Capt. Fishback's stand for humanity
Regarding the responsibility of the US military and political command at the highest levels for the commission of atrocities by people at lower levels of the military ladder-- as I just mentioned in this earlier post--the work of Ian Fishback, a captain in the 82d Airborne and a West Point grad, has been particularly courageous.
Fishback was most probably one of the main sources for Human Rights Watch's recent report on torture and abuse being carried out by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Today, the WaPo carries the text of the letter that Fishback sent on Sept. 16 to Sen. John McCain.
In it, he wrote to McCain (from Fort Bragg, NC):
- While I served in the Global War on Terror, the actions and statements of my leadership led me to believe that United States policy did not require application of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan or Iraq. On 7 May 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's testimony that the United States followed the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and the "spirit" of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan prompted me to begin an approach for clarification. For 17 months, I tried to determine what specific standards governed the treatment of detainees by consulting my chain of command through battalion commander, multiple JAG lawyers, multiple Democrat and Republican Congressmen and their aides, the Ft. Bragg Inspector General's office, multiple government reports, the Secretary of the Army and multiple general officers, a professional interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, the deputy head of the department at West Point responsible for teaching Just War Theory and Law of Land Warfare, and numerous peers who I regard as honorable and intelligent men.
Instead of resolving my concerns, the approach for clarification process leaves me deeply troubled. Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment. I and troops under my command witnessed some of these abuses in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
This is a tragedy. I can remember, as a cadet at West Point, resolving to ensure that my men would never commit a dishonorable act; that I would protect them from that type of burden. It absolutely breaks my heart that I have failed some of them in this regard.
That is in the past and there is nothing we can do about it now. But, we can learn from our mistakes and ensure that this does not happen again. Take a major step in that direction; eliminate the confusion. My approach for clarification provides clear evidence that confusion over standards was a major contributor to the prisoner abuse. We owe our soldiers better than this. Give them a clear standard that is in accordance with the bedrock principles of our nation.
Some do not see the need for this work. Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda's, we should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Others argue that clear standards will limit the President's ability to wage the War on Terror. Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. This is morally inconsistent with the Constitution and justice in war. It is unacceptable...
- C is an officer with the 82nd Airborne Division and West Point graduate who served in Afghanistan from August 2002 to February 2003 and in Iraq from September 2003 to March 2004. HRW spoke with him more than two dozen times in July, August, and September 2005. Below are excerpts from those interviews grouped by subject matter (the subject headings were supplied by Human Rights Watch).
At FOB Mercury, he was not in charge of interrogations but saw several interrogations in progress and received regular reports from NCOs on ill-treatment of detainees. He felt strongly that abuses there reflected larger policy confusion about what was permitted, and that the officer corps in particular has a duty to come forward and take responsibility.
More developments in today's NYT. Fishback says that since his name showed up publicly, army investigators seem to be more interested in finding the two unnamed sergeants who squealed (and in determining his "relationship" to those commie pinko al-Qaeda sympathizers at HRW) than in doing any investigations of actual prisoner mistreatment. Read the article for details.
Fishback is clearly a smart guy, as well as a principled one. He's currently at Camp Mackall doing the Q-course (the long course whereby one becomes qualified to serve in a special forces unit) and he knows his career is now vulnerable. But not only is he not going silent, he's getting louder; he knows that by talking to the press he can buy some breathing room not only for himself but for his troops, to whom he promised confidentiality. And it might actually produce some results; that remains to be seen, but clearly he thinks so.
That's more like the army I remember serving in. Good on ye, Fish.
Certainly Fishback deserves high praise for his courage and high principles. However, I am disappointed to hear him using the old whitewash that attributes the abuse and torture to "confusion". There is more than enough documentary, testimonial, circumstantial, and other evidence that the use of abusive treatment and torture was not a matter of "confusion", but of official policy that came from the very top. We have seen the various official memos and other documents approving the use of abuse and torture, sometimes to the point of specifying certain techniques. Even without that documentary evidence the fact that abuse and torture have been used throughout the prisons and detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and of course Guantanamo, and that the techniques used are consistent from one location to the other points not to "confusion", but to official policy.
