How Much Did Rumsfeld Know?

How Much Did
US Secretary of Defence
Donald Rumsfeld Know?

It's Saturday night; March fifth, just three days after the formal lawsuit of US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, for violations of both the Fifth Amendment, the Eight Amendment and the Constitution was filed.

“Who was responsible for the abuse that took place behind these walls? This is the infamous Abu Ghraib prison. Last year it showed up shocking treatment of some Iraqi inmates. Charges that were repeated by other prisoners of ”the war on terrorism“. But who to blame?”

These were the exact words, as uttered by the BBCs Washington correspondent, Ian Pannell, and the same words that made me wonder exactly how much Donald Rumsfeld knew.

“Now two human rights groups say the [line of responsibility] stops at the top, with the defense secretary, and they've filed a lawsuit to try and prove it.

[...] The Pentagon insists that Mr. Rumsfeld neither approved nor condoned the abuse. There have been eight investigations to date, and although a number of people have been disciplined, none of a senior rank. The administration insists its policy is to treat the detainees humanly. Their critics continue to think otherwise. Ian Pannel, BBC News, Washington.”

Yet at first it all seemed like a small matter, especially in regards of the especially tense political situation facing the world as of today. But even so, something about this case did trouble me; and in some way tickled my curiosity.

Perhaps inspired by Bernard-Henri Lévys book, investigating the murder of the US journalist Daniel Pearl, a well-known kidnap and assassination case of 2002. Perhaps it's a curiosity that's integrated in me, like when I, like so many other youngsters, used to play detective in my earliest years. Or perhaps the field of investigating journalism is just one of the fields of journalism I need to explore before getting to know my final choice of career.

Whatever it was that led me down the gloomy road of investigating journalism to find out just how much the Secretary of Defense knew about the abuse and torture conducted by both the US' and its allies' military forces within the Abu Ghraib and Guatanamo Bay prisons; I knew I that when given the opportunity, I would try as hard as possible to find out.

The first person that was presented to me as a representative of the Plaintiffs was the representative for one of the two human rights organizations, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); also featured in the BBC programme. His view, as stated in the BBC-edited statement was as follows:

“Secretary Rumsfeld knew full well that his orders was causing torture, and he knew that torture was occurring on a widespread basis, yet he did not stop it. Based on those acts, and that knowledge he violated the law, and he is legally responsible for the abuse and torture that occurred.”

These are strong words, and harsh allegations, which quickly led me to the conclusion that “this better be well documented”. I'll admit that my respect and belief in the US Government is limited, and I do think that the War on Iraq was unjust. I do believe that the US Government was fully aware of the great possibility of not finding weapons of mass destruction within the region. I also believe that the intel reports prior to the war, regarding these WMDs may very well have been forged.

Even so, I tend to see myself as a realist, rather than a conspiracy-developer, or even a person believing in such. I don't believe the moon landing was staged (though it very well could be) neither do I believe the September 11. Pentagon strike was staged, even though some sources tend to have believable remedies to make you think it was (http://gprime.net/flash.php/911pentagonstrikeconspiracy).

And as a realist; my immediate thoughts regarding the lawsuit were that “yes, the ACLU does make a good point, Donald Rumsfeld should've stopped the abuse of prisoners, something should have been done sooner. But still, could it really be as bad as the ACLU claims? Does this man, this single individual bear the responsibility for so much cruelty? Could one person be able to do so, and yet be able to sleep well at night, knowing he himself had the power to make it stop? Perhaps the Pentagon is right; perhaps there is some sort of justification for the decisions made from the desk of Donald Rumsfeld. Perhaps he did not know or maybe chose not to know. In that case, would that be proper justification to allow it to continue?”

-*-

The war on terrorism has been a hot potato, so to speak, ever since the term was introduced in the months after the terrorist attacks on New York on the September 11th 2001. Above all, what differs this war from others in history is the enormous media attention it's received. Firstly, this is due to the technical advances given during the later years. But furthermore it is also a case of enormous media attention. The 9/11 attacks were carefully planned, and the World Trade Centers were not only chosen as described in Usama Bin Ladens speech, as first broadcasted by the AlJazeera in the days before the 2003 US presidential election:

“And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressors in kind and that we destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.”

