Torture Inc.

Abu Ghraib Plea Deal

Lynndie England, the star of the Abu Ghraib photos who won that role with her portfolio of photos that showed her smiling as she held naked prisoners on leashes, is pleading guilty to two counts of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating prisoners and one count of dereliction of duty.

This 22 year old reservist, a file clerk with no training as a prison guard, is expected to get an 11 year sentence to the brig. Her planned defense was that she was just following orders. That defense hasn't worked for any of the other grunts charged in the Abu Ghraib scandal and it likely wouldn't have worked for her. And I don't think it should have.

I do think she had orders to mistreat the detainees. I don't think she came up with this stuff on her own or necessarily acted on her own initiative. But unlike other armies, our military men and women aren't given a pass on illegal conduct simply because they received orders to engage in that conduct.

It's a tall order to insist that our servicemen and women, who are schooled in the necessity of following orders as a fundamental military necessity, be prepared to reject an illegal order. It presumes that they know where the line between legal and illegal is, that they have the spine to stand up to their commanding officers and act counter to the weight of military tradition. And yet that is exactly what we ask of them. And we must. We can't eliminate personal responsibility for the legality, even the morality, of the acts they engage in. We can't remove all fear of consequences under the umbrella of obedience to a commanding officer. And yet to expect a private first class to know what is and isn't legal and to have the wherewithal to stand up and say "NO" in the midst of a war, in the war theater, is almost unrealistic.

Because what we ask is more than so many people could bear, I think there's a real chance that a "following orders" defense might work, even for the Abu Ghraib abusers. If only the defendants, here the diminutive England, didn't seem to be enjoying themselves so much. It's the pleasure they seem to take in their abuse that condemns them, that leaves no room for an argument that says they had no choice. The photos tell us that they didn't want that choice.

I continue to believe that complicity for the crimes at Abu Ghraib and those like them that occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, is shared with officers and senior officials who have been absolved of all blame. But that doesn't mean the folks holding the leash, unleashing the dogs, manhandling and abusing the prisoners are guilt-free. It just means they aren't alone in their guilt.

Military Accountability for the Brass: Forget It

So, the Army has issued it's final word and declared that only one Army officer is culpable in the abuse at Abu  Ghraib - Gen. Karpinski who was in charge of the prisons in Iraq. Another twelve officers were absolved. If you're tired of the whole detainee abuse discussion and want to accept the Army's findings, you'll have to engage in some mental gymnastics.

• Forget General Miller's declaration that it was time to "gitmo-ize" Abu Ghraib.
• Forget Gen. Sanchez's approval of carte blanche use of dogs and other extreme methods in prisoner interrogation. (Fay Report) 
• Forget the failure to apply the military standard of holding commanders accountable for the actions or inaction of the units they command. (Schlesinger Report)
  
• Forget Gen. Sanchez's failure to make sure his staff was addressing problems at Abu Ghraib.  (Schlesinger Report)
• Forget the failure of Maj. Gen.  Wojdakowski to respond in a timely manner  to urgent requests up the chain of command for more troops at Abu Ghraib, which was severely under-resourced. (Schlesigner Report)
• Forget the one month delay by Col. Warren in reporting to his boss the prisoner abuse that the Red Cross witnessed and reported. (Schlesinger Report)
• Forget the failure of Gen. Fast to direct Gen. Sanchez adequately on appropriate interrogation methods. (Schlesinger Report)
• Forget the possible perjury of Gen. Sanchez, who told the Senate Armed Services Committee (under oath) that there was no system for tracking ghost detainees at Abu Ghraib, a statement he later corrected.
• Forget Rumsfeld's admission that he authorized the military to hide a prisoner from the Red Cross, contravening the Geneva Conventions.
• Forget the Department of Justice memos that defined torture so narrowly as to make most torturous actions legal.
• Forget the failure of "senior American officials" to establish clear interrogation policies. (Church Report)

Forget what you learned in the reports released to date and in the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings. Because despite the fact that  the information in the Fay, Schlesigner, and Church  reports seems to implicate higher level officers, the reports specifically absolve the officers. They draw a fine line between responsibility and accountability or culpability and say that while the officers might be responsible, that doesn't mean they're culpable or that we should make them accountable.. So, you see, you really can forget what was reported in the past.

Forget it and embrace the official position: the only Army folks responsible, er, um, I mean accountable for the abuse at Abu Ghraib are a handful of grunts. That's it. Of course, military intelligence isn't off the hook yet. Two officers may face charges. These are the officers that Gen.Sanchez, against standard military operating procedures, put in charge of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Yep, the same Gen. Sanchez who has been absolved of all culpability.