[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 62 (Thursday, May 6, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H2666-H2679]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 627, DEPLORING ABUSE OF PERSONS
IN UNITED STATES CUSTODY IN IRAQ
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 628 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 628
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the resolution (H.
Res. 627) deploring the abuse of persons in United States
custody in Iraq, regardless of the circumstances of their
detention, urging the Secretary of the Army to bring to swift
justice any member of the Armed Forces who has violated the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, expressing the deep
appreciation of the Nation to the courageous and honorable
members of the Armed Forces who have selflessly served, or
are currently serving, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and for
other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as read
for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the resolution to final adoption without
intervening motion or demand for a division of the question
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Armed Services; and (2) one motion to recommit which may
not contain instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 628 is a
closed rule providing for the consideration of House Resolution 627,
deploring the abuse of persons in United States custody in Iraq,
regardless of the circumstances of their detention, urging the
Secretary of the Army to bring to swift justice to any member of
[[Page H2667]]
the Armed Forces who has violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
and expressing the deep appreciation of the Nation to the courageous
and honorable members of the Armed Forces who have selflessly served,
or are currently serving, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and for other
purposes.
Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House,
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Armed Services. The rule provides one motion
to recommit, which may not contain instructions.
Mr. Speaker, Members of this House, and indeed millions of concerned
Americans, have been appalled by reports that Iraqi prisoners have been
severely mistreated by their U.S. captors. President Bush has rightly
pledged to ensure that those responsible for this abuse are brought to
justice, and that process is already under way.
Mr. Speaker, in a society like ours that prides itself on its
commitment to civil and human rights, there is no place for the sorts
of atrocities depicted in recent days in newspaper and television
accounts from Iraq.
Thankfully, it appears that the reported abuses have been the
exception, rather than the rule, during this conflict. But that does
nothing to excuse those who carried out or permitted the acts in
question to take place. They must be punished swiftly and surely.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we must not permit the outrageous acts
of a relative few to stain the service of more than 100,000 of our
brave American men and women who are risking their lives every day in
the cause of freedom. They are doing what is right, and they are doing
it the right way. Their services make us all proud to be Americans.
Therefore, in addition to strongly condemning the acts of abuse by
U.S. personnel against Iraqi prisoners, House Resolution 627 also pays
tribute to the selfless service of our men and women in uniform.
Mr. Speaker, the President has spoken loudly and clearly on this
subject, and it is imperative that we in the House do the same.
Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to support both the rule and House
Resolution 627.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we are here this morning to carry out a very grave duty.
We are here to express the horror felt by the American people upon
seeing the graphic images and learning of the torture, abuse,
brutalization, and humiliation of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib
prison.
{time} 1130
We are here to condemn such acts.
But we are also here to do much more. We need to make clear that this
Congress not only condemns these actions, but demands a full
investigation and accountability for those who perpetrated these acts,
those who ordered these acts, those who turned a blind eye to these
acts, and those in the chain of command who failed to act upon repeated
warnings and reports of abuse of Iraqi detainees.
Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of our
uniformed men and women currently on active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan
and elsewhere carry out their duties in an exemplary manner. They have
represented the United States in perilous times with great distinction
and great honor. And it is critical that Congress not blindly accept
the scapegoating of a few enlisted men and women when there is a much
more serious, troubling, high-ranking, and systemic problem that needs
our most serious attention.
In December last year, Human Rights Watch issued a searing report on
inhumane conditions and abuses of detainees under U.S. authority in
Afghanistan.
We now know from the media that the International Committee for the
Red Cross has also been urging U.S. military authorities to make
substantial changes on how detainees are treated at prison facilities
throughout Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, this is a grave and serious crisis, and I do not use the
word ``crisis'' lightly. It is a crisis for our relations with the
people of Iraq. It is a crisis for our relations with our allies. It is
a crisis for our intentions to create a stable and more democratic
Middle East. It is a crisis for our Armed Forces, whose honor has been
stained by these revelations. It is a crisis for our Nation whose
honor, intentions, reputation, and moral authority are now suspect
throughout the world. It is a crisis for the safety of our troops in
the field and the safety of our homeland.
Mr. Speaker, I fear for every American, military and civilian, who is
now held captive in Iraq. For how can we demand standards for the
humane treatment of our own citizens when it appears to many that we
have turned our backs on those very standards and international law in
our treatment of foreign detainees?
Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to carry out its own thorough
investigation, not just about what happened at one isolated prison in
Iraq, but in the breakdown in chain of command and the context within
the Armed Forces that created such a climate for these crimes to take
place.
I believe the conditions that led to abuse were created at the very
top when our Secretary of Defense announced early in the war against
terrorism that the Geneva Conventions would not apply to many of our
actions, especially those concerning detainees.
I believe the conditions that led to abuse were created at the very
top when independent monitors were denied access to prisons and
detention facilities.
I believe the conditions that led to abuse were created at the very
top when decisions were made to assign troops, many of whom were
inexperienced in prisoner treatment and the rights of prisoners, rather
than to troops who have been trained for such duty.
I believe the conditions that led to abuse were created at the very
top when information and reports were withheld from the relevant
intelligence, defense, and foreign policy Congressional committees
regarding these abuses.
Mr. Speaker, I also believe that this Congress needs to take a hard
and serious look at the use of private contractors engaged in
interrogation of prisoners and ensure that their role in these abuses
is fully investigated and punished.
But even more importantly, I believe the President of the United
States must act. The President must demonstrate exactly how serious the
United States is about changing the conditions that led to these
abuses.
The President prides himself on being a plain-spoken, straight-
shooting man of action. This moment desperately calls for some plain
speaking and accountability. Anonymous leaks to the news media about
the President of the United States ``privately chiding'' the Secretary
of Defense simply will not do.
Mr. Speaker, Donald Rumsfeld needs to resign as Secretary of Defense,
and if he does not do so, President Bush should fire him. No other
action, no other words would send as strong a signal to the world that
the United States is serious about fixing what is wrong in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that this resolution required a rule for
debate. I regret that unanimous consent could not be obtained. But I
firmly believe that this resolution needs to assert the oversight
responsibilities, our own accountability, and investigate these abuses
and the systems that created a climate of abuse. We cannot call for
accountability by others and then shirk our own responsibilities. I
firmly believe that we must investigate the roles of both our uniformed
personnel and private contractors in these abuses, and I would have
hoped that the majority would believe the same.
Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of this debate, I will move the
previous question. If defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule
allowing for the consideration of an amendment to be offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the House
Committee on Armed Services, affirming the need for a bipartisan
congressional investigation to
[[Page H2668]]
be conducted immediately into these allegations of abuse, including
those by civilian contractor personnel and into systemic chain of
command and other systemic deficiencies that contributed to such abuse.
I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in
this effort to affirm the need for the Congress to carry out its
constitutional duties of oversight.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me this time. I rise today in
strong support of both the rule and the underlying resolution.
I believe most Americans, as I was, were extremely upset by the
images they saw on television of prisoner abuse in Iraq, and the
horrific actions just defy everything that America stands for and
Americans stand for: goodness, decency, fairness, compassion.
The perpetrators of these dastardly deeds must be swiftly brought to
justice and severely punished for their actions.
America and our allies liberated Iraq from a despot. Mr. Speaker, our
soldiers are very sincerely over there helping to restore basic
services to Iraq and make life for the Iraqi people much better, and
they are doing it at serious risk to their own lives. A few sick people
in the military have set back our efforts for peace in the Mideast and
around the world for who knows how long. They have destroyed all of the
good relationships our soldiers and others have established in Iraq.
And the majority of our service men and women are very good, decent,
patriotic Americans, very honorable.
So we must not allow these actions by a few to overshadow the
goodness of the majority of Americans or of our soldiers, or the effort
to win the war on terror. We cannot close the book on terror until we
close this chapter on Iraq.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and my
good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for
yielding me this time. This morning he and I and the other members of
the Committee on Rules who are here met at 7 o'clock a.m. to discuss
this resolution.
Now, the simple fact of the matter is, it is important for us to
recognize that the American military has no peers. It is also important
for us to recognize that most of the men and women, the great majority
of the men and women in the military are not the kind of people that
are now being investigated and that we see so widespread, and are not
the kind of people that would abuse people in the circumstances that
the detainees found themselves.
It is unfortunate that this matter does not come to the floor under
unanimous consent. It does have, as I pointed out this morning, one or
two flaws that could easily have been corrected had the majority
determined that it was proper to do so.
One of those flaws allows itself to come forward in one paragraph
which reads, ``Whereas the Congress was not fully informed of the
existence,'' and that is true, ``or the seriousness.'' But it does not
say what I think it should say, and that is that we decried the fact
that for too long, this was in the hands of military higher-ups who did
not deem the oversight responsibilities of Congress important enough
for them to bring the matter forward.
Additionally, this is a resolution about horrors that took place
inside a prison. This is not a proper place, in my judgment, for us to
be bragging about anything concerning the conditions being better after
the removal of Saddam Hussein.
Additionally, it is that these abuses, as offensive as they are, need
to be put in perspective with regard to the ongoing military effort.
I would urge everybody to take a deep breath and to realize that no
American, Republican or Democrat, would allow for this kind of conduct,
and no one from the President on down does not feel sorry that this
occurred, and all of us should be in a position to do as the general
who now is in charge of this prison did, and that is, apologize not
only to the detainees that this occurred to, but to the others who
likely feel that America has lost its moral authority.