In my opinion, the choice of the WTC as terrorist targets were also a genius choice, due to the fact that the twin towers were popular landmarks, and there were a great certainty that there would be several TV cameras focused on them, and in turn the terrorist attack at all times.

As we all know, the 9/11 attacks resulted in the US Government, as led by president George W. Bush chose to go to war against the Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Of course, the war had it's negative sides, firstly, the war was to claim the lives of thousands of civilians, further on, the war was seen upon by many as a war the US engaged in for all the wrong reasons; revenge, oil and a showoff of power was some of the terms used in the criticism against the US. But regardless of the criticism, the US went to war against Afghanistan.

Once the allied forces had entered Afghanistan, and started the war on terrorism, and “hunt” for Usama Bin Laden, the US Government started it's gathering of intel regarding weapons of mass destruction, the WMDs. At first this Intel mainly regarded the Taliban forces in Afghanistan, but within a short amount of time, the WMD intel was more and more focused on WMDs within Iraq. Soon the Bush administration was talking ever so loudly about a second war against Iraq, on the accusations of these WMDs.

Whilst the US seemed more and more eager to go to war, others were more skeptical. What exactly were these weapons of mass destruction? Anthrax? A-bombs? Especially France opposed the idea of the US war on terrorism on Iraqi soil. Even the United Nations refused to give their blessing to the war, without more evidence of WMD.

Well, even so, the US, still led by president Bush jr. went to war against Iraq. A war that, as previously said should prove to be one of the most media-influenced ever. Whilst CNN publicly stated to be at war, at the same level as the government itself, the AlJazeera claimed to be fully objective. But at this point, I'd like to refer to the Norwegian journalist Audhild Gregoriusdotter Rotevatn's comments on the difference between the “Iraq-coverage” delivered by the CNN and AlJazeera.

“The thing is, there are a lot of things that colors our objectivity. For instance, different situations of ownership may change the content of stories in the same way as the cultural background may do so. We are all wearing different ”cultural glasses“ through which we see the world. As Norwegians, we're likely to look upon the CNN as the most neutral information deliverer in the Iraq-war, since the American culture is more like our own, whilst a person living in Syria is more likely to look upon AlJazeera as the most neutral.”

She also pointed to the fact that CNN, and other western media, was offered so-called “ride-alongs” with US troops within the region. And of course this was to color the reports these journalists were to broadcast even further. My guess is that in a decade or two, these reports will most probably be looked upon as bordering more or less to propaganda.

This showed to be both a positive and a negative influence on the war, as seen by the US government. On one hand, the CNN (not to mention FOX News)'s devotion to its government made it very easy for them to change the focal point of the war from the WMD-focus to the Saddam Hussein-focus. Via American network medias, the American government was able to make the entire western world forget the main reasons for the war, and turn the Iraq war into a “quest to freedom and democracy”.

Soon, the hunt for Saddam Hussein was over, with the whole “we got him”-ceremony we all expected from the US Government, if Saddam Hussein in fact was to get caught. By now the war was so far ahead, that most critics had gotten to grips with the fact that there was no going back in terms of the war on Iraq. What mattered by now, was getting a new, functioning Iraqi government, and letting the allied forces return back home. Of course, critics were still pointing fingers at the US Government, mostly the same fingers as were pointed at the start of the war on Afghanistan. (Revenge, oil, money, power, show-off, etc.)

By now, the US tried as hard as possible to look good in the worldwide media. As the UK newspaper The Independent ran a story on the US restriction on publishing imagery regarding the home bringing of fallen soldiers of the Iraq war, the very same government was trying to hide all evidence of such restrictions. And what the US government wants, the US government seems to get, in terms of media coverage, and the casket-debate fell still after a few weeks, with the US regaining it's no-imagery-policy.

