What questions aren't being asked?

My own editorial musings ^ | 10 May 2004 | Maigrey

[Maigrey]

What questions aren't the media asking about Abu Ghraib?
Editorial from the Gonzo News Service

Abu Ghraib. Now that's a name that normally wouldn't mean all that much. Sure, it's a prison in Iraq, just outside of Baghdad. However, in the last 2 weeks, Abu Ghraib has changed, from a prison to a prison-turned-torture and humiliation facility, if you wish to believe all that is fit to print.

Due to the actions of a few Army reservists - and with possible complicity from the chain of command - the prison is the focus of numerous Armies investigations ranging to violations of Uniform Military Code of Justice to assault, rape, and possibly murder.

After hearing the talking heads for the last 2 weeks, and reading vast amounts of newsprint devoted to rehashing the subject, there are numerous questions that should be asked, but are being ignored by gatekeepers of the information.

How could this have happened in the prison? Who was on watch while these events occurred? Wasn't there someone with command authority on watch at this section of the facility?

For instance, according to House Armed Services committee, The Army was informed of possible violations of enemy prisoner rights back in January - January 19 to be exact. Following the chain of command, the formal investigation began 11 days later. Major General Antonio Taguba began his investigations into prisoner abuses, culminating in a scathing 50-page report highlighting and outlining the actions of a limited number of military police soldiers within one battalion at the prison.

According to thethe investigation report, Battalion Commander Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Phillabaum was in charge of the now infamous Cellblock 1a at Abu Ghraib, and was suspended on 17 January 2004. On that same day, Company Commander Captain Donald Reese was also suspended of his duties. This in itself is normal in a criminal investigation. After the report, Brigade Commander Brigadier General Janis Karpinski was relieved of command and under investigation for her actions. She is still under investigation at this time.

The 15-6 Investigation - known in the media as the Taguba Report - was supposed to remain in Army Criminal Investigation Divison, or CID for short, and under wraps. This report was to be maintained within the Chain of command, and kept secret due to the volatile nature of the report, as well as protecting the rights of the soldiers in question, and trying not to taint the witnesses involved in the investigation.

A general report was issued to the media in March - that's right, almost 2 months prior - saying that there was an army investigation into reports and allegations that military police at the prison mistreated the prisoners. Also contained within the Taguba report is this statement:

Due to the extremely sensitive nature of these photographs and videos, the ongoing CID investigation, and the potential for the criminal prosecution of several suspects, the photographic evidence is not included in the body of my investigation. The pictures and videos are available from the Criminal Investigative Command and the CTJF-7 prosecution team.

However, the pictures that were confiscated from soldiers - some silly, some disturbing - were somehow leaked to the mainstream media. Eventually, news came out that former Army Colonel David Hackworth was the informant who was responsible for giving them to CBS and nightly news show 60 Minutes II to disseminate these pictures.

The outrage over the pictures resonated throughout the nation, from the President of the United States on down.

So the report was intentionally kept separate from the photographic evidence. Keeping the pictures separate wasn't necessarily caustic. What were caustic were the pictures themselves.

Within 10 days, the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was called before both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees for interrogation and investigation. This report was accidentally made public by New York junior senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, when she mentioned that the report was widespread.

According to Sec. Rumsfeld, this particular investigatory report was "...someone took secret document and released it to press. I do not believe it was anywhere in the Pentagon. Certainly I did not see it."

So, the next question is: How did the junior senator from New York have access to the report before Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld had it?

Finally, during these same committee investigations, Sec. Rumsfeld also said that there are more photographs than what has been unexpectedly leaked to the public, and those pictures are even more graphic than the other ones.

Also contained within the Taguba report is this statement:

Due to the extremely sensitive nature of these photographs and videos, the ongoing CID investigation, and the potential for the criminal prosecution of several suspects, the photographic evidence is not included in the body of my investigation. The pictures and videos are available from the Criminal Investigative Command and the CTJF-7 prosecution team.

If that is the case, and these soldiers in question participated in these actions, where was the command authority that was supposed to be watching? The ultimate answers will only come out during the military tribunals.