|
|
Commonwealth Club Town Hall Meeting on the Treatment of the Iraqi “Detainees”Jun 12 '04 Write an essay on this topic.
Popular Products in Books
The Bottom Line I hope to see our leaders embrace accountability and support international humanitarian law in our treatment of future detainees in this conflict.
I was lucky enough to attend a town hall meeting at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco about a week after the very disturbing photos of prisoner mistreatment in Iraq hit the media. The following is a summary of the points brought forth by the speakers and audience, with a minimum of editorializing by me. There was some research and extra fleshing out by me when notes were sketchy, or when more context was necessary. The impression I was left with after this discussion is the war is being fought as a war of semantics, which is something that, given my profession of writer/editor, disturbs me greatly. I've included my final thoughts on this topic after the discussion, as well as some websites you can visit for more information on some of the key points brought forth. I hope this provides some food for thought. AUDIENCE The audience for the town hall was, as Commonwealth Club events typically seem to be, aging Baby Boomers and older. A few rows in front of me, three mid-40s suburban women who had trekked in to the City via BART reconnected with their City-dwelling friend of the same age. Scattered through the 100-or-so people were quite a few white-haired gentleman, and several young 30somethings of both genders. Although this session was being recorded, it remains to be seen if it will be broadcast. PANELISTS: * Joan Kelley-Williams, Director, International & Armed Forces Emergency Services, Bay Area Chapter, American Red Cross * Michael Myatt, Ret. Major General, U.S. Marine Corps; CEO Marines Memorial Club * Craig Haney, primary researcher on the Stanford Prison Project and psychology professor at UC Santa Cruz. * Maziar Behrooz, Assistant Professor, History Department, San Francisco State University * Moderator: Dr. Gloria Duffy, CEO & President, The Commonwealth Club SUMMARY Since after World War II, International Humanitarian Law, and specifically the Geneva Conventions, has governed the treatment of combatants and civilians in wartime, with a focus on preventing the mistreatment of prisoners of war and citizens in areas under siege. The U.S. has approached this military action as being a war against terrorism and terrorists, and has asserted that because the combatants on the Iraq side are not uniformed soldiers fighting on the behalf of an incorporated state or country, they thus do not qualify for protection under the Geneva Conventions. Of course, despite not honoring the conventions in our treatment of those we fight against, we do expect American and Allied Forces soldiers to be treated in accordance with those laws. Joan Kelley-Williams spent significant time going through the Red Cross’ official process on reporting on prisoner conditions. Last year, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) conducted more than half a million visits with detainees in 80 countries (many of them repeat visits with the same prisoners), collecting information on their treatment. The ICRC feels that confidentiality is their key tool that allows them to have continued access to the prisoners and thus to be allowed to report on their treatment. Recently, their February report on the treatment of prisoners of war in Iraq was leaked to a wide variety of news outlets, provoking public outcry that this information had been kept from the public. Kelley-Williams reiterated the ICRC’s policy of not going public with their findings unless all other avenues are exhausted in trying to improve the treatment of the prisoners. The exception would be if the treatment was grossly unjust, “not to downplay the treatment in this case.” Michael Myatt, the retired major general, was a commander in the 1st Gulf War. He was the most compelling of the 4 panelists, the most engaging speaker. He feels that, once the details of abuse have come out, the military has been quick to react, dealing out court martials to the soldiers involved. Like many international observers, Myatt is disturbed that in this war, the captured opposing soldiers are referred to as “detainees”, not Enemy Prisoners of War (EPWs). He explained that the administration’s stance on the War has been that since these soldiers do not fight for an existing state, are not in uniform, etc., they thus do not qualify for protection under the Geneva Conventions. The precedence for this label of “detainees” was during 2002, during the conflict in Afghanistan, and the “war on terrorism”. The Geneva Conventions are taught to American soldiers early in their military training to ensure they know their rights if captured; thus, even in this conflict, with our interpretations of the enemy not having rights under international humanitarian law, our soldiers would most definitely be speaking out if their rights were not being upheld. Myatt feels this sets a dangerous precedent, and puts our soldiers at greater risk. After all, an enemy who is not being treated humanely has no incentive for treating our soldiers (or civilian contractors) with any care or dignity. Myatt talked at length about the way in which soldiers are supposed to be given mission orders, and how it would appear that is not what happened in