But then; catastrophe. The first images began to emerge. The Washington Post was amongst the first to run the pictures of naked and humiliated Iraqi prisoners. The images had emerged from the prison Abu Ghraib in Iraq. One of the most famous containing a young female US soldier, surnamed “English”, with a naked Iraqi detainee on a leach. The picture was part of a series.

What troubles me is the expression on ms. English's face. She's smiling. Like she's happy. Proud. But yet she isn't. In interviews following these pictures, English has stated that she was following orders. That she wasn't aware of what she was doing (or at least not the consequences). But looking at the pictures, I can't seem to find the look in her eyes, which would be the one of someone simply following orders. What would the orders be? “Humiliate that prisoner, Ms English.” “Yes sir!” Not very likely.

But what other explanations could there be? Could she be doing this of her own free will? Does she enjoy doing this? No. That, I'm sure of. The look in her eyes is not the look of a sadist. Even so, people close to ms. English, has stated that she was not the kind of person who could do such acts of her own free will. (But yet again, this has been said before, about vicious mass-murderers, serial-rapists and pedophiles.)

In fact, the whole case seemed all so troubling; there was this uncertainty as to who knew what was going on. Why it was going on. Was this the same hatred as the Nazis showed towards the Jews during the Second World War? Was this simply the American military's way of mental breakdown against the Iraqi forces? Why, then would the US Government take so much effort to conceal these pictures? No, there was something else. Something that seemed, and still seems, quite strange to me.

And did Donald Rumsfeld know of these pictures, or even of the abuse that was occurring within the bars of the Abu Ghraib prison? This was the same question raised by many at the time, and the same question that remains the basis for the now-raised lawsuit against Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense of the United States of America; by plaintiffs Arkan Mohammed Ali, Thahe Mohammed Sabbar, Sherzad Kamal Khalid, Ali H., Mehboob Ahmad, Said Nabi Siddiqi, Mohammed Karim Sirullah and Haji Abdul Rahman.

On march the 1st, the same day I started working on this project, the previously mentioned plaintiffs, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First filed a lawsuit to the federal district court in Illinois, charging US Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld personally for violations on both the US Constitution and international laws against “torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

The news of the lawsuit spread fast, and within hours the story was broadcasted worldwide. Amongst the first were Reuters, bringing a full two pages on the story, as early as March the 1st at 12:07 PM CET, only hours after the lawsuit was filed. But even though the article was filed with no definite identification of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, just quotes by “sources familiar with the case”, it wasn’t hard to figure that part out. This leak of information by the ACLU or HRF was probably a good thing, seen through the eyes of the US Government. The Reuters story gave them the time needed to put the finishing touches on the Defense Secretary's own speech of defense. Well, not Mr. Rumsfelds own that is, rather than the Pentagon's. Even so, the Pentagon was early on, defending Donald Rumsfeld. This of course gives the public the impression that the official reply to such accusations was by the time written and typed up.

And it probably was, because shortly after the news conference later that day, the Pentagon seemed to have all the answers and all the “no comments” in order. But then again, there seemed to be very little of the latter sort from the Pentagon. To them, the most important thing was to state, as early on as possible that Donald Rumsfeld neither condoled nor allowed any abuse of Iraqi nor Afghan prisoners. Nor the Guatanomo Bay, where prisoners shortly before had been released, and was also telling stories of torture and abuse by the US-led forces.

But as previously said, my mission here is to try to find out how much Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld knew of the alleged abuse of prisoners in US detention facilities. And did abuse occur in these facilities? Well, the latter is probably a given, ever since the US government itself has admitted to the abuse. What the Pentagon has been more reluctant to admit, on the other hand, is that the abuse occurred following the “December Rumsfeld Techniques”* (####* The “December Rumsfeld Techniques” was a list of interrogation techniques, which Rumsfeld gave dispensation to use upon detainees at Guantanomo on December 2, 2002. This list was later on approved for usage upon detainees in Afghan and Iraqi prisons) or the interrogation methods set down by the “Working Group” on interrogation techniques, convened by General Counsel of the Dept. of Defense, as directed by Donald Rumsfeld (on January 15, 2003).

