Eric Umansky

AWOL

Apologies for my absence, I've been finishing a piece and planning a trip (which will entail more absence in a few weeks). In any case, my favorite quote today--and it's for all you NBA fans out there:

"I just think [Isiah]'s done a very good job," Dolan added then. "Particularly in this offseason it's been, I think we're ahead of schedule in where we want it to be in terms of bringing on talent and youth and making the team more exciting."

It all makes sense now. Dolan's trying to pump up the disfunction so the Knicks can a reality TV show (on MSG!). That would be "exciting"--for about a week.

The U.S.'s Latest, Underappreciated Failure in Iraq

Over the past few days in Iraq, the U.S. military has been taking a "wait-and-see" approach to the violence, which appears to be picking up again. What that means in practice is that the U.S. has been standing by while mosques have been scorched, etc. 

That's obviously pissing off Sunnis. "The Americans also abandoned us extremely," said one Sunni politician the other day. "They could have put some of their vehicles to protect the mosques—they have the forces to do that."

The Sunnis have a point. If  the U.S.'s counter-insurgency strategy was based on, above-all, providing security for  civilians--which is just want many national security-types advocate--then protecting mosques would be a no-brainer.

Instead, we have dilly-dallying, driven, perhaps, by White House-centric image issues. Here's the NYT's on Bush's decision to hold back U.S. forces:

After conferring Friday with his top military commander in Iraq and his ambassador there, Mr. Bush called for patience, diplomacy, negotiation and compromise.

The unrest is also a test for the president's Iraq policy, which has anchored the withdrawal of American forces on an expanding and expensive program to train Iraqi military and police units, some of which already have taken over security responsibilities in a number of neighborhoods and communities.

Any significant order for American troops to step back in would undermine the credibility of the Iraqi government and be a visible setback for the training program, risking the entire United States strategy.

Let's forget about image management for a moment and  check in on another NYT piece for the reality: "The Iraqi police, commanded by a Shiite political party, stood by as the rampage spread."

I understand the desire to stand-by, the desire to not takes and not have a dog in the fight. But the reality is there is no "non-position" here.  It seems to be one prerequisite of a moral occupation is that the  occupier at least attempt to  protect those it occupies.  By standing by and letting mosques burn the U.S. is a taking a position and is sending a message. It's:  We don't care. Protecting, you, civilians isn't on our to-do list.  There's nothing neutral about that or about the likely result:  fueling the fire of the insurgency.

P.S. Hasn't one of the big hopes for defanging the insurgency been to drive a wedge between nationalists and the Zaraqawi-like jihadists? Seems like Americans protecting mosques 'n such could be an act appreciated by many Sunni groups (even if grudgingly). In other words, it would drive them a bit closer to Americans and perhaps away from  those Zarqawi-types.

Mr. Lynch, Your Medal of Freedom is Waiting

"We're seeing a confident, capable Iraqi government using their capable Iraqi security forces to calm the storm that was inflamed by a horrendous, horrific terrorist attack yesterday against the Golden Mosque in Samarra," Army Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, yesterday.

"Iraqi forces did little to contain the violence. In at least one case in Baghdad, Iraqi witnesses said that policemen joined in attacking a mosque,” NYT, this morning.

Investigating Abuses

Reacting to a new report detailing how the military's investigation of torture-related deaths has been lax (which isn't really news):

The Pentagon said it conscientiously investigates such deaths.

"Some 250 people have been punished in one way or another," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last month of the abuse cases.

How conscientious exactly? From A.P.:

When asked Wednesday for a status report on investigations and prosecutions in individual cases of abuse, the Pentagon said it could not offer a comprehensive compilation because the information was too scattered.

Mosque Bombing Fallout

Insurgents/terrorists in Iraq just blew up one of Shiite Islam's holiest mosques. Compare the photos:

And consider the caption from the first photo: "The golden-domed shrine, seen here in Feb. 2004, housed the tombs of two revered leaders of Shiite Islam and symbolized the place where the Imam Mahdi, a mythical, messianic figure, disappeared from this earth."

Baghdad-based reporter Christopher Allbritton give a sense of current and future fallout:

Violent protests are now sweeping Iraq. People from the predominantly Shi’ite Shu’lah neighborhood in western Baghdad have attacked Sunni mosques in Ghazaliya, a nearby Sunni area. Sadr City, home base for rebel cleric — and parliamentary powerbroker — Moqtada al-Sadr, has reportedly re-armed. A Shi’ite mob also reportedly killed a man in the street they said was a Salafist or Wahabbi....

