Schieffer lets Sessions claim there is "no evidence" "higher-ups participated" in Abu Ghraib
SUMMARY: Bob Schieffer did not challenge Sen. Jeff Sessions' assertion that "there was no evidence that the higher-ups participated in any way" in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. In fact, a Senate committee report found culpability among "senior" U.S. officials.
On the July 12 edition of CBS' Face The Nation, host Bob Schieffer did not challenge Sen. Jeff Sessions' (R-AL) assertion that "there was no evidence that the higher-ups participated in any way" in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. Sessions also stated, "It was an unusual event, and the military did the right thing and prosecuted the people who were responsible." In fact, a 2008 Senate Armed Services Committee report found that "[t]he abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own," and that "senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."
Indeed, as Media Matters for America has noted, while former President Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney have asserted that detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib was, in Cheney's words, "not policy," the committee's report, released jointly by chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and ranking member Sen. John McCain, found:
The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own. Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at GTMO. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely.
The same report found:
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there. Secretary Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 approval of [former Department of Defense general counsel] Mr. [Jim] Haynes's recommendation that most of the techniques contained in GTMO's October 11, 2002 request be authorized, influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques, including military working dogs, forced nudity, and stress positions, in Afghanistan and Iraq.
From the July 12 edition of CBS' Face the Nation:
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): But that somewhat begs the question, because it's -- I have a great deal of admiration for the CIA agents who are out there working hard on the front line, and, like Jeff, I have talked to them, I have met with them in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and elsewhere, as well as our soldiers.
But remember what happened at Abu Ghraib, which -- we'll make a big inquiry, and who gets punished? Mostly the corporals and the lower echelon, not the people who condoned that. If, as The New York Times says, we have the vice president of the United States telling people to break the law, now that's a pretty serious matter.
Either he did or he didn't. If he did, that's something we ought to know, because I've been here with six administrations. Usually, if something is done wrong by one and it's exposed, the next one tends to behave themselves.
SCHIEFFER: So --
SESSIONS: But, Pat, I would just say on that Abu Ghraib, there was no evidence that the higher-ups participated in any way. In fact, one of those defendants that was tried and convicted and went to jail said that, no, they didn't know, and if they had, there would have been hell to pay. In other words, it wouldn't have happened. It was an unusual event, and the military did the right thing and prosecuted the people who were responsible.
SCHIEFFER: Well, what about this whole idea, though, Senator Sessions, that the vice president is now -- people are saying -- I mean, sources are saying that he told the CIA not to tell the Congress about it. Now, that's pretty serious stuff.
There might be a few cheap non-apology apologies forth-coming but nothing approaching real legitimate ones.
BUT
What Sessions said (in the quote) was technically correct. Abu Ghraib was low-scoring enlistees [army prison guards] acting out the Stanford Prison Experiment, except with the authority of the US government, US enemies instead of fellow grad students for prisoners, and a real prison and real guns.
The senate committee report that MM relies on to dispute Sessions is primarily about interrogation abuse (i.e., torture) not the abuse of prisoners for fun by people not authorized to interrogate anyone.
The most infamous travesty at Abu Ghraib was not part of any interrogations. That was plain-and-simply army prison guards abusing prisoners for fun. Not the CIA, not FBI, not civilian contractors, and not military intelligence, under orders or authorization, perceived or otherwise. The guards never claimed they were interrogating anyone, nor should they have.
What happened at Guantanamo was for interrogation purposes and was carried about by any and all of the above agencies, with authorization, and should be followed straight to the top.
Note that even MM refers to Abu Ghraib as a "prison abuse scandal" not an interrogation or torture scandal.
They are both deplorable, yes. But you will never find, anywhere, any documentation from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, [the western Axis of Evil] or "senior US officials" which could be interpreted to authorize what happened at Abu Ghraib. Even spy satellites and a time machine couldn't find it.
Nor will you find that there were any commanding officers who "participated"...because they didn't. The officials who should have been prosecuted at Abu Ghraib (and they should have been) committed sins of omission. They looked the other way or encouraged it. But they didn't strip prisoners or stack them in pyramids.
They (presumably) knew about it and did nothing about it.
The highest ranking person prosecuted for Abu Ghraib was a Staff Sergeant. That's ridiculous. Way to hang the (lower) enlisted men out to dry. Not even a senior NCO!
What happened at Abu Ghraib was a few bad apples (relatively speaking). The problem is, only the lowest of the apples were prosecuted. Some of those apples were senior NCO's and officer, and at the very least the pickers should have looked at the guy in charge of the tree (the General in charge of the prison).
Instead, they sent a bunch of lower enlisted soldiers to prison and discharged them dishonorably...the general in charge got demoted 1 rank, from O-7 to O-6. That's like getting demoted from Executive VP to Senior VP. And that demotion was not related (officially) to Abu Ghraib's prisoner abuse.
SESSIONS: But, Pat, I would just say on that Abu Ghraib, there was no evidence that the higher-ups participated in any way. In fact, one of those defendants that was tried and convicted and went to jail said that, no, they didn't know, and if they had, there would have been hell to pay. In other words, it wouldn't have happened. It was an unusual event, and the military did the right thing and prosecuted the people who were responsible.
What Senator Sessions said was wrong. There was evidence that the higher-ups participated in what went on at Abu Ghraib. There is the Capt. Wood Memo, There is the Gen. Sanchez memo. Snivix (sic) said the higher ups didn't know. You can't blame him for saying that as it dropped down his prison time.
What happened at Abu was not a college experiment gone wrong, it was BUSINESS AS USUAL. When Gen. Miller changed the rules at Abu the MP's were no longer charged with protecting the prisoners. Once they went into Tier 1A they were MI/MP's. They were told what to do with the prisoners while the prisoners were waiting for formal interrogation (which was worse- that's where people were murdered). The prisoners in Tier 1a were all abused and YES the higher-ups did know. Heck man, the officers abused (beat up) the prisoners prior to interrogation. Tier 1A was not in the boon-docks it was a main stream 24/7 operation.