Army's Abuse Probe's

[Aaron]

From Globalsecurity.org

WASHINGTON -- For weeks, top Pentagon officials have rebuffed questions over who bears ultimate responsibility for the Iraqi prison abuse scandal by referring to Pentagon investigations, such as a probe by Maj. Gen. George Fay of military intelligence procedures.

But even before the inquiries are complete, questions are being raised about whether the military should be investigating itself.

Some military experts worry that numerous investigations launched by the Pentagon--at least seven to date--in response to accounts of physical abuse, sexual humiliation and intimidation of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere may fail to comprehensively explain what happened, why, who is responsible and how such cases can be prevented.

The worries have prompted calls for a single commission with subpoena power, a budget and staff to take the lead in an investigation that could reach top levels of the Pentagon or even the White House.

"With this patchwork quilt of discrete investigations, you run the risk of something falling through the cracks," said John Hutson, president and dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in New Hampshire, who formerly served as the Navy's judge advocate general.

Hutson and others contend that Fay, for example, lacks the stature and credibility of a senior Pentagon official to be able to follow the evidence. Fay is a reservist on active duty as the Army's deputy chief of staff for intelligence, putting him in the chain of command of the units he has been called to investigate. In his civilian life, he's an insurance executive at the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies who has contributed to elected officials, usually Republicans.

"He's probably too junior," Hutson said. "You need a group of people who are absolutely bulletproof, who are non-political and have nothing to gain and nothing to lose."

Several witnesses interviewed by Fay reportedly have complained that he is unreceptive to information about those in positions above him.

Some observers said the Fay investigation's most obvious flaw is that it will be an investigation by the Army of Army personnel, while the scandal appears to go beyond that service, involving agencies such as the CIA and possibly even high-ranking Defense Department officials.

Bigger than the Army
"You can't just isolate Army intelligence by itself and deal with it as an intelligence issue. You have to deal with it as an overall command issue," said retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency and now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

"You have got to look at the command climate, and who sets that climate, which means looking at the [defense] secretary's office and perhaps beyond that."

Military analyst John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org, said Fay is "perfectly capable" of investigating the Army's intelligence and security command. But Pike said Fay is unlikely to delve into broader issues, such as the possible role of Stephen Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence, or his deputy, Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, both of whom outrank Fay.

"Is this guy going to get to the bottom of Gen. Boykin's operation, or is this guy going to unwrap what Steve Cambone knew and when he [knew] it, or who authorized all this over at the White House? Of course not. Or figure out what CIA's role was in all of this? No way," Pike said.

An Army spokeswoman defended Fay, saying his background "lends to his capability to do this investigation thoroughly and accurately. He's in a respected, trusted position, and he's going to do a good job."

The spokeswoman declined to respond to doubts that have been raised about how the investigation is being conducted, other than to say that when witnesses are questioned, others are in the room to assure adherence to standards.

"It's not a one-on-one situation," she said.

In a briefing in Iraq on Friday, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, coalition deputy chief of operations, said Fay has a broad mandate "to look as wide as he needed and as deep as he needed." His report, expected in the next three weeks, "will be fair, it will be thorough, and it will be impartial."
`Hard facts'
Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has been calling in top military officials to testify, told The Washington Post last week that he was unaware of Fay's background as a reservist or of his donations.

"These are very hard facts and have to be considered," he said, adding that there's no basis now to "question whether he will do other than an honorable job."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has created a high-level panel to analyze the situation. The four members, announced this month, are two former secretaries of defense, James Schlesinger and Harold Brown; Charles Horner, a retired Air Force general; and former Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Fla.).

But the panel has limits. It has a two-month deadline to submit a report, it lacks subpoena power and includes no military lawyers. Rumsfeld described its charge as being to examine "the pace, the breadth, the thoroughness of the existing investigations" and to recommend whether more are needed.

Eugene Fidell, a military law expert and president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said the panel would likely accomplish little.

"It's great to have former secretaries of defense, but we're dealing with military legal matters. I think you need substantial legal talent," he said.

A better approach, he said, would be to convene a special commission similar to the one examining the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks or the group named to investigate last year's space shuttle disaster.

The prison abuse scandal, Fidell said, "has a global audience that is carefully watching this. Anything we can reasonably do to increase public confidence here and abroad should be carefully weighed."

The most damning investigation to date was conducted early this year by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who concluded that Abu Ghraib had been the site of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" of detainees.

Three inspectors general--for the Army, Army Reserve and Navy--are reviewing doctrine and training for detention operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere, along with reservist training.

And Congress is looking into the matter, principally the Senate Armed Services Committee, where Warner has drawn fire from fellow Republicans for holding public hearings. But one obstacle for lawmakers has been getting information amid Pentagon investigations.
Question for Rumsfeld
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) asked Rumsfeld at a hearing May 7 about Taguba's finding that military intelligence officials and perhaps CIA employees allegedly told military police to "loosen a guy up for us" for interrogations.

Rumsfeld deflected the question by saying they were "issues that I believe are probably all being addressed" in Fay's inquiry.

Similarly, Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, Central Command deputy commander, told the same hearing that Fay was to "look into exactly those allegations."

- - -
Pentagon investigations
Investigations initiated in response to the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

January

- The U.S. Army opened a criminal investigation to examine charges of detainee abuse in Iraq.

Result: Reservists were given letters of reprimand and relieved of their responsibilities.

- Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba led the investigation into allegations of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Result: Taguba recommended reprimands and reassignments.

February

- The Army inspector general, Lt. Gen. Paul Mikolashek, started a review of training associated with detention operations throughout the U.S. Central Command.

March

Col. Beverly Ertman, the Army Reserve inspector general, began an assessment of all reservist training, especially military police and military intelligence soldiers.

April

Army Maj. Gen. George Fay was assigned to investigate questionable military intelligence practices in Iraq.

May

- The Navy inspector general, Vice Adm. Albert Church, was

asked to assess detainee operations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at a naval brig in Charleston, S.C.

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appointed a four-member panel to examine such things as the breadth and thoroughness of the investigations.

It's just as I feared would happen, endless investigations that go nowhere and won't get the real people responsible for these crimes brought to justice.

[Edi]

So, from the looks of this, they are doing small, little piecemeal investigations with toothless mandates on very narrowly focused issues, so that at the end they can come out and say "We didn't find anything wrong with what happened", and it will be relatively true goiong from a weasel-legalistic viewpoint. Cover-up and whitewash, which was nothing more than I expected would happen, and which is and has always been the usual way for the US military to handle these issues. It's just window dressing.

Independent, transparent investigation with a full authority would be the way to do it right, and until that happens, absolutely nobody outside the US will believe anything that will come out in these reports, or that any real effort was made to even address the issue.

Edi