[Mb-civic] A Failure of Accountability

[Michael Butler]

A Failure of Accountability




 Sunday, August 29, 2004; Page B06

 ONLY A FEW years ago, it seemed the slightest suggestion of malfea- sance
by a presidential administration -- allegations of tampering with a minor
administrative office, say, or indications that a cabinet secretary might
have understated the amount of money given to a former girlfriend -- could
trigger a formidable response from the other two branches of government:
grand juries, special prosecutors, endless congressional hearings, even
impeachment proceedings. Some of that auditing, especially during the
Clinton administration, went too far. Yet now the country faces a
frightening inversion of the problem. Though there is strong evidence of
faulty and even criminal behavior by senior military commanders and members
of President Bush's cabinet in the handling of foreign detainees, neither
Congress nor the justice system is taking adequate steps to hold those
officials accountable.

Investigations by the Army, including one completed last week, could result
in prosecution or disciplinary action for up to 50 persons involved in the
abuse of Iraqi prisoners. But almost all are low-ranking soldiers; the most
senior officer to be targeted is a female reserve brigadier general, who
plausibly argues she has been scapegoated by higher-ranking officers. The
military investigations and a separate probe by a panel picked by Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have issued reports making it clear that senior
commanders in Iraq and the civilian leadership at the Pentagon also bear
specific responsibility for an affair that has gravely damaged the U.S.
mission in Iraq and American prestige around the world. But no court,
prosecutor or disciplinary panel is even considering action against these
top officials. Only one more congressional hearing, by the Senate Armed
Services Committee, is planned.

What's particularly troubling about this breakdown of checks and balances is
that some of the most disturbing behavior by senior officials has yet to be
thoroughly investigated. For example, Mr. Rumsfeld is now known to have
approved, in December 2002, the use of dogs to frighten detainees under
interrogation. That technique, which was immediately adopted in Afghanistan
and later in Iraq, was described by Army Maj. Gen. George R. Fay as "a clear
violation of applicable laws and regulations." Mr. Rumsfeld has also
publicly acknowledged that he ordered that some prisoners in Iraq not be
registered with the International Red Cross, an unambiguous violation of
Army regulations and the Geneva Conventions. Yet Mr. Rumsfeld has never been
called upon to explain these actions to legal investigators or to Congress.

The former commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, also issued an
interrogation policy allowing the illegal use of dogs. Subsequently, he
testified under oath to Congress that he had never approved this or other
illegal measures listed above his signature. No formal criminal or
administrative action against him is under consideration. Former CIA
director George J. Tenet, according to Mr. Rumsfeld, requested that
detainees in Iraq be concealed from the Red Cross. According to Gen. Fay's
investigation, CIA operatives abused detainees, introduced improper
interrogation methods to the theater and contributed substantially to the
breakdown of discipline at Abu Ghraib. Yet the only investigation of the
agency and its leaders is being conducted by its own inspector general.

When the prisoner abuse allegations first became public in May, many members
of Congress, including several senior Republicans, vowed to pursue the
evidence up the chain of command and not to allow low-ranking reservists to
be prosecuted while more senior officials escaped sanction. Yet, as matters
now stand, Mr. Rumsfeld, Gen. Sanchez and other senior officials are poised
to execute just such an escape. When the scandal began, these leaders told
Congress they were prepared to accept responsibility for the wrongdoing. As
it turns out, they didn't mean that in any substantive respect. Their dodge
shames not only them but the legal and legislative bodies charged with
enforcing accountability.

 © 2004 The Washington Post Company