Iraq, given the treatment that ensued. A mission order contains an all important WHY statement, which ensures the soldier knows what the result is that their actions are expected to produce, so that if they are unable to carry out the exact task they have been ordered to complete, they can extrapolate how to proceed. The example: A soldier is told to go to a river and destroy the bridge to prevent the enemy from crossing. The soldier gets there, and sees the bridge has already been destroyed, and thus seeks out other ways to ensure crossing is thwarted in that general area. Soldiers are rewarded for obedience, trusting their leadership. They seek approval of their leaders, and want their leaders to be happy. If the leadership is giving sloppy orders, or makes offhand comments that can be interpreted as orders, unintended consequences can ensue. Myatt told an anecdote at this juncture regarding his tour of duty in the first Gulf War. It was 110+ degrees in the desert. He made a comment that a Coke would sure be good right about now; within two hours, an ice cold Coke was in his hand, courtesy of his assistant hopping in a Jeep, driving to the nearest major town, and searching around for one. Hardly a good use of anyone’s time or resources, and not at all an action he intended to have happen. It was Myatt’s thought that an order along the lines of “find innovative ways to obtain information from the detainees”, combined with an overall lack of supervision by leadership, or, worse yet, tacit approval through their not stepping in and saying the behavior was inappropriate, is what ed to the situation at Abu Ghraib. Like many retired military personnel, he feels this failure of leadership is “the darkest stain in my lifetime. It has shamed us.” And that unless the leadership, not just low-level soldiers, are held accountable, we are discredited in the eyes of the international community. Craig Haney opened with a quip that would have elicited a snicker or two (I stifled mine), had the audience been less tense. He noted that Bush has said “These atrocities do not reflect the America I know”, to which Haney said, deadpan, “Perhaps that is true.” He spent a lot of time providing an overview of the Stanford Prison Experiment (see resources below), and on how destructive environments can quickly lead otherwise average people to feel that otherwise socially inappropriate behavior is perfectly acceptable and just. Unfortunately, Haney read his speech in a monotone, barely looking up from his notes, which caused me, and perhaps some of the other audience members, to zone out (I don’t think any Q&A questions, for instance, were directed his way.) The final panelist, Maziar Behrooz, opened by comparing the war effort and its leadership with the mismanagement of Enron. He noted, however, that with Enron, the higher up leaders were being held accountable. With the missteps in Iraq, however, no U.S. official has accepted or acknowledged any of the mistakes that have happened. Post 9/11, the U.S. had the sympathy and support of the World. Candlelight vigils were held even in places not traditionally U.S. friendly, such as Tehran. The U.S. took that international support and used it as justification to go after the Taliban, a quest that had at least some legal merit. However, when that was followed up with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which documents have confirmed was planned well in advance of 9/11, international support waned. Behrooz feels it is the arrogance of the United States, specifically of the Bush administration, that has caused the problems we are having in Iraq, and the international community. We have highly trained experts in our universities and think tanks, yet the administration is not listening to them when making policy decisions, decisions that conflict with international humanitarian law. He additionally cited new poll results that show that International sentiment is the United States – not nuclear weapons, or terrorists – is the greatest threat to World Peace. He additionally went on to compare the Iraq situation to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, which seemed to agitate several audience members, including the older gentleman seated in front of me. Q&A SESSION Q: Why did the photos make such an impact? Why didn’t the leaked ICRC report cause the same stir? A: The photographs were powerful, especially in what they implied about the norms of behavior within the military. MY ANSWER: Duh. The photographs, unlike the 24 page or longer reports, or multiple screens on analysis available on the Internet, are easy to digest. You don’t need a reporter to interpret for you what is happening in the photos and how you should feel about them. Q: Why are we using the word “abuse” and not “torture”? A: Semantics. International media is using “torture”, while U.S. media is using abuse, which is a less upsetting term. Myatt said her personally considers the behavior that has come to light to be accurately described by the terms torture, abuse, and degradation. MY ANSWER: Abuse is an incredibly defused word. Americans have gotten used to ignoring and making excuses for abuse. The best example of this would be the term “spousal abuse”, a term Americans ignore in their newspapers on a daily basis. Q: The New York Times notes that civilian translators and interpreters are subject to neither military nor Iraqi law, yet they are placed