However, this is the very same set of interrogation techniques that’s put to blame by the lawsuit, filed by the ACLU and HRF (Pt. B.1 - 46. and 49). Even so, how could approved interrogation methods (though they did originate from banned ones) turn into “torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” as plaintiffs of the lawsuit is supposed to be exposed of? And could the scenes from the now ever so famous imagery from the Abu Ghraib prison really have originated from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld simply approving some borderline interrogation techniques? And if so, did Donald Rumsfeld really approve these techniques with this knowledge?

--*--

By now, it's march twenty-nine, and I've read most all there is to read about the Donald Rumsfeld case to try to figure out the answers to these questions. But before I draw any conclusions, I would like to sum up a little, the contents of both the 77-page lawsuit, the Pentagon's response to the allegations and not least some of the documentation, in forms of letters, memos, e-mails and reports, from within the US Government.

14358. This was the detainee number assigned to Ali H. the 19 year old Iraqi high school student, when he was admitted to prison within the Iraqi borders, for approx. four weeks from August to September 2003. During this period he was supposed to be refused his medications in order to cause as much pain as possible, and to scare him. Even humiliate him. And after having undergone surgery; the US military forcefully dragged him from one location to another; before ripping off his bandages, and exposing his wounds to infection. And to top it off, the US military denied this poor soul enough food and water.

Similar stories are the ones of detainee no. 655, 676, 821, 819, 115319, 11676 and 12537; the other plaintiffs of the lawsuit, according to the much more formally formatted complaint, aimed directly at Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. And after seeing the Abu Ghraib pictures, and reading the stories from Guantanomo Bay, - Who wouldn't believe their stories? We know that there occurred abuse within US detention facilities. But were they torture or interrogation? And were they following Donald Rumsfeld orders?

The ACLU and HRF think so. Therefore, they choose to do whatever is within their power to defend their views; that Donald Rumsfeld is the bad guy, and that he chose to deliberately cause harm to prisoners on foreign soil. Well, the US government begs to differ. In their view, there was never a policy to abuse prisoners. Such would be un-American, and a degrease for the country. And they too have the material to prove it. To quote the Defense Department statement following the Rumsfeld lawsuit:

“There have been multiple investigations into the various aspects of detainee abuse. None have concluded there was a policy of abuse.”

And it's true. There has been several; mostly FBI-backed investigations into the matter, ever since the Abu Ghraib imagery started to appear. And all have concluded that there was no high-ranking involvement in the abuse of prisoners.

So what do the ACLU and HRF know that the FBI doesn't? Well, according to the paperwork handed over to me from the ACLU: -Nothing. According to the ACLU, it's the other way around. That the FBI actively tried to hide information from the public eye, information regarding the December Rumsfeld Techniques, amongst other things.

Amongst the information present in the US mail logs, is a thread of communication between the DoD and the FBI where the DoD states that [...] DoD is against holding prisoners, threats of violence and techniques meant to humiliating detainees (there is a list of these [the writer] have seen). (Probably referring to either the December Rumsfeld Techniques or one of the reports of detainee abuse)

To which the FBI replies:

“We need to be careful here. Everyone should pay particular attention to the distinctions between allegations of abuse and the use of techniques which fall outside of FBI/DOJ training and policy.” (Under which category the December Rumsfeld Techniques falls) “As I stated in my email yesterday, I am not aware of any credible allegations of abuse by anyone in GTMO.”
But, the FBI does admit to having faced some resistance against the usage of the techniques.

“Our Behavioral Assessment Unit (BAU) disagreed with the use of specific techniques in the case of [X] as they opined that the techniques would not be successful and they would produce unreliable results. BAU did not make any allegations of abuse that I am aware of.”

The email thread was rated as sensitive but unclassified. But it's not just the FBI to blame here, according to the mailing logs. Another mail reveals the DoD impersonating the FBI, probably in order to press detainees for information.

“Of concern, DOD Interrogators impersonating Supervisory Special Agents of the FBI told a detainee [SENCORED]. These same interrogation teams then [SENCORED]. The detainee was also told by this interrogation team [SENCORED].

