Monday, May 17, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
If there's a silver lining to the 24/7 coverage over Abu Ghraib, it is that we are slowly learning that these abuses were in fact the fault of a few undisciplined, poorly led soldiers. The accusation that the practices were part of the "system," or resulted from Army or Pentagon rules, is also being exposed as a political slur.
On the first point, we now know the soldiers in those awful photos were derelict in many ways. Testimony is emerging that they indulged in sexual escapades and other behavior that any normal person would consider depraved. According to Specialist Jeremy C. Sivits, the first of the alleged offenders to face court martial, Specialist Charles A. Garner Jr. put a sandbag over one detainee's head and "punched the detainee with a closed fist so hard in the temple" that he was knocked unconscious.
This is inhumane, and deserves to be punished if proven in court. The unit's commanders should also be held responsible for its poor morale and lack of discipline. But as Specialist Sivits says in his sworn statement, no one ordered what is revealed in those photos: "Our command would have slammed us. They believe in doing the right thing. If they saw what was going on, there would be hell to pay."
This directly counters the continuing effort in Washington to portray the abuses as the inevitable result of the "climate" created by Donald Rumsfeld's Guantanamo rules. The latest such spin emerged last week with reports about the special interrogation techniques sanctioned by Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, the Iraq theater commander. Consider this demagogic exchange between the Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman, General Peter Pace, and Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed during Thursday's hearing at the Senate Armed Services Committee:
Senator Reed: "So I pose the following question: General Pace, if you were shown a video of a United States Marine or an American citizen in the control of a foreign power, in a cell block, naked with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes, would you describe that as a good interrogation technique or a violation of the Geneva Convention?"
General Pace: "I would describe it as a violation, sir."
This--along with a similar answer from Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz--was widely broadcast as a "gotcha" moment. Mr. Reed alleged that since the scenario he described included techniques contemplated in the Sanchez guidelines, this meant the Pentagon had authorized violations of the Geneva Conventions.
But of course the two Pentagon officials had admitted no such thing--even if, amidst Mr. Reed's harangue, their answers were incomplete. Let's start with the fact that nowhere did the Sanchez rules suggest that someone can be held naked. Lieutenant-General Keith Alexander had explained this to Mr. Reed as a violation of "commander's guidance" at another hearing only two days earlier, but that didn't stop the Senator from distorting his question by using the word "naked" again.
Then there's the fact that while the Sanchez standards did allow short-term sensory deprivation and stress positions with the specific approval of a commanding general in every instance, there is no indication that anyone intended them to be used together. As it happens, requests to use stress positions were made only three times--and all three were denied. Only about 25 exceptional interrogation requests were made in total--all for segregation.
Mr. Reed should have his staff get him the Geneva Conventions to read. What he'd learn is that the treatment in his hypothetical question would be barred because U.S. soldiers wearing the uniform would be classified as "prisoners of war." Even tempting detainees who are POWs with a candy bar to answer questions beyond name, rank and serial number violates the Third Geneva Convention. As for his hypothetical "American citizen," he or she might benefit from the civilian protections of the Fourth Geneva Convention depending on circumstances.
These distinctions matter, because the Geneva Conventions are about more than subjective opinions of what constitutes "humane" treatment. The Conventions themselves make very clear distinctions between POWs and others; and it's clear that the terrorists held at Guantanamo don't meet the criteria spelled out in the Third Geneva Convention for designation as POWs. Perhaps Mr. Reed's constituents would like to know that under the standard he wants imposed, even al Qaeda detainees would be off-limits to all but pro forma interrogation.
A reading would also inform the Senator that--apart from Iraqi soldiers detained in uniform and certain members of Saddam Hussein's chain of command--most Iraqi detainees are arrested as civilians and fall under the protection not of the Third Geneva Convention but of the Fourth.
The Fourth allows--indeed obliges--an occupying power to use its discretion within wide parameters to maintain law and order (Article 64), and contains no specific restriction on interrogation, other than saying that "protected persons" not be subjected to "physical or moral coercion" (Article 31). But--note well--protected persons are defined as "persons taking no active part in the hostilities" (Article 3).
In other words, the Geneva Conventions do not speak specifically to the interrogation treatment of non-uniformed Baathist or jihadi guerrillas detained in connection with attacks on U.S. forces or Iraqi civilians. Except that the Fourth does permit us to execute them (Article 68)--a practice often seen in the less politically correct wars of years past.
With that in mind, we'll risk liberal censure and suggest that 45 minutes of uncomfortable posture (the guidelines' limit) and the other techniques that were on General Sanchez's list are certainly appropriate. The U.S. holds some very dangerous people in Iraq, and it's easy to forget that the point of interrogating them is to better protect both U.S. soldiers and the Iraqi civilians that the Geneva Conventions oblige us to safeguard.
Amid the political demagoguery being applied by the likes of Senator Reed, General Sanchez has now banned most interrogation techniques. So the U.S. command in Iraq will no longer even entertain requests for anything more rigorous for detainees than segregation from other prisoners.
The very real danger of course is that all of this will result in the collection of less actionable intelligence to stop the roadside bombs and mortar attacks that are killing American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. If it does, we hope Senator Reed and his media cheerleaders will acknowledge their responsibility.