into pseudo military roles, especially with the prisoners. How/why did this happen? A: In World War II, such “contractors” would have been called “mercenaries”, or would have become part of the active military while carrying out their duties, rather than having been allowed to function outside of any visible means of military leadership and supervision. A reason for this may have been due to the Congressional watch on troop strength and military spending. Contractors in this war, like independent contractors for Fortune 500 companies, don’t show up on the books as ongoing personnel expense. This is a shortsighted workaround for many reasons, including contractors’ potential to embarrass the United States. For example, the contractors who were killed and drug through the streets were driving around without any sort of military escort. So, we avoid congressional oversight of spending on troops, but put ill-equipped contractors into unsafe situations. Q: There are allegations that the techniques being used in Abu Ghraib were initially developed by the CIA, who also trained the military on using these techniques. Weren’t the photos taken to be used as tools of coercion to extract information from other prisoners? A; Yes, there were military intelligence officers at the prison at the time these activities were taken place, making that a likely use. Clearly, if people are posing for photos in this manner, the behavior is not being hidden, and there isn’t an anticipated backlash to the behavior. Q: What causes internal insulation wherein this behavior is normalized, without concern for what other people would think? A: The person acting this way believes they are doing no wrong, that their behavior, due to the circumstances, is acceptable. Q: How high up does the accountability go? To the Secretary of Defense? A: Difficult to know. However, the relaxed EPW orders would have come from the Pentagon. The decision to call the prisoners “detainees” and not EPWs is what started the ball rolling, and the person who made that decision should stand up and claim responsibility. At this point, a retired Marine who had been seated in front of me was at the microphone about 2 feet away from me, and unfolded his prepared comments, which he read. I will not recount them here verbatim. He went through a very graphic depiction of 3 parallels between abuse photos we’ve seen, and Iraq treatment of captured Americans, trying to make the point that for all of our ill treatment, perhaps it was not quite as bad as the Iraqi killings of Americans. As he slowly read out his descriptions, the audience as a whole became very uncomfortable. Given my uncomfortable and violent MUNI experiences of the past few weeks, I found myself hoping that this angry man would wait to show his temper elsewhere, or what was going to happen. Myatt responded to him by saying that our conduct has to be different no matter what they do to our people. We have to take the high road, and we must be accountable for our actions. MY FINAL THOUGHTS At the end of the session, I was left, however, with a big question: What can we, as individual citizens do to express our displeasure with how this War has been managed, and with the treatment of prisoners, and even with the flow of information? The anti-War protests have waned, and most people I know never wanted to talk about it in the first place, and are avoiding discussing the War even more so now. Yes, the election is coming up this Fall, but can we really expect Republicans whoa re upset by the War issue to withhold their votes for Bush, or to vote for Kerry? What can we do to make a difference on this issue? That’s the question I wouldn’t have been able to have answered, even if the panel had not have run out of time. I’m hoping I’m not the only one seeking an answer to it. RELATED READING: The following sites are ones I’ve found that provide some first-hand context for the comments the speakers made. * Download the Red Cross report and other related documents, speech transcripts, etc. from the Guardian UK website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/documents/0,12962,916659,00.html * The Stanford Prison Experiment website, which features new analysis of parallels that can be drawn from it to the mistreatment of the Iraqi prisoners: http://www.prisonexp.org/links.htm#iraq * The Society for Professional Journalists’ Geneva Conventions website, including the full text of the third Geneva Convention, covering treatment of prisoners of War: http://www.genevaconventions.org/ * The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) response to public release of their confidential report on the treatment of the Iraqi prisoners, including an outline of the official ICRC stance on the importance of confidentiality as a tool to help them maintain their access: http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5YRMYC?OpenDocument * ICRC Statement regarding the Iraq War being conducted outside International Humanitarian Law: http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5Z5DKQ * ICRC databases on International Humanitarian Law: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList2/Info_resources:IHL_databases * Public opinion polls regarding Iraq, tracked over time: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm * NPR’s Iraq coverage: http://www.bayarea-redcross.org/  |
| Read all comments (3)|Write your own comment |
|
Ads by Google
|