America will never lose its moral authority, because in this body and
in the White House and in the Secretary of Defense's office, and in the
Secretary of the Army's office, justice will come to those who took
advantage of others in circumstances that were not proper.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the distinguished
chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the
House.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, we have always known that the war on terrorism was going
to be lengthy and difficult. President Bush told us that from the very
beginning.
Americans everywhere have girded up for a sustained conflict across
the globe, around the world. We have great and justifiable pride in our
troops and all they have accomplished. We have accepted the necessary
sacrifices in the war on terrorism with a heavy, but a resolute heart
in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.
However, it is impossible to accept the apparently isolated, but
nonetheless totally deplorable instances of blatant prisoner
mistreatment that have surfaced in the past week. These actions,
particularly when contrasted with the courageous and honorable
decisions made day in and day out by the vast majority of our American
soldiers in difficult circumstances, must be strongly condemned.
The charges of abuse will be examined fully and immediate corrective
measures taken to prevent against their reoccurrence. That is assured.
No equivocation can be tolerated. Wrong is wrong. The international
community will be watching America's actions closely, and now is the
time to demonstrate anew that the American soldier respects the rules
of engagement and always values justice and humane treatment of
detainees and prisoners. We all abhor the slaughter and maiming and
carnage of innocent victims, which, of course, is the terrorists'
hallmark.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because our military has worked too hard
and accomplished too much to be stained by the actions of a few. By
acknowledging that this is a tremendously hurtful anomaly in an
otherwise impressive effort, I hope that justice may be swiftly served
and the trust in America restored.
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence routinely and
regularly oversees interrogation activity for intelligence purposes,
and we are giving comprehensive attention, of course, to these newly-
discovered abusive treatment cases. In fact, as we speak, our committee
is receiving briefings upstairs and asking some very tough questions,
and I will return to that meeting forthwith.
The conduct of appropriate and professional interrogation is
extremely important to the successful prosecution of the war on
terrorism and the protection of our troops and citizens at home and
abroad.
{time} 1145
Terrorism is a bad thing, and interrogation on a proper level of a
terrorist is an important tool for us to preempt the mischief that they
can cause us.
This rule brings forward a clear resolution that supports the views I
espouse and that other Members have espoused articulately. I urge
passage for this rule and for this resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. This
resolution condemns abuse, but presents glaring and unacceptable
omissions. The boiler
[[Page H2669]]
plate language offers no apology, does nothing to ease the
international tensions, and calls on the Department of Defense, quite
frankly, to investigate itself.
The resolution is insufficient on all three grounds. We need a full-
scale bipartisan congressional investigation into these charges and
their devastating international consequences and also the role of
private contractors in this war. I hope that these horrible human
rights abuses are not just the tip of an iceberg.
Tens of thousands of American troops are serving with great courage.
These outrages do not typify their behavior; but they do, they do
endanger their lives. As for those accused and others, I quite frankly
worry about our young men and women in uniform who are being
dehumanized.
These young men and women are being dehumanized. They are being
dehumanized by the policies of the Bush administration and a war that
allows them to cross this threshold.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this resolution presents really a very false
portrait of Iraq, one that is safe and secure and prosperous. I urge
Members to vote against this rule. This really is not about a handful
of photographs. It is about the failures of leadership at the very
highest levels.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), the distinguished Republican
Conference chairman.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying
legislation. I rise in sadness and regret. The behavior of the soldiers
charged with misconduct and abuses of prisoners in Iraq, to use the
President's word, is abhorrent.
The Iraqi people are beginning new lives of liberty and freedom. They
are just beginning to shake off the dread of years of torture and
abuse. They are only just beginning to sleep soundly, without fear of
midnight kidnappings. They are only just beginning to express their
views on politics and social issues. Our whole country is appalled and
disgusted by the reports of this insane abuse.
I send my deepest sympathy and regret to these Iraqis who, in such a
tender moment, are forced to see scenes of abuse that I can only
imagine bring to the surface old fears, old nightmares, and old wounds.
The actions of a few are sure to have long-term implications of
mistrust in the Middle East. Our message is clear: we are devastated.
We went into Iraq because Americans reject evil and embrace liberty.
The heart of American values is founded in respect for one another, in
fairness and a love for freedom.
Today we should ask ourselves what can we do to rebuild the trust and
confidence in the hearts and minds of those we want to help. Unlike 20
years of unavenged, unstoppable evil at the hands of Saddam Hussein,
this abuse will not be tolerated. It will not be brushed over. It will
not be excused.
I join my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives and condemn
these acts and support immediate, meticulous investigations into the
abuse reports, full disclosure of abuses committed, and justice served
to those men and women responsible.
Every day the men and women of our Armed Forces are putting their
lives on the line because they believe in their mission and they are
devoted to their duty. They also have been hurt by these senseless,
shameful acts. We cannot falter in our support for thousands of troops
who now more than ever require reenforcement, support and prayers from
their government, their friends, and their families at home.
I would ask the American people, Iraqis who have tasted liberty, and
freedom-loving people across the world to renounce the reprehensible
deeds of a few and look forward. I ask them to renew their support in
the brave efforts to free Iraq and our efforts in the war on terrorism,
and for the men and women of our Armed Forces who sacrifice daily in
defense of honor, justice, and democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the very
important legislation it enforces.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this outrage cuts to the bone, not just
because it damages our international relations, but because it damages
basic tenets of American values. And when you have such a deep wound,
self-inflicted, you cannot have half measures. And this resolution is
weak tea when we need strong medicine; and it is inadequate, and this
rule should be defeated for that reason.
Where in this resolution is there a call for the obvious need for an
investigation of the private contractors who are making hundreds of
thousands of dollars, who are involved in this outrage, who are outside
the chain of command, who are not subject to military justice? Why will
the Republican Party not join us in investigating those private
contractors and putting this in this resolution? Why is there nothing
in this resolution about the need for an international opening up of
our system so that we can regain credibility? Why is there not in this
resolution an accounting for the Iraqi people of who is in there? And
lastly, where is the resignation for Donald Rumsfeld?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Hastings) has 19 minutes remaining. The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 17 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this resolution will be minimally useful at
best.
I intend to vote for it. But it falls far short of what this House
ought to be doing today.
Lou Dobbs two days ago on CNN I think said it best when he said that
the reason the Commander in Chief needed to make a public apology for
what happened in the prisons in Iraq was not just because that conduct
was offensive to the Arab world but because it was offensive to basic
American values. And I think Mr. Dobbs had it dead right.
Later on in that same program, Anthony Cordesman, a well-known
defense expert, made the observation that the worst thing about this
from the standpoint of American troops is that because the pictures
associated with these violations of human rights will have inflamed the
Arab world, that unfortunately it is likely that additional Americans
will die because of that. And unfortunately, he also had it dead on.
This resolution needs to be amended, and there will be an effort to
do that, to amend it to affirm that we need a bipartisan congressional
investigation to conduct an investigation into these allegations of
abuse, including those by U.S. civilian contractors and other
civilians, and an investigation into the chain of command and other
systemic deficiencies including the command atmosphere that may have
contributed to such abuse. That is the minimum that is necessary.
Now, months ago I called for the resignation of the Secretary of
Defense because I think the conduct of the civilian leadership of the
Defense Department in conducting the affairs in Iraq after the war was
spectacularly incompetent. So I do not need to go into that today.
Mr. Speaker, the following is an article from a Washington Post
editorial on Mr. Rumsfeld's performance on this issue.
[From the Washington Post, May 6, 2004]
Mr. Rumsfeld's Responsibility
The Horrific abuses by American interrogators and guards at
the Abu Ghraib prison and at other facilities maintained by
the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan can be traced, in
part, to policy decisions and public statements of Secretary
of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. Beginning more than two years
ago, Mr. Rumsfeld decided to overturn decades of previous
practice by the U.S. military in its handling of detainees in
foreign countries. His Pentagon ruled that the United States
would no longer be bound by the Geneva Conventions; that Army
regulations on the interrogation of prisoners would not be
observed; and that many detainees would be held incommunicado
and without
[[Page H2670]]
any independent mechanism of review. Abuses will take place
in any prison system. But Mr. Rumsfeld's decisions helped
create a lawless regime in which prisoners in both Iraq and
Afghanistan have been humiliated, beaten, tortured and
murdered--and in which until recently, no one has been held
accountable.
The lawlessness began in January 2002 when Mr. Rumsfeld
publicly declared that hundreds of people detained by U.S.
and allied forces in Afghanistan ``do not have any rights''
under the Geneva Conventions. That was not the case: At a
minimum, all those arrested in the war zone were entitled
under the conventions to a formal hearing to determine
whether they were prisoners of war or unlawful combatants. No
such hearings were held, but then Mr. Rumsfeld made clear
that U.S. observance of the convention was now optional.
Prisoners, he said, would be treated ``for the most part;''
in ``a manner that is reasonably consistent'' with the
conventions--which the secretary breezily suggested, was
outdated.
In one important respect, Mr. Rumsfeld was correct: Not
only could captured al Qaeda members be legitimately deprived
of Geneva Convention guarantees (once the required hearing
was held) but such treatment was in many cases necessary to
obtain vital intelligence and prevent terrorists from
communicating with confederates abroad. But if the United
States was to resort to that exceptional practice. Mr.
Rumsfeld should have established procedures to ensure that it
did so without violating international conventions against
torture and that only suspects who truly needed such
extraordinary handling were treated that way. Outside
controls or independent review could have provided such
safeguards. Instead, Mr. Rumsfeld allowed detainees to be
indiscriminately designated as beyond the law--and made
humane treatment dependent on the goodwill of U.S. personnel.
