The only half-way newsworthy comment from Bush’s War College speech was his stated commitment to tear down the Abu Ghraib prison. Frankly, I don’t have a strong feeling about this either way. For what it’s worth, I think Bush made a relatively compelling argument.
“A new Iraq will also need a humane, well-supervised prison system. Under the dictator, prisons like Abu Ghraib were symbols of death and torture. That same prison became a symbol of disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values. America will fund the construction of a modern, maximum security prison. When that prison is completed, detainees at Abu Ghraib will be relocated. Then, with the approval of the Iraqi government, we will demolish the Abu Ghraib prison, as a fitting symbol of Iraq’s new beginning.”
That doesn’t sound unreasonable. On the other hand, it does point to a self-serving solution to a problem. Abu Ghraib is the “scene of the crime,” so destroying it could look like the last step in what is already viewed as a massive cover-up.
The Iraqis, who’s opinion on the matter should carry some weight, don’t seem all that anxious to destroy the facility. Indeed, members of the Iraqi Governing Council have “discussed the possibility of turning part or all of it into a museum.” Some of those same members see little need to spend limited resources on destroying a symbol.
Whichever side you’re on, it’s worth noting that Bush’s speech left out a key detail: it’ll be a long time before the wrecking ball arrives. The administration doesn’t have the money.
White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said U.S. taxpayers will finance a second prison to replace Abu Ghraib. She said there is sufficient flexibility within the $18.4 billion in Iraq reconstruction aid approved in October to build the prison.
But Tim Rieser, a Democratic aide on the Senate Appropriations foreign operations subcommittee, which is monitoring the reconstruction, said Bush would have to consult Congress on such a large transfer of money. “For all intents and purposes, the money is not there,” Rieser said.
The White House needs to be awfully careful about perceived “flexibility” in congressional appropriations. They’ve had some trouble with this before.
Regardless, even if Bush wants to follow through on his promise, he may not even be in office by the time the prison is actually razed.
It is clear that Bush’s dramatic promise to raze Abu Ghraib will take quite some time to fulfill. The prison — notorious for torture and killing during Saddam Hussein’s reign and a still-growing prisoner abuse scandal under U.S. control — will not be torn down until its replacement is ready, Bush said. And aides in Congress and the occupation authority said construction of a bare-bones facility would take 18 months to two years.
If the White House intends the new prison to be “a showcase for progressive Western penal thinking,” it may take longer to build health, athletic and rehabilitation facilities along with the cellblocks, a House Republican aide said.
By then, won’t the new Iraqi “government” be responsible for such internal decisions?