The Political Chase

Senate bill to protect detainees

Capt. Fishback and many others will be pleased…Senate Moves to Protect Military Prisoners.

Sen. McCain and Capt. Fishback Meet

More soldiers came forward with stories of abusing prisoners, supporting Captain Ian Fishback’s allegations of prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Captain Fishback met with Senator John McCain (R-AZ) yesterday. The only statement issued from Sen. McCain was on the integrity of the US Army officer.

“I’m even more impressed by what a fine and honorable officer he is.”

Of course, there’s always an anonymous source that will supplement official statements:

[A] senior House aide who met with Captain Fishback said the officer had read a letter from a sergeant describing detainee abuse in Iraq and allowed the aides to read the document before taking it back. The aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because Captain Fishback related the information in confidence for use in a possible Congressional investigation, declined to give details of the abuse.

Captain Fishback was scheduled to meet with Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) today. Levin is the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.

Army Restricts Capt. Fishback’s Activities

Since Captain Ian Fishback presented his complaints to Senators Warner and McCain, it appears the Army has made Captain Fishback a detainee and the object of interrogation.

• He has been furloughed from Special Operations training school, “to make him available” to the Criminal Investigation Command while they “sort through the allegations”.
• The investigators are pressuring Capt. Fishback to release the names of those who back up his accusations.
• The Army has denied the captain’s request for a pass(es) to return to Washington to meet with investigating committees.
• Fishback cannot travel more than 50 miles from Ft. Bragg, where he is currently held, without specific authorization.

I suppose the Army has not thought about if you can’t get Mohammed to the mountain…

Clearly, the Army is restraining Captain Fishback. Why would the Army detain Capt. Fishback if the Army did not fear what he has to say? What an act of stupidity and an obvious admission of guilt.

I want to recap my understanding of the events related to Captain Fishback’s reporting of detainee abuse.

Captain Fishback is not a newbie to the armed services environment, history, and protocol. Fishback is a graduate of West Point, his wife is serving in the Army in Iraq, and his father served in the Vietnam War. So, it’s safe to assume he’s had plenty of exposure to the armed forces, directly and indirectly. Furthermore, Capt. Fishback is a decorated officer.

Apparently, Capt. Fishback is a highly principled person and does not have a personal agenda. Fishback followed the hierarchal structure of the Army, all the way to the Secretary of the Army, and did not begin voicing his concerns with Senator John Warner (R-Va.) and Senator John McCain (R-Az.).

Capt. Fishback wrote a letter to his lieutenant colonel expressing concerns that Department of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was being less than honest about the Army’s adherence to the terms of the Geneva Convention. When asked about Capt. Fishback’s letter, his lieutenant colonel said, “I am aware of Fishback’s concerns.” The colonel’s awareness resulted in Capt. Fishback meeting with the Secretary of the Army, Francis J. Harvey.

Secretary Harvey conveyed to Capt. Fishback that corrective action had been taken. One could view Secretary Harvey’s response as intentionally literal…”had been,” which did not include prevention or changes for the present or future.

It is my understanding that Capt. Fishback met with Secretary Havey prior to June 2005 and possibly prior to August 2004. I base that on what I have reviewed thus far and that may be incorrect. Just to put this in proper perspective, the Abu Ghraib (if using the president’s vernacular, pronounce it giraffe) scandal erupted in April 2004.

It is worth noting that according to Capt. Fishback the abuse and violations at Abu Ghraib were not as bad as in other locations (e.g., Fallouja). Some support for Capt. Fishback’s Fallouja allegations can be found here.

Fishback escalated his issues to an Inspector General (IG) at Fort Bragg, NC. The objective was to analyze the relation of the treatment of detainees and the Geneva Convention. The IG’s analysis was incomplete according to Capt. Fishback.

(ed. note: IG’s have been criticized recently for not being qualified for their positions - many have been political appointees, much the same as Michael Brown with FEMA)

After less than desirable results with the IG(s), Capt. Fishback contacted the International Red Cross requesting the same type of analysis, which resulted in a close similarity to Capt. Fishback’s academic training (West Point).

Subsequent to the Red Cross rendering their opinion, Human Rights Watch became involved.

