Getting their jollies

by David Grand
May 13, 2004

That was the first thought that crossed my mind in seeing those grotesque photos of MP's subjecting civilian detainees in an Iraqi prison to cruel and humiliating treatment, beaming like a lighthouse as they stood behind pyramids of naked Iraqis and giving a thumbs-up like hunters who'd bagged their quota of deer. For what other explanation could there possibly be for their aberrant behavior and total disrespect for the basic rights of other human beings? Makes one wonder what kind of upbringing they had and how they must've forgotten the lessons they learned in Sunday school.

Although it didn't have the same deadly consequences, it was reminiscent of the horrifying pictures of the My Lai massacre in 1968, when as many as 500 unarmed Vietnamese-mostly women, children and elderly villagers-were brutally slaughtered by members of a platoon in "Charlie Company" of the 20th U.S. Infantry Division (in which division the then Lt. Col. Colin Powell served as a battalion commander). And had it not been for a helicopter crew intervening to stop the massacre the death toll would've been much higher. Plus, the Army's efforts to cover up the massacre may have succeeded if a soldier named Ron Rinheour, who wasn't involved in the killings but heard of the events at My Lai, hadn't begun a letter writing campaign to Congress that led to the trials of four officers and nine soldiers. (Of the 13 charged with committing war crimes, only Lt. William Calley, the leader of that infamous platoon was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, a sentence that was later commuted to three years of house arrest by President Nixon.)

Calley claimed during his trial that he was only following orders from higher-up commanders, the so-called "Nuremberg defense," referring to the defense offered by the top Nazis brought to trial after WW 11 for war crimes against humanity in that German City. But it didn't work for them anymore than it did for Calley, and as it surely won't for those seven MPs, who've stated they were just carrying out the orders they got from military intelligence (MI) personnel and contract interrogators to "soften up" the detainees for interrogation. Some softening all right.

And that, of course, begs the question as to why, if they felt the brutal acts they performed were both encouraged and condoned by members of the 205th MI Brigade, they only occurred between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. instead of between 6 a.m. and midnight when there were many others around? As Sherlock Holmes would say, the answer is "elementary" Watson: "When the cat is away the mice will play."

Now, I spent six grueling hours listening to the tedious and repetitive testimony of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld before the Armed Services Committees of both houses, as well as to the parroted responses of the generals sitting alongside of him (who had so many glistening stars on their shoulders it's a wonder they didn't blind the committee members).

And while Rumsfeld candidly admitted of his shortcoming "in failing to recognize how important it was to elevate a matter of such gravity to the highest levels, including the president and members of Congress," I felt that many of the unpleasant and unanswerable question he was asked were left flopping around in his head like a bat that had mistakenly flown in through the living room window.

But I'm not one who wishes he'd resign or be fired for his poor judgment in not directing that the damming photos he knew existed since January (when a specialist in the MP unit named Darby gave them to his CO) be forwarded to the Pentagon "el pronto," instead of him, the president and Congress seeing them for the first time on CBS's "60 Minutes 11." For the mere thought of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the most hawkish of all the hawks in the administration possibly replacing him is enough to make my skin crawl.

And from what Rumfeld said, the worst is yet to come once the new batch of even more repulsive photos and video tapes in the Pentagon's possession are revealed. Initially, they will be given to Congress but not (at least for the time being) to the public. As a betting man, I'd wager one month's social security check that the White House will fight with as much fervor to prevent making them public as Nixon did in "stonewalling" the release of the incriminating tapes revealing his direct involvement in the "Watergate" scandal to Congress, until being ordered to do so by the U.S. Supreme Court. Any takers out there?