”These tactics have produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature to date and CITF believe that techniques have destroyed any chance of prosecuting the detainee.

“If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [by] the ”FBI“ interrogators. The FBI will be left holding the bag before the public.”

And it's these two emails, in my opinion, that makes the main indicator that there might be some truth to the ACLU/HRF allegations. At least regarding weather or not the US government actively tried to hide the information from the public; and that there DID occur illegal interrogation techniques within foreign detention facilities.

What I'm not quite convinced of, however, is that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is solely to blame for it. Though it's plausible that he did know of the abuse, and did everything in his power to stop it from making the news, there still is reasonable doubt that this is what happened:

September the 11th, the United States is being attacked, followed by the war on Afghanistan. Somehow, the Bush administration thereafter goes to war against Iraq (a subject I could dwell long and hard over, but chooses not to). During the Iraqi war, Donald Rumsfeld starts getting reports of prisoners not willing to deliver intelligence material to the US government.

Pressured by the president promises to capture former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein and Usama Bin Laden, Donald Rumsfeld seeks guidance, probably informally, from former military activists within the US government. These probably tell him that the only way of getting intel from detainees is by using “unconventional” methods - torture.

As tension grows, Donald Rumsfeld watches as interrogators still come up blank on intel, using standard techniques. Meanwhile, in Iraq, the interrogators get frustrated by the prisoners, and press a bit harder for intel. Probably influenced by the (equally illegal) usage of non-standard techniques at Guantanomo Bay.

Still, pressured, Donald Rumsfeld ignores the reports following the abuse, as it does get the intel he needs, allowing it to continue. Though he knows that if the stories of illegal abuse get to the media, he'll be putting his own career on the line, and decides to set down a committee to make a controlled list of efficient, though unconventional interrogation techniques - the December Rumsfeld Techniques. That way he will not continue to receive reports of unauthorized interrogation methods, as they are now authorized for use under special circumstances.

In Iraq, the interrogators who first try out these techniques, sees this as an efficient way of gathering intel, and puts the techniques in use whenever they get stuck in the interrogation process... As it becomes clear that the techniques really IS efficient; it starts to get normal treatment.

And then the reports start showing up at Donald Rumsfelds desk, yet again. Only this time, the techniques are authorized... There is nothing he can do about that, except pulling back... But why would he? The methods are efficient; and the US government needs the intel in their “hunt for Usama”.

So, the implementation of the December Rumsfeld Techniques within foreign-based detention facilities continue; and even develops into what we have all seen from the “Abu Ghraib” imagery. Of course, since the US Government doesn't stop it. Donald Rumsfeld probably isn't even aware of the scale of which his interrogation techniques are being used. All he knows is that it works; and hey, his job is to help the president in defending the nation; hereunder gathering intelligence material. If this means using unconventional techniques, so be it...

But every good thing has its end. The end of the incoming stream of intel being the Red Cross investigations, uncovering these interrogation techniques as torture. The Red Cross reports back to the DoD... At this point, Donald Rumsfeld probably knows he has a problem. He knows that if the report gets to the media, things will really start to look bad. So what to do?

He tries to hide it. He starts to classify internal documents, and defending the actions by US officials in Iraq, not quite knowing the scale of abuse. And it seems to work, especially since the US media isn't exactly known for putting too much pressure on its government.

But then the bubble bursts... It all started when the Washington Post published the first pictures from Abu Ghraib. The imagery, which by now should be quite familiar to everyone, sparked a series of investigations by reporters, the FBI and of course ACLU and HRF. The rest is history...

So to round it all off: I do not think that Donald Rumsfeld is innocent in all of this; there’s too much evidence to prove the contrary. But it is possible that Donald Rumsfeld was not fully aware of the consequences of his actions. Not only is this a possible conclusion. I think it is also the most plausible one; taken into consideration, the fact that in order to do what the ACLU and HRF accuses Donald Rumsfeld of; you would have to be extraordinary cynical and almost evil, for motives that's for me quite unclear... Features I do not think that Mr. Rumsfeld hold, even though his high position in the US Government. ;)

J.A --------