I’m looking at a copy of the Senate Armed Services Committee report entitled “Inquiry Into the Treatment Of Detainees In U.S. Custody, November 20, 2008 (Released, April 22, 2009).
I’ve read some passages near the end about Captain Donovan’s protests within the chain of command, it seems, against the justifications and just of certain tactics. It was his opinion that it would threaten the very programs seemingly used to justify the tactics. The implication as I read it, is that these tactics threatened the safety of U.S. troops in more than one way: by invalidating the programs the tactics evolved out of, which were meant to protect U.S. personnel, and by threatening U.S. personnel in that such tactics might be more likely to be used against now that the U.S. was applying them to perceived and alleged enemies.
This was in 2003.
Now, others have read much more of this report and are doing much more thorough reporting. This is where the New York Times shines, relatively, and the sort of subject McClatchy (and the spirit of Knight-Ridder) does well. Salon is on it… it’s all over. Go read.
- McClatchy: Abusive tactics were used to find Iraq-al Qaida link — a link that did not exist until after we showed up.
- NYT: Report Gives New Detail on Approval of Brutal Techniques
- NYT: In Adopting Harsh Tactics, No Inquiry Into Past Use
- Salon: Rumsfeld: Architect of torture
A lot of it seems to be tied to Rumsfeld in ways some might not have imagined, unless you were saved from typical American amnesia and recall Rumsfeld’s writing in the margins on directives regarding Abu Ghraib.
I’m stretched a bit thin with interests and obligations, otherwise I’d be digging into this. But others certainly seem to be on the ball. Looking at the time stamps on the RSS feeds that pushed some of these articles to me and at the embargo time on the paper copy of the report in front of me, I would say that these articles have been waiting in the wings and their authors have been reading this report all day.