General Miller has denied recommending the use of guard dogs to intimidate prisoners during interrogations in Iraq. He also recently said he would not testify in the courts-martial of Sergeants Cardona and Smith, invoking his right to avoid self-incrimination. As someone who voluntarily spoke at length about my actions in Iraq to investigators, without a lawyer present, I can't have a favorable opinion of General Miller. By doing the military equivalent of "taking the Fifth," he's decided to protect himself, apparently happy to let two dog handlers take the fall — a stunning betrayal of his subordinates and Army values.

Sergeants Cardona and Smith have been accused of sick and sadistic behavior. They face the prospect of serious jail time. But they almost certainly acted believing they were following legal orders. In the military, orders are orders unless there is clear, uncluttered law transmitted from far above our commanders' rank and station. Instead of a clear message prohibiting torture, our top commanders gave us a deliberate muddying of the waters.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, recently shepherded a ban on torture through Congress. Then, while reluctantly signing the legislation, President Bush muddled this very clear ban on torture by stating that he would construe it "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president."

Those who serve in the prisons of Iraq deserve to know clearly the difference between legal and illegal orders. Soldiers on the ground need a commander in chief who does not seek strained legalisms that "permit" the use of torture. The McCain amendment, prohibiting "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment in all instances, is an accurate reflection of the true values of the military and American society. We should adhere to it strictly and in all cases. I know, from personal experience, that any leeway given will be used to maximum effect against detainees. No slope is more slippery, I learned in Iraq, than the one that leads to torture.

Amen Mr. Lagouranis. Amen.

Posted by Gregory at February 28, 2006 01:54 PM | TrackBack (0)

Comments

Is it really fair to describe the writer as an "America Hater" or were you being tongue-in-cheek?

Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at February 28, 2006 04:04 PM | Permalink to this comment

rest assured we're in tongue in cheek land here. everytime one of us deigns to condemn the horrific damage that has been wrought because of our defining torture down via the Yoo memorandum (since belatedly, and half-heartedly, repudiated) and too vague instructions to the troops in the field (or barely veiled encouragement to push the limits a la Rumsfeld)--we are castigated as kvetchers, America haters, spineless cowards who aren't willing to be 'manly' and get the good job done. i consider people like Lagouranis, Fishback, Mora etc great Americans. And torture apologists as, not only amoral, but also plain dumb (there is no compelling evidence that the techniques authorized by Rumsfeld have provided us a plethora of new intel). Instead, they have damaged our international reputation greatly and stoked greater hatred. This is not the way to fight a global counterinsurgency. We need new war leaders who haven't been hugely discredited. Urgently.

Posted by: greg at February 28, 2006 04:12 PM | Permalink to this comment

And torture apologists as, not only amoral, but also plain dumb (there is no compelling evidence that the techniques authorized by Rumsfeld have provided us a plethora of new intel).

And even if, and that is a big and undecided "if", these methods did yield slightly more intel, such gains would have to be weighed against the costs that Greg alludes to:

they have damaged our international reputation greatly and stoked greater hatred. This is not the way to fight a global counterinsurgency.

So the bar concerning the utility of the use of abuse/torture must be higher than other methods because of the built in costs which are not insignificant.

Either way, Amen indeed.

Posted by: Eric Martin at February 28, 2006 04:20 PM | Permalink to this comment

Amen is right. It's now plain as day that the long terms costs of their rapacious decisionmaking well exceeds any short term marginal benefits. The fish rots from the head, etc.

Posted by: fnook at March 1, 2006 01:39 AM | Permalink to this comment

Well, fortunately this Republic only has another two and a half years of total and utter incompetence and venality to suffer through.

What's the worst that could happen?

Posted by: stickler at March 1, 2006 05:10 AM | Permalink to this comment

Right. Utter incompetence. Fifty million liberated. Booming economy. No terror attacks on America. And competence would be defined how? By how America's enemies perceive us. "America hater" is not tongue-in-cheek, merely descriptive. Although "freedom hater" would be more apropos. And "chilling" evil consists of using dogs to frighten prisoners? How about the dogs in every airport, sniffing everyone? Does their use constitute torture? The slippery slope here is going the other way. Dirty looks are not unAmerican. And killing barbarian murderers is, unfortunately, a uniquely American virtue.

Posted by: Robert Speirs at March 1, 2006 01:43 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Fifty million liberated. Booming economy. No terror attacks on America."

Thats one way to look at it, though it's a bit shortsighted I'd argue. And your liberation rhetoric rings quite hollow to the familys of the dead, not all of whom are "barbarian murderers" killed at the hands of virtuous Americans. In any event, the issue on the table is American torture and the deeply flawed decisionmaking and insulting legal hairsplitting by the current administration, including Bush himself, that allowed us to sink to the level we currently find ourselves. You may not think it's a big deal, but growing numbers of us think it's horrific, unnecessary and a serious long term liability to American's security.

"'America hater' is not tongue-in-cheek, merely descriptive." Interesting observation Robert. Since when were you endowed with the ability to read Greg's mind? As the writer of the words isn't he entitled to speak for himself w/r/t the meaning his post?

Posted by: fnook at March 1, 2006 04:07 PM | Permalink to this comment

Just as mafia bosses go to great lengths to shield themselves from the consequences of the crimes they instigate, the White House and Pentagon appear to have instituted their interrogation policies in such a way that policymakers would be well insulated from criminal liability. Anthony Lagouranis accuses former Abu Ghraib commander, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, of "a stunning betrayal of his subordinates and Army values." The accusation could just as appropriately be directed at every other member in the chain of command above Miller.

