A general gets fired for telling the truth
How Antonio Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal, became one of its casualties.
by Seymour M. Hersh, June 25, 2007, The New Yorker
On the afternoon of May 6, 2004, Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba was summoned to meet, for the first time, with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in his Pentagon conference room. Rumsfeld and his senior staff were to testify the next day, in televised hearings before the Senate and the House Armed Services Committees, about abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, in Iraq. The previous week, revelations about Abu Ghraib, including photographs showing prisoners stripped, abused, and sexually humiliated, had appeared on CBS and in The New Yorker. In response, Administration officials had insisted that only a few low-ranking soldiers were involved and that America did not torture prisoners. They emphasized that the Army itself had uncovered the scandal.
If there was a redeeming aspect to the affair, it was in the thoroughness and the passion of the Army’s initial investigation. The inquiry had begun in January, and was led by General Taguba, who was stationed in Kuwait at the time. Taguba filed his report in March. In it he found:
“Here ... comes ... that famous General Taguba — of the Taguba report!” Rumsfeld declared, in a mocking voice. The meeting was attended by Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (J.C.S.); and General Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, along with Craddock and other officials. Taguba, describing the moment nearly three years later, said, sadly, “I thought they wanted to know. I assumed they wanted to know. I was ignorant of the setting.”
In the meeting, the officials professed ignorance about Abu Ghraib. “Could you tell us what happened?” Wolfowitz asked. Someone else asked, “Is it abuse or torture?” At that point, Taguba recalled, “I described a naked detainee lying on the wet floor, handcuffed, with an interrogator shoving things up his rectum, and said, ‘That’s not abuse. That’s torture.’ There was quiet.”
(Continued here.)
by Seymour M. Hersh, June 25, 2007, The New Yorker
On the afternoon of May 6, 2004, Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba was summoned to meet, for the first time, with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in his Pentagon conference room. Rumsfeld and his senior staff were to testify the next day, in televised hearings before the Senate and the House Armed Services Committees, about abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, in Iraq. The previous week, revelations about Abu Ghraib, including photographs showing prisoners stripped, abused, and sexually humiliated, had appeared on CBS and in The New Yorker. In response, Administration officials had insisted that only a few low-ranking soldiers were involved and that America did not torture prisoners. They emphasized that the Army itself had uncovered the scandal.
If there was a redeeming aspect to the affair, it was in the thoroughness and the passion of the Army’s initial investigation. The inquiry had begun in January, and was led by General Taguba, who was stationed in Kuwait at the time. Taguba filed his report in March. In it he found:
Numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees ... systemic and illegal abuse.Taguba was met at the door of the conference room by an old friend, Lieutenant General Bantz J. Craddock, who was Rumsfeld’s senior military assistant. Craddock’s daughter had been a babysitter for Taguba’s two children when the officers served together years earlier at Fort Stewart, Georgia. But that afternoon, Taguba recalled, “Craddock just said, very coldly, ‘Wait here.’” In a series of interviews early this year, the first he has given, Taguba told me that he understood when he began the inquiry that it could damage his career; early on, a senior general in Iraq had pointed out to him that the abused detainees were “only Iraqis.” Even so, he was not prepared for the greeting he received when he was finally ushered in.
“Here ... comes ... that famous General Taguba — of the Taguba report!” Rumsfeld declared, in a mocking voice. The meeting was attended by Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (J.C.S.); and General Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, along with Craddock and other officials. Taguba, describing the moment nearly three years later, said, sadly, “I thought they wanted to know. I assumed they wanted to know. I was ignorant of the setting.”
In the meeting, the officials professed ignorance about Abu Ghraib. “Could you tell us what happened?” Wolfowitz asked. Someone else asked, “Is it abuse or torture?” At that point, Taguba recalled, “I described a naked detainee lying on the wet floor, handcuffed, with an interrogator shoving things up his rectum, and said, ‘That’s not abuse. That’s torture.’ There was quiet.”
(Continued here.)
2 Comments:
A couple of comments.
1. Seymour Hersch seems to be always on top of these stories. I found it tragic that the Washington Post did a story on Hersch’s story … not an independent story themselves ... and the best they could do was a “vanilla” comment from former Rumsfeld spokesman Lawrence Di Rita "Secretary Rumsfeld appreciated that General Taguba had a tough job to do and did it to the best of his abilities," Di Rita said. "I only observed Secretary Rumsfeld treating him with the respect that a general officer performing a challenging assignment deserved." Apparently sarcasm (“Here . . . comes . . . that famous General Taguba—of the Taguba report!”) is a form of respect in Rumsfeld’s mind.
2. Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba should get nominated for a Profiles in Courage Award. He must have seen the handwriting on the wall that “cover-up” was the word … especially with the reaction he got from Abizaid, Sanchez and Miller. Although I wish his comments today would have been better expressed in his Congressional testimony.
3. With all due respect for the individuals that serve, when is it time to look at the big picture of the leadership in the military? Between body armour and veterans care, don’t we have enough examples to connect the dots that something is tragically amiss? Somehow the decision not to renominate Pace makes a lot of sense. Gates seems to be trying, I only hope that Mullen and Fallon will shake thing up.
Recommended Reading is Andrew J. Bacevich’s piece bemoaning the Joint Chiefs as Yes Men. link
Reuters is reporting :
Former US Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski was quoted as saying in Spain's El País newspaper that she had seen a letter apparently signed by Rumsfeld that allowed civilian contractors to use techniques such as sleep deprivation during interrogation.
"The handwritten signature was above his printed name and in the same handwriting in the margin was written: 'Make sure this is accomplished,' "
Oh, so the the “Mission Accomplished” banner is correct … it just should have been hung from the Abu Ghraib prison not the USS Lincoln.
Post a Comment
<< Home