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most revered Shi’ite in Iraq, called for seven days of mourning and protests — although he urged them to remain peaceful.

As Chris says, there goes the U.S.'s demand/hope that the Shiite coalition agree to give the security ministries (Interior and Defense) should go to “people who are non-sectarian … who do not represent or have ties to militias.” Despite all that, I'm still not on the same page as Matt, who no doubt is already writing a post explaining how "the civil war is now on" and no point in GIs hanging around.  The U.S. could (might?) still be a moderating force, and indeed protector of Sunnis. That doesn't exactly lend itself to sound-bytes or great senses of mission. But it might be the best option we have.

The Abuse Orders, Cheney's Office, and More Kabuki Theater

The New Yorker's Jane Mayer has a superlative piece detailing the administration's moves to sweep away prohibitions against detainee abuse. She tells the story through one Bush appointee's fight against it. The official, the Alberto Mora, was the Navy's top lawyer, and penned a lengthy, memo describing approved-interrogation techniques that constituted "at a minimum cruel and unsual treatment, and at worst, torture."

Mayer shows just how much of the "take the gloves off" edicts came from the Office of the Vice President, specifically Cheney's sidekick, David Addington.  Addington, of course, has earned the same fate as his other colleagues who've  advocated abusing detainees: promotion.
 

As for Mora, he didn't exactly climb the ladder. He's now  out of the administration. While he was there, he was actually a member of a Pentagon "working-group" that was charged in 2003 with revising detainee policies and  made them more humane--at least that's what Mora and other members of the working group thought. From the NYer:

Without Mora’s knowledge, the Pentagon had pursued a secret detention policy. There was one version, enunciated [to Congress]. And there was another, giving the operations officers legal indemnity to engage in cruel interrogations, and, when the Commander-in-Chief deemed it necessary, in torture. Legal critics within the Administration had been allowed to think that they were engaged in a meaningful process; but their deliberations appeared to have been largely an academic exercise, or, worse, a charade. “It seems that there was a two-track program here,” said Martin Lederman, a former lawyer with the Office of Legal Counsel, who is now a visiting professor at Georgetown. “Otherwise, why would they share the final working-group report with [Gitmo's commanders] but not with the lawyers who were its ostensible authors?”

In other words: the members of the detainee "working group" had policy put out in their name that they never saw, would never agree with, and happened to be illegal.

Dept. of Are You Shitting Me?

From Newsweek:

The House committee established to investigate Katrina was “informed that neither Secretary Chertoff nor Secretary Rumsfeld use e-mail,” reported Reps. Charlie Melancon and William Jefferson, two Louisiana Democrats who participated in the inquiry....

“This is a large organization with a very competent staff that that kept the secretary well informed on Defense Department operations throughout Katrina,” Bryan Whitman, a Defense spokesman, told NEWSWEEK.   Brian Besanceney, Chertoff’s top spokesman, said:  “Every senior DHS official knows that, if they have important information to convey to the secretary, they go to his office or pick up the phone.”

Righ, like that DHS employee who was in New Orleans during Katrina and e-mailed warnings that  levees had broken. Didn't that dude know the proper protocol.  Insubordinate.

Another Sign the War is Going Well

There was just a U.S. airstrike in...Baghdad.

The Latest Abu Ghraib Blowback

More revolting and revealing photos of Abu Ghraib torture have leaked out. The administration has been fighting in court to keep them  secret--a stupid, insipid strategy that  was always doomed to fail. Here's part of what I wrote  last summer, in response to the administration's recalcitrance and then top General Richard Myers saying "riots, violence and attacks by insurgents will result" if the photos are released:

Why didn't the government just release photos back when the scandal  broke?  It would have been the photo equivalent of a document dump. Instead, we have a second-wave scenario: Time has passed, Abu Ghraib has receded a bit into memory... and now thanks to the administration's genious P.R. strategy, there's a good chance it will be landing on Page One again.

P.S. As somebody who has frequently argued  that the torture scandal has been underplayed, I support it landing on Page One again. The issue is in what form. And the photos are just about the most inflammatory form  out there. Let me put this another way: In a slightly better world, the administration would have  come clean  from the beginning. That would have included, among other things:  1) quickly releasing  the photos 2) an independent commission to dig into the widespread detainee scandal. The latter would have generated countless headlines, but I doubt any riots.

