Rumsfeld caused violations of Geneva
Convention
The Washington Post
Thursday, May 6, 2004; Page A34
(Mr. Rumsfeld's
Responsibility)
THE HORRIFIC abuses by American interrogators and guards at
the Abu Ghraib prison and at other facilities maintained by the
U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan can be traced, in part, to
policy decisions and public statements of Secretary of Defense
Donald H. Rumsfeld. Beginning more than two years ago, Mr.
Rumsfeld decided to overturn decades of previous practice by the
U.S. military in its handling of detainees in foreign countries.
His Pentagon ruled that the United States would no longer be
bound by the Geneva Conventions; that Army regulations on the
interrogation of prisoners would not be observed; and that many
detainees would be held incommunicado and without any independent
mechanism of review. Abuses will take place in any prison system.
But Mr. Rumsfeld's decisions helped create a lawless regime in
which prisoners in both Iraq and Afghanistan have been
humiliated, beaten, tortured and murdered -- and in which, until
recently, no one has been held accountable.
The lawlessness began in January 2002 when Mr. Rumsfeld
publicly declared that hundreds of people detained by U.S. and
allied forces in Afghanistan "do not have any rights" under the
Geneva Conventions. That was not the case: At a minimum, all
those arrested in the war zone were entitled under the
conventions to a formal hearing to determine whether they were
prisoners of war or unlawful combatants. No such hearings were
held, but then Mr. Rumsfeld made clear that U.S. observance of
the convention was now optional. Prisoners, he said, would be
treated "for the most part" in "a manner that is reasonably
consistent" with the conventions -- which, the secretary breezily
suggested, was outdated.
In one important respect, Mr. Rumsfeld was correct: Not only
could captured al Qaeda members be legitimately deprived of
Geneva Convention guarantees (once the required hearing was held)
but such treatment was in many cases necessary to obtain vital
intelligence and prevent terrorists from communicating with
confederates abroad. But if the United States was to resort to
that exceptional practice, Mr. Rumsfeld should have established
procedures to ensure that it did so without violating
international conventions against torture and that only suspects
who truly needed such extraordinary handling were treated that
way. Outside controls or independent reviews could have provided
such safeguards. Instead, Mr. Rumsfeld allowed detainees to be
indiscriminately designated as beyond the law -- and made humane
treatment dependent on the goodwill of U.S. personnel.
Much of what has happened at the U.S. detention center in
Guantanamo Bay is shrouded in secrecy. But according to an
official Army report, a system was established at the camp under
which military guards were expected to "set the conditions" for
intelligence investigations. The report by Maj. Gen. Antonio M.
Taguba says the system was later introduced at military
facilities at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan and the Abu Ghraib
prison in Iraq, even though it violates Army regulations
forbidding guards to participate in interrogations.
The Taguba report and others by human rights groups reveal
that the detention system Mr. Rumsfeld oversees has become so
grossly distorted that military police have abused or tortured
prisoners under the direction of civilian contractors and
intelligence officers outside the military chain of command --
not in "exceptional" cases, as Mr. Rumsfeld said Tuesday, but
systematically. Army guards have held "ghost" prisoners detained
by the CIA and even hidden these prisoners from the International
Red Cross. Meanwhile, Mr. Rumsfeld's contempt for the Geneva
Conventions has trickled down: The Taguba report says that guards
at Abu Ghraib had not been instructed on them and that no copies
were posted in the facility.
The abuses that have done so much harm to the U.S. mission in
Iraq might have been prevented had Mr. Rumsfeld been responsive
to earlier reports of violations. Instead, he publicly dismissed
or minimized such accounts. He and his staff ignored detailed
reports by respected human rights groups about criminal activity
at U.S.-run prisons in Afghanistan, and they refused to provide
access to facilities or respond to most questions. In December
2002, two Afghan detainees died in events that were ruled
homicides by medical officials; only when the New York Times
obtained the story did the Pentagon confirm that an investigation
was underway, and no results have yet been announced. Not until
other media obtained the photos from Abu Ghraib did Mr. Rumsfeld
fully acknowledge what had happened, and not until Tuesday did
his department disclose that 25 prisoners have died in U.S.
custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accountability for those deaths
has been virtually nonexistent: One soldier was punished with a
dishonorable discharge.
On Monday Mr. Rumsfeld's spokesman said that the secretary had
not read Mr. Taguba's report, which was completed in early March.
Yesterday Mr. Rumsfeld told a television interviewer that he
still hadn't finished reading it, and he repeated his view that
the Geneva Conventions "did not precisely apply" but were only
"basic rules" for handling prisoners. His message remains the
same: that the United States need not be bound by international
law and that the crimes Mr. Taguba reported are not, for him, a
priority. That attitude has undermined the American military's
observance of basic human rights and damaged this country's
ability to prevail in the war on terrorism.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
|