Much of what has happened at the U.S. detention center in
Guantanamo Bay is shrouded in secrecy. But according to an
official Army report, a system was established at the camp
under which military guards were expected to ``set the
conditions'' for intelligence investigations. The report by
Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba says the system was later
introduced at military facilities at Bagram airbase in
Afghanistan and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, even though it
violates Army regulations forbidding guards to participate in
interrogations.
The Taguba report and others by human right groups reveal
that the detention system Mr. Rumsfeld oversees has become so
grossly distorted that military police have abused or
tortured prisoners under the direction of civilian
contractors and intelligence officers outside the military
chain of command--not in ``exceptional'' cases, as Mr.
Rumsfeld said Tuesday, but systematically. Army guards have
held ``ghost'' prisoners detained by the CIA and even hidden
these prisoners from the International Red Cross. Meanwhile,
Mr. Rumsfeld's contempt for the Geneva Conventions has
trickled down: The Taguba report says that guards at Abu
Ghraib had not been instructed on them and that no copies
were posted in the facility.
The abuses that have done so much harm to the U.S. mission
in Iraq might have been prevented had Mr. Rumsfeld been
responsive to earlier reports of violations. Instead, the
publicly dismissed or minimized such accounts. He and his
staff ignored detained reports by respected human rights
groups about criminal activity at U.S.-run prisons in
Afghanistan, and they refused to provide access to facilities
or respond to most questions. In December 2002, two Afghan
detainees died in events that were ruled homicides by medical
officials; only when the New York Times obtained the story
did the Pentagon confirm that an investigation was underway,
and no results have yet been announced. Not until other media
obtained the photos from Abu Ghraib did Mr. Rumsfeld fully
acknowledge what had happened, and not until Tuesday did his
department disclose that 25 prisoners have died in U.S.
custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accountability for those
deaths has been virtually nonexistent: One soldier was
punished with a dishonorable discharge.
On Monday Mr. Rumsfeld's spokesman said that the secretary
had not read Mr. Taguba's report, which was completed in
early March. Yesterday Mr. Rumsfeld told a television
interviewer that he still hadn't finished reading it, and he
repeated his view that the Geneva Conventions ``did not
precisely apply'' but were only ``basic rules'' for handling
prisoners. His message remains the same: that the United
States need not be bound by international law and that the
crimes Mr. Taguba reported are not, for him, a priority. That
attitude has undermined the American military's observance of
basic human rights and damaged this country's ability to
prevail in the war on terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, I would just make this observation. The Congress has
only two real abilities to effect events. The first is to use the power
of the purse, and preliminary to doing that, to ask the right questions
about what the intent of our government is before we get into something
like Iraq. The Congress, unfortunately, settled for spongy answers
beforehand.
But the second power that Congress has is the power of investigation.
At least after the fact, this Congress ought to investigate from top to
bottom what contributed to this outrageous chain of events that has
been such a disgrace to our ability to stand up for basic American
values. At least if we do that, we can try to ensure that something
like this never happens again in the name of the United States of
America.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, it is sad that the resolution before U.S. today is as
close as we can get to having a full and open debate on the tragedy
that continues to unfold in Iraq.
Yes, this is about failure of leadership in the Department of Defense
from Secretary Rumsfeld and the team that was unable, after winning the
war, to win the peace, a Department that cannot communicate with its
own Department of State, let alone the Congress. But it is about more
than the failure of the administration and the Department of Defense.
What we should be debating today is the failure of Congress. We
should be having hearings dealing with these issues on armed services,
international relations, appropriations, government operations.
Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues do themselves no favor rushing
this to the floor and refusing to deal with the responsibilities of
congressional oversight. When our Republican colleagues do not permit
us to do our job, it does not help them politically. What happens is
that this is forcing us to rely on reporters from the New Yorker & from
CNN. The avalanche of reports now coming out show the Department of
Defense knew about this, even if the top brass had not bothered to read
the reports. This should have been shared with members of Congress, and
we should have been helping them do their job.
It is not just the brave men and women on the front lines in Iraq who
are being shortchanged by failures of Congress & the Administration. We
are shortchanging the American public, wasting their Treasury, putting
Americans at risk, and undermining their confidence in their government
doing its job and giving them straight answers.
I strongly urge the rejection of this rule and that this morning we
start doing our job as Members of Congress to give the American public
the information they deserve.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is written as if the
administration's war in Iraq was right from the beginning and now is
basically going well, and neither is correct.
It is written as if support of the troops is an issue. It is not. We
fully support our troops.
What is at issue is the appropriate response of this House to the
horrendous conduct illustrated in the graphic pictures of prisoner
abuse.
What is in issue is the appropriate response of this House to the
American people and to this House hearing the truth on TV while it was
sitting undisclosed on the desk of high administration officials.
The proper response for this House is not just to pass resolutions
but to be an active force in facing up to what is happening in Iraq and
its consequences for our Nation and the world.
{time} 1200
When it comes to events in Iraq, the majority in this House can no
longer simply rubber stamp all of the actions of this administration or
pass the buck to it or the Senate.
Turn down this rule so we can add an amendment requiring this House
to step up to its responsibilities.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, all of us on both sides of the aisle
come to the well and to discuss the different events on this
resolution.
First of all, I am very, very proud of the men and women that serve
in our
[[Page H2671]]
armed services, and I served with in Vietnam and all the conflicts up
to that point, but time has witnessed a sine wave of activities.
In business we had Enron. We have had a Member of this body sexually
abuse a page. We have had a Nixon break-in and impeachment of a
President. Harassment in our military academies and we look at the
scandal in the Catholic church, but Mr. Speaker, there are good people
in Enron, there are good Members of Congress. The harassment in our
military academies, most of those men and women serve honorably, and
the same thing in the Catholic church, but good people is not the
question here.
The question is what happened in our interrogation facility, and I
sit and I questioned myself, what are the key reasons why everybody is
so upset? What factors bother us? One thing, leadership at the point of
infraction, and secondly, the timeliness. Let me give my colleagues a
good example.
I had an admiral that brought us, his commanding officers, together,
and said if I have a single commanding officer that gets busted with a
DUI or DWI, I am going to fire you, and not a single CO received a DUI
or DWI. If they went to a party, they had a designated driver. Prior to
that, many of the commanding officers got picked up for a DUI or DWI.
I would bet, Mr. Speaker, that no one at that prison sat those kids
down and said this is the expected conduct. I just witnessed from the
services all kinds of paper, all kinds of rules, people that had been
there to investigate, look at the different things that go on, but I
want to tell my colleagues, not a single officer sat down with those
sergeants, with those people and said if this is your conduct these are
the consequences, like that admiral did with us and the DUI's. The
breakdown was at the point of leadership at the prison.
Secondly is the timeliness. I had a squadron and I had exceptions to
the chain of command. My friend over here the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) knows about the chain of command. He was in the service,
but as commanding officer, a person could walk into my office, past my
chief, past my division officer, past my executive officer for several
things: any known sexual abuse, because I had women in the squadron;
anything racial, even verbal, because it could destroy the unit; any
known drugs within the unit; the thing that I have recommended to the
military, anything, any conduct that would affect the unit, negatively,
the Services or United States of America, and I think those two things
were overlooked in this case, that it did not go up the chain of
command fast enough. There was not enough action taken, and that there
was a breakdown in leadership and cutting through the chain of command.
The last thing I would recommend to our military is that when they
have something so critical that is a blight on the United States of
America, that we sit down and we take care of this, but let us not
forget the people that serve us are the best of the best, and yes,
there are Enrons, there are Catholic churches, there are others, but
the majority of our people are very good people.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the
alleged abuse of prisoners in Iraq. We must take every step possible to
investigate the shocking allegations, punish any perpetrators, re-
examine our entire system of interrogation and confinement to prevent
such occurrence from happening in the future.
I have called on Attorney General Ashcroft to begin an investigation
of abuses committed by private military contractors in Iraq. I
circulated this letter to all of my colleagues for review. A hundred
Democrats have signed on so far. I hope all my colleagues will join me
in this effort.
In the year 2000, Congress passed the Military Extra Territorial
Jurisdiction Act, which allows the Justice Department to investigate
and prosecute criminal action by contractors abroad that are in the
employ of the United States Government. This Congress granted the
Attorney General this authority for this exact case.
Attorney General Ashcroft has the ability to investigate and
prosecute any criminal abuse by private contractors. I urge him to
begin his investigation immediately.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
We come today together as a unified body, 435 Members of the people's
House, without any question about condemning totally unacceptable
behavior, and I support this rule very strongly because it is most
appropriate that we come to the floor and say today our unanimous
condemnation of behavior we do not accept under any circumstances.
We need to maintain a focus that says to the American people and even
more importantly the rest of the world that in a free society, where
men and women can come to the well of the House and express their
opinion on any subject, there are many countries around the world where
freedom does not exist, but in our free society, the home of the free
and the land of the brave, we have the right to stand up and speak out
when something goes wrong.
In the land of freedom, we have responsibility. People are
accountable for their actions, and the perpetrators of these deeds will
be punished. This is the issue today. So now is the time to stand up
and express our joint outrage for what has happened.
We also need to make sure, and ironically, as I waited to speak, I
received a message from Daniel Metzdorf, an 82nd Airborne trooper who
lost a leg fighting for the freedom that we all want for Iraq, got a
message, wanted to know how I am doing. He is the one that lost a leg.