Maybe he has his reasons for not doing so, but I wish Fishback would stop playing the "confusion" game, which is just one step up from the "a few bad apples" nonsense. I wish he would put the onus where it belongs - on the high level policy makers who ordered and approved the use of abuse and torture.
Hi Shirin,
I certainly agree with you about where the respsonsibility lies and where I hope the various investigations (including a satisfactory one, which is still to come) lead. And that everything to date has been a whitewash.
As to Fishback: I don't think he's been telling a 'story' or playing a 'confusion game'. Note that he doesn't seem to be emphasizing any official "confusion" in the article I linked to above.
As an experiment, try to put yourself in his place and consider the organizational environment. He's reporting that he did what he’s supposed to do, as a serving officer, and take it up the chain of command. Doctrine says that the things he and others saw are illegal, and wrong. They report them, nothing happens. Why? Upper echelons suggest that the Geneva conventions don't apply. It might be worrisome, but there might be little you could do other than, perhaps, preventing it from happening on your watch.
If Rumsfeld then appears on TV saying they do apply, then there are clear grounds to say to the chain of command, WTF? You senior officers need to clarify; if we're supposed to do these things, then you need to come out clearly and say so, in writing (i.e. promulgate legal orders). Otherwise, it's just a lot of unprosecuted war crimes.
If there's still no action, you might take it further up the chain, which is what Fishback did, all the way to congress. If it's still going nowhere, you might choose to go outside, as he did; not by leaking an unattributed story but by going on the record, which he's done.
That's how you go about doing it legitimately when you're a serving officer. You don't have the freedom to start writing articles or taking a stand such as what we have the freedom to do; he's done it in a way that's legal. And, he’s had to pursue it with some vigor for a year and a half, and accept some risks to his career (which he obviously values; he wouldn’t be in the Q course if he was planning on changing careers) in the process. That's harder to do from 'inside the bubble' than it appears, even if one discounts the politicized environment in the military as a result of this war. That’s a fair amount of pressure to apply to a roughly 27-year old junior officer, and he’s resisted it to do what’s right.
Like you, I don’t think that’s the last word, and I hope his complaint contributes to the longer term assignment of legal responsibility for those outrages. Fishback was an infantry officer at the company level; I don't think he would have known where the pressure on military police and intelligence units was coming from (the army is pretty parochial that way), and could not have made any credible claims about it if he suspected. But maybe his stepping up will embolden somebody else who has first hand knowledge of the chain of influence from Rumsfeld on down: and let’s hope they also go through the channels, so that the administration can’t attack them as liars or unreliable witnesses.
Let’s hope.
Helena,
Wolf Blitzer on CNN just cited you and JWN as an original source on the war porn/NTFU story.
YD
"Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face.
"Come on, drink!" the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. "Drink!"
At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.
"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.
Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen."
We just got criminals Helen and these guys protected by Bush & Co, I hope to hear when these guys come home what they can do in your society? Yes Bush keep telling you these are the US Heroes!!! they are just crowed criminals should by Killed or sentenced to death penalty as Timothy McVay was killed these not less than him did harm to humanity
Jonathan, you are quite right that the Israeli actions against Hamas were not unprovoked. (Although chains of "provocation can always be stretched far back into the mists of early time.) Still, the Israeli actions certainly seem to have been strongly escalatory... The Hamas rockets caused what damage? And in response to that, the IOF (which is what I think it's fair to call them when they're operating outside Israel's borders?) assassinated at least three Palestinian militants, arrested scores if not hundreds of individuals, pounded some areas of Gaza from the air, etc etc.
Does that indeed sound "proportional"?
I'm pretty sure some of the virulence of the Israeli actions was driven by Sharon's political needs. That might "explain" it but it cannot for a moment excuse it. (Much of the testimony from "Prime Evil" and other high-ranking South African torturers who spoke at the TRC spoke of the political pressures they felt themselves under to do something-- anything!-- to show the White RSA public thet the government was "doing" something. .. )