Posted by: Paul Woodward at March 1, 2006 05:18 PM | Permalink to this comment

When I read "another American hater," I fliched at this characterization. Although you later backtracked and explained that you meant it tongue in cheek, I still think that it was a low blow, given the fact that Mr. Lougranis wrote an honest and personal commentary on how an amoral policy from the top in the Department of Defense affected those on the bottom in the military hierarchy.
I served in Vietnam, and because I came from a converstive, working-class, and Roman Catholic background, I wanted to serve but not to fight. I just couldn't rationalize even back then the taking of human life for any reason. But I felt an obligation to serve my country, which seems now a rather naive sentiment on my part. But you have to remember I grew up in high school listening to President Kennedy in his inaugral address state that Americans should ask not what America can do for them but rather what they can do for America. But that was in a different country, as Hemingway tensely observed in one of one his short stories. That America no longer exists.
What the baby boomers still refuse to acknowledge is that VP Cheney is the most representative of his generation, having avoided the draft through five deferments, because he "had other priorities at the time." But I have no personal aminus against his decision; we all did what we thought was best. And given his recent hunting accident, I believe he did his country an immense favor. Out of a potential pool of around 28 or 29 million draftees, only around 2.5 million citizens served in Southeast Asia.
And even though I served in a humanitarian way in Vietnam, being a medical corpsman who was not allowed to carry a weapon due to the prohibition of the rules of the Geneva Convention, I came home to a toxic political enviroment upon my return to the world. I remember walking through the concourse in the Seattle airport to catch a connecting flight home while a group of long-haired civilians passing in the opposite direction gave me the "Sieg Heil" Nazi salute and laughed at me. Even now I can feel the mixture of shame, humiliation and anger that occurred then.
But civilian are blissful ignorant of what a beast war is, given how willing they went along with this debacle in Iraq. Having been a witness to another foreign policy debale, I was dead set against this war and quite vocal about it. I have had so-called patriotic civilians, who avoided involvement in Vietnam and now are too old to volunteer to serve in Iraq, call me unpatriotic and even told me to leave the country. Rather ironic, isn't it? All these sunshine patriots in our country and the armed forces are still unable to meet their recruiting goals? Gee, I wonder why?
Every day that I walked into the hosptial, I saw the true face of war on the wounded grunts and civilians. Flowery intellectual musings about promoting democracy on a far distant shore (sounds familiar, doesn't it?) came face to face with a grunt waking up from his post-op coma on a Stryker frame and slowly but surely realizing that he will be paraplegic for the rest of his life.
But the average Vietnam veteran was marginalized by his fellow citizens for years in the United States of Amnesia, and once again we have civilian sleepwalkers in the White House, careening from one disaster to another. The after shocks from the epicenter of this debacle in Iraq will continue to ripple across the Middle East for decades to come. That's why I never fell for the cherry-picked intelligence that Bush administration officials used to ramrod a war resolution through Congress. And why Rep. Murtha seems to be so prophetic in his prediction that the American soldiers are in the middle of an emerging civil war rather than a war on terrorism. But President Bush can't swift-boat the bad news from Iraq. Facts are stubborn things, as Emerson pointed out. And that is why I have always supported the Danish cartoonists against the Muslim extermists. Freedom of speech is not some abstract intellectual discussion to me. I know how it feels to have your basic freedoms taken away from you and realizing that even if you serve in a humanitarian capacity in an immoral war, you are merely another passive clog in the war machine. This conclusion begins no joy to me, but that is how I feel. And prolonging this debacle in Iraq will only lead to more sorrow, death and destruction for all involved. But, of course, the political leaders continue their absurd argument that if we just bear up and stay the course there will be a light at the end of the tunnel. Suddenly democracy will slowly but surely begin to blossom from all the spilled blood and treasure in Iraq. The ones who have never fought are always the ones who are the most adamant and bellicose defenders of war.
I remember a man in the checkout line at a grocery store as we were watching a CNN report on a televison above us detailing civilian causlties in a recent car bombing in an outdoor food in Baghdad, commenting to me casually that you can't make an omelette without breaking the eggs. Well, sir, you obviously have never been an egg, I replied. He was less than pleased and a bit bewildered by my response. A typical civilian, God bless his blissfully ignorant soul.

Posted by: George Hoffman at March 1, 2006 05:31 PM | Permalink to this comment

I read my latest entry and forgot to put "market" after food in the last paragraph. Please excuse the typo, because even now I can see how much my year in Vietnam altered my destiny and wounded my soul.

Posted by: George Hoffman at March 1, 2006 06:11 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Although you later backtracked and explained that you meant it tongue in cheek, I still think that it was a low blow, given the fact that Mr. Lougranis wrote an honest and personal commentary on how an amoral policy from the top in the Department of Defense affected those on the bottom in the military hierarchy."

He didn't "backtrack," he clarified. IMHO, he shouldn't have needed to since the context of what he wrote was clear - his sarcasm was decidedly not directed at Mr. Lagouranis himself. "Low blow" is a pretty terrible thing to say about a piece that is, pretty obviously, an encomium to Mr. Lagouranis, not a criticism.

I admire your account of your supermarket conversation, though.

Posted by: Jim Henley at March 2, 2006 12:58 AM | Permalink to this comment

thanks jim, have people heard of sarcasm? george, as a reader of this blog, how much clearer could it be that i view people like lagouranis and fishback as bona fide, genuine American heroes?

Posted by: greg at March 2, 2006 04:55 AM | Permalink to this comment

Terrible! Mistreating those poor dogs.

Posted by: Cardiakke at March 2, 2006 01:15 PM | Permalink to this comment