We cannot lose the focus today, as we speak out against this
contemptible behavior that 99.9 percent plus are wonderful men and
women in uniform who are seeking to bring freedom to Iraq, to give them
the opportunity to express their opinion. Yes, the rest of the world,
we have made a mistake here and we all agree but we will not accept it.
Whatever steps are necessary to follow up our condemnation today of
these despicable acts, we will, as Republican, Democrats, in a
bipartisan manner, we will get to the bottom of it. The perpetrators
will be punished. We will see that it does not happen again. Justice
will be served. Freedom will be protected.
We are here to do the right thing. That is what America is about, but
please do not lose sight of what is being done for us, for Iraq, the
rest of the world by these men and women in uniform who are seeking to
provide freedom and justice for all the world.
Mr. Speaker, again I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings) for the time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this rule.
We can do better. We can do much better as a Nation and as a people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart, but my conscience is
clear. I am so sick and tired of seeing so many of our young men and
our young women die in Iraq. I am deeply troubled by the acts that some
of our soldiers committed against the prisoners of war in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues today, we must take a good and
hard look at the leadership of this Nation, the leadership of this
government, the leader of this government, the person who was in
charge. I say to my colleagues today, we must hold the leadership, the
President, the Secretary of Defense, the Vice President, hold them
accountable for mistake after mistake we have committed in this war,
and we must hold them accountable for the unjust torture of prisoners
of war.
Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of who committed these unbelievable
acts. It is not a question of who, but what. What led to this flagrant
disregard for the humanity of our fellow human beings? Those at the
highest level of this government, the President, the Vice President,
the Secretary of Defense, they all have created the climate and the
environment that led to these abuses. What happened to those prisoners
is a reflection on our soul, on our values.
[[Page H2672]]
American citizens smiling as they humiliate citizens of Iraq! There
must be a sense of righteous indignation in America about what happened
in those prison cells, and there must be a sense of righteous
indignation in this Congress against these unspeakable acts. Does it
profit a great Nation to gain a whole world or win a war and lose a
soul?
Mr. Speaker, I have said it in the past and I say it again today. War
is messy. It is bloody. It tends not to just hide the truth, but to
sacrifice the truth. Why did it take so long, so long for us to get
this information? Why did not Mr. Rumsfeld, why did not the President
inform the Congress? Why did officials at the highest levels of
government try to hide these criminal acts against humanity? Why did
they try to cover it up?
Mr. Speaker, we have made mistakes, yes, but it is not enough to
issue an apology. It is not enough to say we are sorry--and we should
apologize. We should say we are sorry.
The handwriting is on the wall, Mr. Speaker. It is time for us to
close this very dark and sordid chapter of our history. It is time for
the Secretary of Defense to go. He must leave.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as
much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule.
Last night, I stood here in the well following the speech that my
friend from Georgia gave and he has delivered the same speech, and I
want to say to my friend from Georgia, while addressing the Speaker
according to the rules of the House, that righteous indignation is
something that every single one of us, every single one of us has
demonstrated by the support of this resolution. We are all outraged at
the photographs that we have seen, and we believe that it is
reprehensible that these kinds of actions should take place.
Dating back to 1785, the framers of our Constitution, Benjamin
Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and others, focused at
that point on the importance as we deal with conflicts of recognizing
the human rights of even our adversaries, and that is why it is so
important for the United States of America, which is the only Nation on
the face of the earth that could do this kind of work, to step forward,
and yes, liberate the people of Iraq, send a positive message for the
cause of freedom throughout the entire world, but at the same time,
recognize those important rights that do date back to 1785 and the
founding of the United States of America.
We do, as my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) stated very
eloquently, need to realize why it is that we are in Iraq. We are there
because of the global war on terrorism. We are there because this is
part and parcel of the global war on terrorism.
There are 135,000 American troops who are part of this very important
international coalition, and we have seen tremendous success.
{time} 1215
It is important for us to support this resolution, but it is also
very important for us to realize that any sign of weakness from the
United States of America as we proceed with resolve in dealing with
these terrorists in Iraq, any sign of weakness emboldens those
terrorists. That is why, yes, we are going to ensure that anyone who is
responsible for this and is convicted under the Uniform Code of
Criminal Justice is in fact going to go to jail because they are
criminals.
At the same time, we must realize that, as the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Hayes) said, there are 135,000 courageous men and women
in the U.S. Armed Forces who are seeking to win this war and we need
to, with this resolution that the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter) has put together, underscore and demonstrate the solidarity and
resolve of the American people and the United States Congress behind
our men and women.
Support this rule, support this resolution, and let us move forward
and make sure that we do resolve this very difficult situation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, well, it is obvious from this resolution
to me that the days of the ``buck stops here'' are dead and gone. Oh,
yes, it takes occasion to single out those individuals who do have
blame for abusing in the most horrendous way our prisoners. But nowhere
in here does it say that those who are in the leadership of this
mission in Iraq hold any responsibility whatsoever.
I looked through this carefully, and it seems that they want to limit
it to a few individuals that they will go after. And by the way, not
just the right individuals. There is no mention in this of the private
military contractors, individuals who for profit are in those prisons
that we know are under investigation, may even have been giving orders,
companies like Titan and CACI that were hired to be in those prisons
that are not part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Where are we
going to point our fingers at them and hold them accountable?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Armed Services and the author of this resolution.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for us to refocus. The
focus should be on the fact that we have had over 300,000 Americans in
uniform serving in this theater. The vast majority of them have served
honorably and courageously, I would say to my colleague who just spoke
who said, sure, we have some criminal acts, but why can we not convict
more people up the chain of command for those acts.
The facts are in this country when somebody commits a criminal act,
they are held accountable for that act. They are being held
accountable. I want to remind my colleagues once again of the numbers.
The numbers are 300,000 Americans serving honorably in Iraq. The
numbers further at this point are that six of them have been
recommended for criminal prosecution under UCMJ for these acts.
Once again, I saw in The Washington Post this morning that picture of
that same lady undertaking a reprehensible act with respect to a
prisoner. We have seen thousands of pictures. The ones that I have seen
at least that have come forward all have the same several individuals.
My point is 300,000 people serving honorably, over 3,000 Purple Hearts
awarded, thousands of Bronze Stars awarded, 127 Silver Stars awarded
for valor, four Distinguished Service Crosses or Navy Crosses awarded
for valor in this war, and our troops in contact right now.
So while we have potentially six bad apples, and I want to set the
record straight, three have been recommended to the court martial
convening board for court martials. It is the convening board's
decision whether or not those court martials go forward and when. So
three out of the six who have been recommended for court martial under
article 32 are now before the court martial convening authority. That
is six people.
Sure, investigations may show more people, but they do not show
thousands of people. They do not show tens of thousands of people, and
what the record in Iraq does reflect is 300,000 courageous Americans
serving our country.
One other thing that we put in this resolution, while all of this
national media and international media is going to the six, to the six
bad apples who have been identified so far, and the careers have been
ended of about seven superior officers up through the chain of command
up to the general who is the brigade commander, not because they knew
anything about it, in fact, in some cases probably because they did not
know anything about it, but because it was on their watch it happened,
those careers have been ended.
We have thousands of acts of compassion and nation-building and
government-building carried on by the men and women who wear the
uniform of the United States. They have started city councils, repaired
sewage lines, and inoculated kids so they will not get sick. They have
done great things, and we put that in this resolution because they
deserve a little attention, not just the six bad apples.
[[Page H2673]]
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we all know what is going on out here
today. We are passing a CYA resolution to limit the damage. The
Christian Science Monitor carries the story of Mr. Miklaszewski from
NBC News who asked the question of a Pentagon official about the
soldiers involved. He said, ``You mean the six morons who lost the
war?''
The decision has been made in the Pentagon what they are going to do
to those six, but this resolution does not go wide and deep like it
ought to. This was not six young people that we are going to blame and
make scapegoats and send them out in the wilderness. This has to go all
of the way to Mr. Rumsfeld, the Secretary of War.
A Scottish newspaper, the Sunday Herald, said, ``The pictures that
lost the war. The grim images of American and British soldiers
torturing Iraqi prisoners has taken the moral high ground from Blair
and Bush.'' And the article finishes with a quote from Lieutenant
Colonel Retired Bill Cowan of the United States Marines, ``We went to
Iraq to stop things like this from happening; and, indeed, here they
are happening under our tutelage. If we do not tell this story, these
kinds of things will continue and we will end up getting paid 100 or
1,000 times.''
The other side can try and limit the damage here with this and say
let us keep it in the Secretary of the Army, but the fact is that the
world knows much more broadly.
[From the Sunday Herald, May 2, 2004]
The Pictures That Lost The War
(By Neil Mackay)
It's an image that would do Saddam proud. A terrified
prisoner, hooded and dressed in rags, his hands out-stretched
on either side of him, electrodes attached to his fingers and
genitals. He's been forced to stand on a box about one-foot
square. His captors have told him that, if he falls off the
box, he'll be electrocuted.
The torture victim was an Iraqi and his torturers were
American soldiers. The picture captures the moment when
members of the coalition forces, who styled themselves
liberators, were exposed as torturers. The image of the wired
and hooded Iraqi was one of a series of photographs, leaked
by a horrified U.S. soldier inside Saddam's old punishment
centre, Abu Ghraib--now a U.S. POW camp.
When the images were flashed around the world by America's
CBS television network last Wednesday, there was a smug
feeling within the U.K. that British troops would never
behave like that to their prisoners. But on Friday night, the
U.K. was treated to images--courtesy of the Daily Mirror--of
British soldiers urinating on a blood-stained Iraqi captive,
holding guns against the man's head, stamping on his face,
kicking him in the mouth and beating him in the groin with a
rifle butt.