As additional information about detainee abuse was found or released, Fishback escalated to Senators McCain and Warner; both are on the Senate Armed Forces Committee and Warner serves as Chairman.

Since reaching the Senators’ offices an investigation has been launched. Furthermore as I noted previously, a bill will be introduced to require the military to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Geneva Convention.

Human Rights Watch Report

The Human Rights Watch report that is associated with Capt. Fishback’s allegations can be found here.

—–

New Category for Capt. Fishback

There seems to be a lot of interest about Capt. Fishback and his recent
revelations, therefore I have added a Fishback category to make things
easier to find.  Also, I will put more focus on digging into the
subject.

—–

McCain bill requiring adherence to Geneva Convention

Finally, somebody is breaking ranks from the President’s influence. And, of course the President is against any bill that lessens his control.

[Sen. John McCain (R-Az.)] said he and Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another committee member, were proposing an amendment to a defense bill requiring the military to abide by the Geneva dictates.

More on Detainee Abuse

The New York Times has more in-depth information than the Post on the detainee abuse.  The issue, which the Post also cites, was in a report issued by Human Rights Watch.  Moreover, the officer reporting the abuse, Capt. Ian Fishback, reported the abuse conditions to his superiors for an extended period of time.  Finally, Capt Fishback made his concerns known to Senators Warner and McCain.

 The 30-page [Human Rights Watch] report does not identify the troops, but one is Capt. Ian Fishback, who has presented some of his allegations in letters this month to top aides of two senior Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee, John W. Warner of Virginia, the chairman, and John McCain of Arizona. Captain Fishback approached the Senators’ offices only after he tried to report the allegations to his superiors for 17 months, the aides said. The aides also said they found the captain’s accusations credible enough to warrant investigation. [Emphasis added.]

The abuses reportedly took place between September 2003 and April 2004, before and during the investigations into the notorious misconduct at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. Senior Pentagon officials initially sought to characterize the scandal there as the work of a rogue group of military police soldiers on the prison’s night shift. Since then, the Army has opened more than 400 inquiries into detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, and punished 230 enlisted soldiers and officers. [Emphasis added.]

In one incident, the Human Rights Watch report states, an off-duty cook broke a detainee’s leg with a metal baseball bat. Detainees were also stacked, fully clothed, in human pyramids and forced to hold five-gallon water jugs with arms outstretched or do jumping jacks until they passed out, the report says. "We would give them blows to the head, chest, legs and stomach, and pull them down, kick dirt on them," one sergeant told Human Rights Watch researchers during one of four interviews in July and August. "This happened every day."

[The Sergeant] said he had acted under orders from military intelligence personnel to soften up detainees, whom the unit called persons under control, or PUC’s, to make them more cooperative during formal interviews.

"They wanted intel," said the sergeant, an infantry fire-team leader who served as a guard when no military police soldiers were available. "As long as no PUC’s came up dead, it happened." He added, "We kept it to broken arms and legs."

The Times goes on to say that Capt. Fish expressed frustration with his civilian and military leaders.  Imagine that. 

—–

Detainee Abuse: How Much More?

There are more reports of systemic detainee abuse.  An officer and two soldiers have blown the whistle this time.

They also detailed regular attacks that left detainees with broken bones — including once when a detainee was hit with a metal bat — and said that detainees were sometimes piled into pyramids, a tactic seen in photographs taken later at Abu Ghraib.

And like soldiers accused at Abu Ghraib, these troops said that military intelligence interrogators encouraged their actions, telling them to make sure the detainees did not sleep or were physically exhausted so as to get them to talk.

"They were directed to get intel from them so we had to set the conditions by banging on their cages, crashing them into the cages, kicking them, kicking dirt, yelling," the soldier was quoted as saying. Later he described how he and others beat the detainees. "But you gotta understand, this was the norm. Everyone would just sweep it under the rug."

Government and high military officials repeat ad nauseam that these are isolated cases and that they are investigating.  These are not isolated incidents and the alleged military investigations amount to nothing more than rhetoric (i.e., cover ups.)

The same types of incidents continue to occur.  Historically, the whistle blowers and criminally accused all report they are carrying out the orders of military intelligence.  Yet, interestingly enough, it all gets quiet and dismissed at the colonel level above.  Why?

—–