Let's take it a step further: Who possibily could be surprised that the photos eventually leaked. The fact that the adminitration has tried to hold them back  is yet another example of its winning strategy of Reflexive Secrecy. It's the double-whammy: Wrong on principle and wrong on efficacy. Cheney's little incident this weekend, the photos, tendency toward secrecy keeps boomeranging. It's not just an offensive anti-democratic habit, it's a dumb one.

A transcript of Gitmo "Justice"

As I've mentioned a few times before:  Two new reports--under-covered, even by blogger-types--have shaken my  assumption that most of the Gitmo detainees were Taliban foot soldiers. Now I suspect--as I told my colleague Bob Wright yesterday [V]--most of them are simply innocent.

The  reports—one by the National Journal and the other a more detailed study by a Seton Hall law professor who represents two detainees—used Pentagon data to give breakdowns of just who the military has concluded it’s detained. According to the Seton Hall report, about 55 percent of the detainees were found to have committed no hostile acts against the U.S. or its allies. Only eight percent have been labeled "al-Qaida fighters” and just about 10 percent “Taliban fighters.”

About two-thirds of the detainees have been found to be “associated with” with al-Qaida or the Taliban, the lowest of three levels of connection the military defines for detainees.  The  evidence for those "associations" include, “use of a guest house,” “possession of an AK-47”—in a region where such possession is de rigueur —and “possession of a Casio watch.”

I’m all for erring on the side of national security when it comes to capturing al-Qaida suspects. But what we also  need is a reasonably good process for separating out the innocent from the guilty. The military’s tribunals as currently configured—which have accepted the “evidence” I just mentioned—aren't one.

To give you a flavor take a look below at a (previously unreleased) partial transcript of one hearing. It reads like something out of Abbott and Costello.

First a bit of background:

Abd Al-Malik is a 26-year-old Yemeni who was "captured" in Afghanistan in 2002. Al-Malik says he was there to teach the Koran. He acknowledges that he along with his wife and child were given housing by the Taliban. He says it was in exchange for teaching. The only other evidence against him is the testimony" of "Detainee  63" who was abused during interrogations and according to the FBI showed signs of "severe psychological trauma."

Now, the transcript [which comes via this letter the detainee's lawyer, Marc Falkoff, sent the military]:

Detainee: Regarding [the charge that] I worked at various guesthouses and offices. What was the work?

Tribunal President: I can not answer that. This is the first time we have seen this evidence. I know nothing more than what is written here.

Detainee: The same with me, I don't know anything about this. I had a house that the Taliban gave me to live with my wife, that's it...Regarding the [charge] that I was seen frequently seen at Usama Bin Laden's side. Who saw me?

Tribunal President: I don't know.

Detainee: If it says,  frequently seen, you have to prove that. I am aware of the laws and the courts....Regarding, also, the detainee attended various other training camps and resided at a Kandahar,  Afghanistan guesthouse. What training camps?

Tribunal President: Did you attend any training camps while you were in Afghanistan?

Detainee: Never.

Tribunal President: Then that answers the question.

Detainee: That I resided at a Kandahar guesthouse. This guesthouse, do you mean my house, was my house a guesthouse?

Tribunal President: I would assume so.

Detainee: If it was my house then of course I was there. But, if it is another person's guesthouse, then no.

Again, the only other significant alleged evidence against al-Malik is one detainee's accusations.  According to the FBI, that detainee, Mohamed al-Kahtani, was kept in an "isolation facility" for 160 days. He was menaced by dogs, made to wear women's underwear and questioned for up to 20 hours at a time. The FBI said he "evidenc[ed] behavior consistent with extreme psychological trauma (talking to nonexistent people, reporting hearing voices, cowering in a corner of his cell covered with a sheet for hours on end.)"

Al-Malik isn't the only detainee who has been subject to the of allegations of Al-Kahtani . According to the Pentagon, Al-Kahatani has spoken against 30 detainees.  (Allegations from one  detainee, it's not clear whom, have served as the main evidence against 60 fellow detainees. He told interrogators he saw the men at an-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan. But  a U.S. officer looked at the men’s files and told the National Journal they showed no evidence the men were in Afghanistan at the time.)

As for Al-Malik, he is still at Gitmo and still classified as an enemy combatant.

 

(Special hat-tip to Corine Hegland, who wrote the still-underappreciated National Journal series cited above, and kindly helped me with info about al-Kahatani.)