The pictures of U.S. soldiers torturing their captives have
the added horror of sexual abuse. In five of the 14 images
that the Sunday Herald has seen, a female soldier--identified
as Lynndie England, a 21-year-old from a West Virginia
trailer park--is playing up to the camera while her captives
are tortured. In one picture, she's smiling and giving the
thumbs-up. Her hand rests on the buttocks of a naked and
hooded Iraqi who has been forced to sit on the shoulders of
another Iraqi prisoner.
In another, she is sprawled laughing over a pyramid of
naked Iraqis. A male colleague stands behind her grinning.
Later, she's got a cigarette clenched between grinning lips
and is pointing at the genitals of a line of naked, hooded
Iraqis. A third snap shows her embracing a colleague as a
naked Iraqi lies before them.
In other pictures, two naked Iraqis are forced to simulate
oral sex and a group of naked men are made to clamber on to
each other's backs. One dreadful picture features nothing but
the bloated face of an Iraqi who has been beaten to death.
His body is wrapped in plastic.
Other pictures, which the world has not seen, but which are
in the hands of the U.S. military, include shots of a dog
attacking a prisoner. An accused soldier says dogs are ``used
for intimidation factors''.
There are also pictures of an apparent male rape. An Iraqi
POW claims that a civilian translator, hired to work in the
prison, raped a male juvenile prisoner. He said: ``They
covered all the doors with sheets. I heard the screaming . .
. and the female soldier was taking pictures.''
The British pictures show a hooded Iraqi aged between 18-20
on the floor of a military truck being brutalized. According
to two squaddies who took part in the torture, but later blew
the whistle, the Iraqi's ordeal lasted eight hours and he was
left with a broken jaw and missing teeth. He was bleeding and
vomited when his captors threw him out of a speeding truck.
No one knows if he lived or died.
One of the British soldiers said: ``Basically this guy was
dying as he couldn't take any more. An officer came down. It
was `Get rid of him--I haven't seen him'.'' The other
whistle-blower said he had witnessed a prisoner being beaten
senseless by troops. ``You could hear your mate's boots
hitting this lad's spine . . . One of the lads broke his
wrist off a prisoner's head. Another nearly broke his foot
kicking him.''
According to the British soldiers, the military police have
found a video of prisoners being thrown from a bridge, and a
prisoner was allegedly beaten to death in custody by men from
the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. Although there is a debate
about the veracity of the images, Armed Forces Minister Adam
Ingram said that if the pictures were real, they were
``appalling''. A Downing Street spokesman said Tony Blair
expected ``the highest standards of conduct from our forces
in Iraq''. The U.K.'s most senior army officer, General Mike
Jackson, said that if the allegations were true then those
involved were ``not fit to wear the Queen's uniform.'' The
Defense Ministry is in crisis over the pictures as top
brass know they ruin any hope of U.K. forces winning Iraqi
hearts and minds.
The U.S. torture pictures were taken by members of the
American 800th Military Police Brigade sometime late last
year. Following an investigation, 17 soldiers were removed
from duty for mistreating captives. Six face court martial.
Brigadier General Janice Karpinski, who ran Abu Ghraib and
three other U.S. military jails, is suspended and faces court
martial. Prior to the relevations, Karpinski assured the U.S.
media that Abu Ghraib was run according to ``international
standards''.
Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of
coalition operations in Iraq, said he was ``appalled''. He
added: ``These are our fellow soldiers. They were the same
uniform as us, and they let their fellow soldiers down. Our
soldiers could be taken prisoner as well--and we expect our
soldiers to be treated well by the adversary, by the enemy--
and if we can't hold ourselves up as an example of how to
treat people with dignity and respect . . . we can't ask that
other nations do that to our soldiers as well. This is wrong.
This is reprehensible. But this is not representative of the
150,000 soldiers over here.''
But these soldiers aren't simply mavericks. Some accused
claim they acted on the orders of military intelligence and
the CIA, and that some of the torture sessions were under the
control of mercenaries hired by the U.S. to conduct
interrogations. Two ``civilian contract'' organizations
taking part in interrogations at Abu Ghraib are linked to the
Bush administration.
California-based Titan Corporation says it is ``a leading
provider of solutions for services for national security''.
Between 2003-04, it gave nearly $40,000 to George W. Bush's
Republican Party. Titan supplied translators to the military.
CACI International Inc. describes its aim as helping
``America's intelligence community in the war on terrorism''.
Richard Armitage, the current deputy U.S. secretary of state,
sat on CACI's board.
No civilians, however, are facing charges as military law
does not apply to them. Colonel Jill Morgenthaler, from
CentCom, said that one civilian contractor was accused along
with six soldiers of mistreating prisoners. However, it was
left to the contractor to ``deal with him''. One civilian
interrogator told army investigators that he had
``unintentionally'' broken several tables during
interrogations as he was trying to ``fear-up'' detainees.
Lawyers for some accused say their clients are scapegoats
for a rogue prison system, which allowed mercenaries to give
orders to serving soldiers. A military report said private
contractors were at times supervising the interrogations.
Kimmitt said: ``I hope the investigation is including not
only the people who committed the crimes, but some of the
people who might have encouraged the crimes as well because
they certainly share some responsibility.''
Last night, CACI vice-president Jody Brown said: ``The
company supports the Army's investigation and acknowledges
that CACI personnel in Iraq volunteered to be interviewed by
army officials in connection with the investigation. The
company has received no indication that any CACI employee was
involved in any alleged improper conduct with Iraqi
prisoners. Nonetheless, CACI has initiated an independent
investigation.''
However, military investigators said: ``A CACI
investigator's contract was terminated because he allowed
and/or instructed military police officers who were not
trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate
interrogations which were neither authorised nor in
accordance with regulations.''
One of the U.S. soldiers facing court martial is reservist
Staff Sergeant Chip Frederick--the equivalent of a part-time
territorial army squaddie. In civvy street, he was a prison
warder in Virginia. Frederick has said he will plead not
guilty and blame the army for the torture at Abu Ghraib. ``We
had no support, no training whatsoever,'' he said, claiming
he had never been shown the Geneva Convention. ``I kept
asking my chain of command for certain things like rules and
regulations and it just wasn't happening.''
Frederick also blamed the intelligence services for
encouraging the brutality.
[[Page H2674]]
Among the agencies coming to the prison were ``military
intelligence'', said Frederick, adding: ``We had all kinds of
other government agencies, FBI, CIA.''
In letters and e-mails home, he wrote: ``Military
intelligence has encouraged and told us `Great job'.'' He
added: ``They usually don't allow others to watch them
interrogate. But since they like the way I run the prison,
they have made an exception . . . We help getting [the PoWs]
to talk with the way we handle them . . . We've had a very
high rate with our style of getting them to break. They
usually end up breaking within hours.''
Frederick said prisoners were made to live in cramped
windowless cells with no clothes, running water or toilet for
up to three days. Others were held for 60 days before
interrogation. He said one prisoner with a mental health
condition was ``shot with non-lethal rounds''. An
interrogator told soldiers to ``stress one prisoner out as
much as possible [as] he wanted to talk to him the next
day''. Frederick also said one prisoner was ``stressed so bad
that the man passed away''. Prisoners were covered in lice
and some had tuberculosis. None were allowed to pray.
Frederick said his commander sanctioned all this.
The former commander of Guantanamo Bay prison, Major
General Geoffrey Miller, has now been made deputy commander
for containment operations to overhaul the Iraqi detention
centres.
Frederick, unlike mercenaries, faces jail and being thrown
out of the army. His lawyer, Gary Myers said: ``The elixir of
power, the elixir of believing that you're helping the CIA,
for God's sake, when you're from a small town in Virginia,
that's intoxicating. And so, good guys sometimes do things
believing that they are being of assistance and helping a
just cause . . . and helping people they view as important.''
Kimmitt admitted: ``I'd like to sit here and say that these
are the only prisoner abuse cases that we're aware of, but we
know that there have been others.''
This also applies to Britain. A Sunday Herald investigation
has found that at least seven civilians have died in British
custody in Iraq.
Describing the images of abuse as an ``atrocity'', Abdel
Bari Atwan, editor of the newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi, said:
``The liberators are worse than the dictators.'' His
sentiments have been echoed around the world. It is hard to
find a country or agency that hasn't condemned the torture of
Iraqi prisoners. From the Red Cross to the UN and from
Amnesty to the coalition's loyal ``deputy in the Pacific'',
the Australian premier John Howard, the world is united in
horror against the actions of the US and UK forces.
The awful cost of these acts of barbarism by Britain and
America is summed up by ex-US Marine Lieutenant Colonel Bill
Cowan: ``We went to Iraq to stop things like this from
happening, and indeed, here they are happening under our
tutelage . . . If we don't tell this story, these kind of
things will continue, and we'll end up getting paid back 100
or 1000 times over.''
____
[From the Christian Science Monitor, May 4, 2004]
``Six Morons Who Lost the War''
(by Tom Regan)
Regardless of the outcome of the now multiple
investigations into prisoner abuse at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib
prison, politicians and media around the world say the United
States' image has suffered a serious blow. Sen. Joe Biden (D)
of Delaware said on Fox News Sunday that ``This is the single
most significant undermining act that's occurred in a decade
in that region of the world in terms of our standing.''
