When the Taguba report was released earlier this year, it noted that prisoners were sometimes hidden from international observers, a practice which the report described as “deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and in violation of international law.” Taguba, however, did not identify who was responsible for the policy, only that it occurred in Iraq.
This week, it was beginning to look like Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, was the culprit. U.S. News & World Report explained:
[Sanchez] issued a classified order last November directing military guards to hide a prisoner, later dubbed “Triple X” by soldiers, from Red Cross inspectors and keep his name off official rosters. The disclosure, by military sources, is the first indication that Sanchez was directly involved in efforts to hide prisoners from the Red Cross, a practice that was sharply criticized by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba in a report describing abuses of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.
Today we’ve learned that the decision to ignore the law and violate military procedures was actually made a little higher up.
Pentagon officials tell NBC News that late last year, at the same time U.S. military police were allegedly abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered that one Iraqi prisoner be held “off the books” — hidden entirely from the International Red Cross and anyone else — in possible violation of international law.
It’s the first direct link between Rumsfeld and questionable though not violent treatment of prisoners in Iraq.
In light of the administration’s belief that it is entirely above the law, this actually makes some sense. This is just the first evidence we’ve seen that Rumsfeld actually acted on such a belief.
I can’t wait to hear the defense for this one.
Pentagon officials claim it’s entirely lawful to hold prisoners in secret if they pose an immediate threat. But today, nearly one year after his capture, he’s still being held incommunicado.
In fact, once the prisoner was returned to Iraq, the interrogations ceased because the prisoner was entirely lost in the system.
Human rights critics call it a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Wait; it gets better.
Pentagon officials still insist Rumsfeld acted legally, but admit it all depends on how you interpret the law.
In other words, it depends on what the meaning of “criminal” is. I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried.
I also enjoyed the Wall Street Journal’s ability to state the obvious:
The off-the-books treatment of the detainee, coming in the face of the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq, is bound to increase the criticism fired at the Bush administration, which has been accused of thumbing its nose at international conventions regarding prisoner treatment.
Ya think?
Maybe Bush can remind us again today about what a “superb” Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is. In fact, the ideal would be for the president to mention it in past tense at Rumsfeld’s going-away party…