The Associated Press reports that a senior Bush
administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity,
said the photos (of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners)
hurt the U.S. efforts to win over an audience that is already
deeply skeptical of U.S. intentions. Arabs and Muslims, the
official added, ``are certain to seize upon the images as
proof that the American occupiers are as brutal as ousted
President Saddam Hussein's government.''
Officials at the Defense Department are also said to be
``livid,'' and well aware of the damage that has been done by
the incident, according to NBC News' Pentagon reporter Jim
Miklaszewski. Speaking on the Imus in the Morning radio/MSNBC
program Tuesday, Mr. Miklaszewski said he asked a Pentagon
contact about the soldiers alleged to be involved, to which
the Pentagon official replied, ``You mean the six morons who
lost the war?''
The Chicago Tribune reports that other experts agree with
this assessment. ``The United States already had a huge
perception problem in the Arab world,'' said Stephen Walt, a
professor of international affairs at Harvard's Kennedy
School of Government. ``This is only going to reinforce
the belief that the United States is anti-Arab and anti-
Muslim, whether it's true or not.''
As the Financial Times noted, even before the incidents at
Abu Ghraib, opinion polls taken in Iraq and other Muslim and
non-Muslim nations ``indicated an almost global nadir of U.S.
credibility and popularity.'' And the Times reports that the
U.S.'s much hailed public relations campaign in the Middle
East is ``floundering.''
The New York Times reported late last week that Margaret
Tutwiler, the woman who was put in charge of the program to
make changes in the U.S.'s ``public diplomacy effort''
announced she was leaving the job to take a position with the
New York Stock Exchange. The Financial Times also reports
that experts on the Middle East say public relations programs
or new pro-US TV channels will not change the way people in
the Arab world feel. ``It is not the case that Arabs and
Muslims feel antipathy towards the U.S. because they are
being brainwashed by Al Jazeera or reading state-controlled
media in Egypt--it's American policy,'' said Samer Shehata,
professor of Arab politics at Georgetown University.
``Regardless of how many radio stations you have that play
great music, or TV stations like al-Hurra, as long as U.S.
policy--whether it be in Iraq or Palestine--remains the same
you are not going to win hearts and minds.''
Rashid Khalidi, director of the Middle East Institute at
Columbia University, echoes this view. ``I think the United
States is less respected at the end of these 13 months than
it has ever been,'' he said. ``Never has a country with such
unlimited power been so pitifully unable to affect outcomes.
Ruthless, murderous terrorists can strike at will in the
United States and the U.S. can't take Fallujah?''
In the same article, by Agence-France Presse, Robert
Leiber, professor of government and foreign service at
Georgetown University, argues, however, in favor of keeping
``things in perspective.'' ``The photographs and, more
importantly, the acts themselves are harmful to the cause of
helping the Iraqis form a stable and democratic country,''
Leiber said, but he noted that such treatment is contrary to
U.S. policy. ``We must keep in mind that, although this has
been an ugly business, it pales in comparison to what
Saddam (Hussein) did to his own people over 30 years,'' he
said.
Unfortunately, many others believe that the damage has
already been done. The allegation of mistreatment of
prisoners ``makes the U.S. and coalition forces a legitimate
enemy in the eyes of more Arabs than was the case before,''
said Anthony Cordesman, an expert on Middle East security
issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Mr. Cordesman, in another interview with Reuters, said the
mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners also hurts the war on terror.
``Those Americans who mistreated the prisoners may not have
realized it, but they acted in the direct interests of Al
Qaeda, the insurgents, and the enemies of the U.S.'' ``These
negative images validate all other negative images and
interact with them,'' he [Cordesman] said in a statement,
citing ``careless U.S. rhetoric about Arabs and Islam,''
failures to stabilize Iraq, continued Israeli-Palestinian
violence and fears the United States is out to dominate the
Middle East.
The Miami Herald, in an editorial, writes that the exposure
of abuse at Abu Gharaib can ``seriously damage'' the success
of US operations, both militarily and otherwise, in Iraq. It
is too bad that the response so far, from President Bush's
perfunctory indignation to General Myers' blaming a few
wayward soldiers, badly misses the mark. The whole premise of
the US invasion of Iraq (as currently construed) is to rid
the Iraqi people of a brutal dictator and create a foothold
for democracy in the Middle East. The senseless humiliation
and abuse of Iraqi prisoners--many of whom were civilians and
have since been released without charges--is an indelible
stain on that endeavor.
Yet in the end, The Christian Science Monitor reported
Monday, this latest incident may not have made all that much
difference to many in the Arab world because their opinion of
the US had already sunk as low as it could. That is why,
argues Rami Khouri, a Jordanian political analyst and editor
of Lebanon's Daily Star, the only thing that will
substantially change the US's image in the Muslim world, is a
change of policies. ``They [the US] have to be more even-
handed in the Arab-Israeli issue, be less militaristic in
addressing regimes they don't like, be more consistent in
promoting democracy everywhere not only in a few places,''
Khouri says. ``They can turn their image around, but only if
they turn their policies into more consistently fair and
reasonable ones.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I agree that the great
majority, overwhelming majority of Americans serving in Iraq, military
and civilian, are honorable people who have gone to great risk. They
are among the victims of these outrages. It is a shameful thing that
their bravery, their good work, their integrity has been besmirched. We
owe it to them to do a full investigation.
We heard reference to the six. I hope it is only six, but I am
skeptical. Months ago I would have said it would not be six. Had these
accusations been made months ago, I would have said, no, Americans do
not act like that. We now have to acknowledge, tragically, sadly,
heartsickeningly, that we do; and we owe it to everyone to have a full
investigation. But we owe something more. We owe the people of this
country and the people of adherence to the democratic process.
What troubles me about this resolution is the persistence of the
Republican majority in a pattern of using the
[[Page H2675]]
rules of this House and their small majority to frustrate open
democratic procedures. We have had a terrible blow to this country. We
hope it was perpetrated only by a few, but the incompetence and
indifference of superiors clearly contributed to it.
We owe ourselves and the American people a full investigation. We are
not even allowed under the majority's rules to put forward a motion
calling for such an investigation. The other side of the aisle has
already decided it is only the six. We are abusing the democratic
process here.
We are trying to teach the people of Iraq about democracy. One of the
things we have been worried about is that a particular majority, the
Shia, might not understand the importance of minority rule. We are
trying to get them to understand how you do that difficult thing of
reconciling majority control and majority's right to decide with full
minority participation.
The majority, Mr. Speaker, are giving them exactly the wrong example
of how to do that. I suppose we ought to say to the people of Iraq who
watch this narrow majority, for partisan purposes refuse to allow an
open debate on this extraordinary issue. Please do not try this at
home. We are giving them exactly the wrong example of how to proceed.
This is a chance to show democracy. Yes, some people made a mistake.
Let us throw this open and do everything possible to purge ourselves of
this error and not appear to be cutting it off.
So we are compounding the terrible misdeeds of that certain number of
people, and we do not know how many in the prisons, by a partisan
manipulation of the process. The other side of the aisle is doing a
terrible thing.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me just answer the gentleman who has
just spoken. There are three investigations going on right now. There
is a CENTCOM investigation, a criminal investigation going on right
now. If there are other people involved beyond these six, those people
will be picked up in that investigation. There is also a Department of
the Army investigation and a Department of the Navy investigation going
on.
Further, let me say to my friends, the ranking member, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I worked on this together. The
Committee on Armed Services was the appropriate standing committee to
do this. We worked on this until late last night, and the people who
vetoed what we thought we had an agreement on were the Democrat
leadership.
Let me tell Members the two paragraphs they vetoed. They wanted to
kick out the two paragraphs that referred to the good works in terms of
providing food, providing education, providing medical capability to
the Iraqi people that were given by our people in uniform. I thought it
was appropriate since we have 300,000 people who have done right to
continue to mention the fact that they have done some good things in
Iraq. I think the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) agreed with
that also.
The Democrat leadership did not want to include those good things in
this particular resolution, and that is why this had to come forward
not under unanimous consent agreed to by the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton) and myself, but it had to come forward through the rules
process.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would say two things.
First, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the cosponsor,
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), are entitled to their
decisions; but so is the whole House. It is the House that should
decide whether paragraphs go in or out. I do not understand why the
majority does not allow the House to vote.
Secondly, I appreciate that some investigation is going on; but I am
not a great believer in people investigating themselves and nobody
else. I believe an outside investigation is necessary.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would simply say,
before we knew about this, the criminal procedures were going forward.
It was the United States Army soldier, not a press, not an IG who
brought this forward. It was a United States Army soldier who brought
this forward. Criminal investigations are going on, undertaken by the
Army. The court martial process is in process.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) apparently thinks that the Army has been the
exemplar of good self-investigation. Many of us do not.
But aside from that substantive issue, why is this not in a democracy
a subject for full debate of the House, not a 1-hour constricted debate
with no amendments allowed constructed by the majority?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleague that when the
publicity flush is finished on what was done by who we have identified
as some six individuals now, they will have received thousands and
thousands, as much time and publicity as the 300,000 good Americans who
have served this country, and as much attention from this Congress.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, all Americans have been horrified by the pictures and
accounts of inhumane treatment of detainees in Iraq. The conduct in
those pictures is absolutely intolerable, and the United States must
take swift and decisive action to investigation and resolve this
terrible incident and make sure it never happens again.
While this resolution calls on the Secretary of the Army to conduct a
full and thorough investigation into the allegations of mistreatment,
take corrective action against those responsible and ensure that it
never happens again, I believe Congress must also do its job and
conduct its own investigation.
{time} 1230
Mr. Speaker, Congress was never notified about the problems at Abu
Ghraib prison, even though the Department of Defense had a report
outlining the conditions there 3 months ago. As a partner in the War on
Terror, Congress absolutely has not only the right, but the
responsibility to investigate what went wrong up and down the chain of
command.
So today, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the
rule allowing for the consideration of an amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) affirming the need for bipartisan
congressional investigations into these allegations are of abuse,
including those by U.S. civilian contractor personnel or other U.S.
civilians, and into the chain of command and other deficiencies that
contributed to such abuse.
Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, voting ``no'' on the previous question
will not prevent this House from voting on the underlying resolution,
it will simply allow for the consideration of the Skelton amendment and
allow the House to conduct a bipartisan investigation. It will allow us
to do our job, what the people we represent expect us to do.
Congress is a full partner in the war on terror. We need to do our
job. We cannot call for accountability by others and then shirk our own
responsibility. Let us do our part to resolve this awful situation and
restore confidence and trust in our Nation and in our military.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record.
[From the New York Times, May 6, 2004]
Restoring Our Honor
(By Thomas L. Friedman)
We are in danger of losing something much more important
that just the war in Iraq. We are in danger of losing America
as an instrument of moral authority and inspiration in the
world. I have never known a time in my life when America and
its president were more hated around the world than today. I
was just in Japan, and even young Japanese dislike us. It's
no wonder that so many Americans are obsessed with the finale
of the sitcom ``Friends'' right now. They're the only friends
we have, and even they're leaving.
[[Page H2676]]
This administration needs to undertake a total overhaul of
its Iraq policy; otherwise, it is courting a total disaster
for us all.
That overhaul needs to begin with President Bush firing
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld--today, not tomorrow or
next month, today. What happened in Abu Ghraib prison was, at
best, a fundamental breakdown in the chain of command under
Mr. Rumsfeld's authority, or, at worst, part of a deliberate
policy somewhere in the military-intelligence command of
sexually humiliating prisoners to soften them up for
interrogation, a policy that ran amok.
Either way, the secretary of defense is ultimately
responsible, and if we are going to rebuild our credibility
as instruments of humanitarian values, the rule of law and
democratization, in Iraq or elsewhere, Mr. Bush must hold his
own defense secretary accountable. Words matter, but deeds
matter more. If the Pentagon leadership ran any U.S. company
with the kind of abysmal planning in this war, it would have
been fired by shareholders months ago.
I know that tough interrogations are vital in a war against
a merciless enemy, but outright torture, or this sexual-
humiliation-for-entertainment, is abhorrent. I also know the
sort of abuse that went on in Abu Ghraib prison goes on in
prisons all over the Arab world every day, as it did under
Saddam--without the Arab League or Al Jazeera ever saying a
word about it. I know they are shameful hypocrites, but I
want my country to behave better--not only because it is
America, but also because the war on terrorism is a war of
ideas, and to have any chance of winning we must maintain the
credibility of our ideas.
We were hit on 9/11 by people who believed hateful ideas--
ideas too often endorsed by some of their own spiritual
leaders and educators back home. We cannot win a war of ideas
against such people by ourselves. Only Arabs and Muslims can.
What we could do--and this was the only legitimate rationale
for this war--was try to help Iraqis create a progressive
context in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world where that war
of ideas could be fought out.
But it is hard to partner with someone when you become so
radioactive no one wants to stand next to you. We have to
restore some sense of partnership with the world if we are
going to successfully partner with Iraqis.
Mr. Bush needs to invite to Camp David the five permanent
members of the U.N. Security Council, the heads of both NATO
and the U.N., and the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia
and Syria. There, he needs to eat crow, apologize for his
mistakes and make clear that he is turning a new page.
Second, he needs to explain that we are losing in Iraq, and
if we continue to lose the U.S. public will eventually demand
that we quit Iraq, and it will then become Afghanistan-on-
steroids, which will threaten everyone. Third, he needs to
say he will be guided by the U.N. in forming the new
caretaker government in Baghdad. And fourth, he needs to
explain that he is ready to listen to everyone's ideas about
how to expand our force in Iraq, and have it work under a new
U.N. mandate, so it will have the legitimacy it needs to
crush any uprisings against the interim Iraqi government and
oversee elections--and then leave when appropriate. And he
needs to urge them all to join in.
Let's not lose sight of something--as bad as things look in
Iraq it is not yet lost, for one big reason: America's
aspirations for Iraq and those of the Iraqi silent majority,
particularly Shiites and Kurds, are still aligned. We both
want Iraqi self-rule and then free elections. That overlap of
interests, however clouded, can still salvage something
decent from this war--if the Bush team can finally screw up
the courage to admit its failures and dramatically change
course.
Yes, the hour is late, but as long as there's a glimmer of
hope that this Bush team will do the right thing, we must
insist on it, because America's role in the world is too
precious--to America and to the rest of the world--to be
squandered like this.
____
[From the Washington Post, May 6, 2004]
Who Should Have Known?
(By Richard Cohen)
This week the United States Army did the oddest thing in
this Age of Bush: It reprimanded six soldiers in connection
with the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal--not for what they did
but for not knowing what others were doing. An Army spokesman
put it this way: ``They should have known . . .'' If that's
the standard, then half the Bush administration will soon be
gone.
Maybe first to get the accountability ax will be Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He certainly should have known
that a scandal was brewing in Iraqi prisons, and he should
have bothered to read the Pentagon report detailing what went
wrong. Instead, the Pentagon tried to delay CBS's ``60
Minutes II'' from showing pictures of prisoner abuse and
then, in an amazing public relations offensive, sent the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Richard B. Myers, on three
Sunday talk shows to announce--a little bugle call here--that
he had not read the report either. It has been available
since March.
As is almost always the case, the Pentagon did not tell the
State Department that a wee spot of trouble was coming its
way because, as we know, the Pentagon doesn't tell the State
Department anything. Who cares if a billion or so people in
the Islamic world have a snit? The Bushies hardly do
diplomacy anyway. It's for sissies. At a certain level--a
very high one--the Bush administration is as dysfunctional as
it is cocky.
But if accountability is going to be the new order of the
day, there's no telling where things will wind up. What will
happen to CIA chief George Tenet, who assured the president
that Iraq was a virtual storehouse of weapons of mass
destruction? It was ``a slam dunk,'' the spy chief said. He
should have known otherwise, but he did not. No matter.
Instead of a reprimand, Bush always expresses confidence in
him and probably has given him a nickname, Slam Dunk George.
Or take Condoleezza Rice. Should she have known that Bush
was blowing smoke when he told the Nation that Iraq had tried
to buy uranium from Niger? Yes, indeed. There was no such
nuclear program in Iraq, and it hadn't attempted to make that
uranium purchase. The CIA knew that, yet Bush said otherwise.
Once again, no reprimand. Instead, she was rewarded with more
sleepovers at Camp David.
What about Dick Cheney? He was the leading hawk in the
White House, so anxious to go to war with Iraq that Secretary
of State Colin Powell characterized him as feverish. The vice
president repeatedly insisted that Iraq had ``reconstituted''
its nuclear weapons program. Should he have known better? To
revert to Cheney talk, you betcha.
Should Rumsfeld have known that stabilizing Iraq would
require more troops than he allotted? Gen. Eric K. Shinseki
had said so, but the Army chief of staff was brushed aside
and treated as an eccentric.
Should Rummy and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, have known
that U.S. troops might not be universally greeted with
flowers, kisses and donations to the Bush reelection
campaign? It would have been prudent planning.
Should they have known that Iraqi oil might not cover the
cost of the occupation? Probably. Should they have had enough
troops on the ground to prevent looting and a general
breakdown of law and order? Well, some might think so--but
not, apparently, the president.
You and I can argue the wisdom of going into Iraq some
other time. What is not arguable, I think, is that the
invasion and occupation were marked every step of the way by
incompetence, smugness and repeated mistakes. Yet the only
people to feel the opprobrium of the White House are those,
such as Richard Clarke or Joseph Wilson, who had the nerve,
the gall, the immense chutzpah to question administration
policy.
The new accountability could be a wonderful thing. It comes
a bit late in the game, maybe, and will almost surely be
limited to expendable underlings, but a supine Congress just
might get the idea and start asking some hard questions about
how things went so bad in Iraq. It might begin with Rumsfeld
and ask him a more pertinent version of that famous
question--not what did you know and when did you know it but
why, damn it, didn't you know it in the first place?
____
[From USA Today]
Why Was Pattern of Abuse Ignored for so Long?
The Bush administration swung into full damage-control mode
Wednesday, trying to quell a rising furor at home and abroad
over the shocking abuse of prisoners in Iraq by U.S. military
personnel.
The general in charge of U.S.-run prisons in Iraq
apologized to the Iraqi people. Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld made the rounds of TV shows, claiming that the
mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison was an
aberration and pledging that those involved would be dealt
with swiftly and firmly. President Bush gave interviews to
two Arabic-language TV stations, calling the behavior
depicted in the photos broadcast on TV last week
``abhorrent'' and counter to American values.
The question none answered: What took so long?
Documented complaints of mistreated prisoners in Iraq,
Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, date back two years,
including the cases of two Afghans whose deaths in 2002 were
recently ruled homicides.
Unlike the Abu Ghraib mistreatment, those incidents were
not caught on film. The abuse was further obscured by the
still-lingering horror of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But the
nation now risks paying a mighty price for its failure to
stand firmly in favor of international law and human dignity.
Otherwise-neutral Muslims are enraged, aiding terrorists
and turning Iraqis against Americans. International support
for the war on terrorism has been undercut. At home, support
for Bush's attempt to bring peace and democracy to Iraq has
eroded. A Gallup Poll today shows the public's disapproval of
Bush's handling of Iraq has risen to 55%, the highest since
the war began.
Ebbing support for the mission comes as the scandal keeps
expanding. U.S. officials reported Wednesday that the number
of prisoner deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan under
investigation or already blamed on U.S. captors has risen to
14. The deaths of two Iraqi prisoners are now considered
homicides, and 20 investigations are underway.
Warning signs about abuses of Iraqi detainees had been
flashing for months:
The Pentagon acknowledged this week that enough concerns
were raised last fall to prompt a ``top-level review'' of how
its Iraqi detection centers were being run.
Abuses at Abu Ghraib were brought to the attention of
commanders in Iraq by a tip from an unidentified soldier in
January.
[[Page H2677]]
A damning report by a general assigned to investigate the
charges has been lying around the Pentagon since March 3,
apparently without getting the attention of any top decision-
maker. The report documented ``numerous incidents of
sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses.''
The military brass could no longer ignore the problem last
week, when photos of U.S. soldiers gloating over naked
prisoners forced into degrading acts surfaced on CBS' 60
Minutes II. More details about the abuses, based on leaks
from the then-secret military report, appeared in The New
Yorker this week. Even then, the Pentagon shrugged off the
story as a case of a few renegade soldiers who already had
been punished. Worldwide outrage forced the Bush
administration to address the matter seriously.
Some military personnel down the chain of command did the
right thing, notably the troops who blew the whistle at Abu
Ghraib and leaked photos to the media when superiors failed
to take stern action. But top commanders seemed more
concerned with keeping the scandal quiet than ensuring that
those who committed abuses would be punished and the
attitudes that allowed such behavior would not be tolerated.
Defenders of the military say the abuse was the work of a
few sadistic prison officers and overzealous intelligence
agents in Iraq, and some already are being disciplined.
Perhaps so. But their arguments do not explain a climate
that resulted in abuses from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay.
Now that the Pentagon has finally acknowledged the problem,
it needs to investigate thoroughly, punish those who
committed or tolerated abuses and implement safeguards to
prevent a recurrence.
Those steps could begin to repair the enormous damage the
scandal has caused.
____
[From the Los Angeles Times, May 4, 2004]
When We're the Evildoers in Iraq: With Immoral U.S. Leadership, Is It
so Shocking To Find Torturers in the Ranks?
(By Robert Scheer)
President Bush is again refusing to take responsibility for
any of the horrors happening on his watch. This time it is
the abuse of Iraqi prisoners carried out by low-ranking
military police working under the direct guidance of military
intelligence officers and shadowy civilian mercenaries. Our
president launched this war with the promise to the Iraqi
people of ``no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The
tyrant will soon be gone.'' What went wrong?
The president has called the now-exposed pattern of
violence an isolated crime performed by ``a few people.'' Yet
the Pentagon's own investigation of the incident shows that
not only was the entire Abu Ghraib prison out of control, it
was the MPs' immediate military superiors who ``directly or
indirectly'' authorized ``sadistic, blatant and wanton
criminal abuses'' of the prisoners as a way to break them in
advance of formal interrogations.
``Military intelligence interrogators and other U.S.
government agency interrogators actively requested that MP
guards set physical and mental conditions for favorable
interrogation of witnesses,'' says the report. The report,
completed in March and kept secret until it was revealed on
the New Yorker website Friday, also stated that a civilian
contractor employed by a Virginia company called CACI
``clearly knew his instructions'' to the MPs called for
physical abuse.
Furthermore, in a statement released Friday, Amnesty
International reported that in its extensive investigations
into human rights in post-invasion Iraq, it ``has received
frequent reports of torture or other ill treatment by
coalition forces during the past year,'' including during
interrogations, and that ``virtually none of the allegations
of torture or ill treatment has been adequately investigated
by the authorities.''
Recall that a key excuse for the U.S. invasion was to
ensure the safety of Iraqi scientists and others in the know
so that they might feel free to reveal the location of
weapons of mass destruction or evidence of Saddam Hussein's
potential ties to Al Qaeda. Shockingly, some of those
scientists are now in coalition prisons, even though the
weapons clearly don't exist.
In this context, of course, it makes sense that U.S.
interrogators would feel enormous pressure to use any means
necessary to verify the absurd claims made so aggressively by
the president and his Cabinet before the war. Far from the
jurisdiction of the U.S. legal system, they apparently felt
quite free to approve techniques clearly banned by war crimes
statutes.
Yet, astonishingly, weeks after the Pentagon's own damning
internal report on the torture at Abu Ghraib, and several
days after CBS' ``60 Minutes II'' broke open the story
worldwide by showing those horrific photos, Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld still had not been briefed on the report,
a spokesman said Sunday. Similarly, the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, admitted Sunday that
he hadn't yet bothered to read the 53-page report filed by
Army Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, even though he had
successfully requested that CBS delay its ``inflammatory''
broadcast. This shows far more concern for public relations
than for finding out the truth.
How could it be that the top officials responsible for the
military were not themselves interested in keeping abreast of
the investigation--even after the story had exploded into a
global scandal?
After all, an ambitious promise to bring democracy and the
rule of law to Iraq became the ex post facto rationale for
the invasion, once it became clear that the earlier claims of
weapons of mass destruction and Hussein ties to Al Qaeda were
a fraud.
So it should have been a clear and high priority to make
certain that Iraqi prisoners incarcerated in Hussein's most
infamous prison did not receive the same brand of ``justice''
the dictator had been doling out for decades. That they did
is now a deep and dirty stain on the reputation of this
nation.
Yes, it's great that we are still worlds away from being
Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia or Hussein's Iraq.
We are a free society in which, it is hoped, truth
eventually comes out, and thanks to what seems to be one
brave whistle-blowing soldier and a responsible officer to
whom he reported the torture, these crimes have come to
light. Those are the acts of true heroes, and we should be
proud of them.
Yet, before we go overboard in celebrating our virtues,
let's admit that Americans too can be ``evildoers,''
especially when we embrace, as the president consistently has
done, the terribly dangerous idea that the ends justify the
means.
The ultimate cost of a foreign policy based on blatant
lies, and that equates military might with what is right, is
that the brute in all of us will not inevitably lie dormant.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
be printed in the Congressional Record immediately before the vote on
the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
This is an important resolution, and I think it is fitting we have
this debate on this. But I would remind my friends on the other side of
the aisle that we have a system here where we break down this big body
into committees. That is the proper way we get to the heart of some of
the issues that confront us. And I just talked to the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services, and they are going to have hearings on
this. There will be probably several hearings as this process goes
through, and I suspect that there will be probably some other
committees that will find out if they will have jurisdiction and will
look at that.
So I just want to say that this is a start of a process that we need
to address. Everybody is outraged by what happened over there with that
small group of individuals in Iraq. That is not America, and we all
know that. We all know that is not America, and that is why I think
this resolution will be pass with strong bipartisan support.
And I would say this, Mr. Speaker: I thought the President, in his
two interviews with the Arab TV stations, said it very well. He was
very forthright. And in many respects, what we are just saying here
today is a message to the Iraqis and to the Middle East that our form
of government and the form of government they are struggling to have,
does not condone what went on, and I think that is a very strong
message.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out a couple of
things.
First of all, hearings are not investigations, and a lot of us feel
that what we are doing here is just kind of shirking our
responsibility. So a vote for the previous question means a vote
against bipartisan congressional investigations. No one on the other
side has yet explained to us why, in fact, a bipartisan investigation
is a bad idea, why we should not be allowed to do our job. That is what
we are asking for here.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I
appreciate what the gentleman is asking for, and as I mentioned in my
remarks, we do have a committee system. The chairman of the committee
said that there are going to be those investigations, and I suspect
there will be others that will look at it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that
we
[[Page H2678]]
have a committee system, but it is not a substitute for debate and
amendment on the floor of the House, even to debate whether or not we
do this and the substance. The committee system should not be something
behind which you hide to avoid debate that you might find
uncomfortable.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would
just remind my friend that we do not know what is going to come out of
these hearings. There may be some legislation that comes out. It will
go through the process, and if there is something, it will get to the
floor and we will have that debate.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the
gentleman the committees are the servants of the House, not the other
way around. The committees exist to do the will of the House. The full
democratic House does not wait for the committees.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
In the resolution strike ``and (2)'' and insert the
following:
``(2) the amendment specified in Section 2 of this
resolution if offered by Representative Skelton of Missouri
or a designee, which shall be in order without intervention
of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall
be separately debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3)''
At the end of the resolution add the following:
Sec. 2. The amendment referred to in the first section of
the resolution is as follows:
At the end of H. Res. 627 strike ``nation.'', insert in
lieu thereof ``nation;'' and add the following:
``(11) affirms the need for bipartisan Congressional
investigations to be conducted immediately into these
allegations of abuse, including those by U.S. civilian
contractor personnel, or other U.S. civilians, and into the
chain of command and other systemic deficiencies, including
the command atmosphere that contributed to such abuse.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution, and then on the motion to instruct
conferees on H.R. 2443 by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner),
and then on the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 402 debated
yesterday.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 201, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 147]
YEAS--218
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--201
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--14
Baca
Bono
Boyd
DeMint
Greenwood
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Lewis (KY)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Saxton
Solis
Tauzin
Wilson (SC)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1258
Mr. HOEFFEL and Ms. ESHOO changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 147 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
[[Page H2679]]
____________________