Use of Diversionary Tactics

03/19/2006

Paul Munnis

Last week we were treated to a full day of continuous file footage played over and over of a military training squad kicking down doorways of residential units and storming into private residences. All was filmed using low-light night lenses to add to the drama. Ostensibly this was to help us to understand the huge operation being launched against insurgents in Iraq by the Army. The operation was billed as the largest air assault since the invasion of Baghdad. It was reported to be using major bomber air strikes and acting upon solid intelligence reports. There was speculation that al-Zarqawi might be involved and possibly would be captured.

To some, the photos of residential doors being kicked in may have carried a subliminal message: “this could be your home next.”

Coming on as strong as it did we decided to follow up concerning two things for that day: how did Operation Swarmer turn out? And, what else was being covered up by diverting the press away from the routine news?

Here are the findings:

Operation Swarmer Fizzled

Contrary to what many television networks erroneously reported the operation was by no means the largest use of airpower since the start of the war. ("Air Assault” is a military term that refers specifically to transporting troops into an area.) In fact, there were no air strikes and no leading insurgents were nabbed in an operation that some skeptical military analysts described as little more than a photo-op. What’s more, there were no shots fired at all and the units had met no resistance, said the U.S. and Iraqi commanders.

Pappas Admits Wrongful Use Of Dogs On POW’s

The top U.S. military intelligence officer at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq testified yesterday that he inappropriately approved the use of dogs for interrogations without consulting higher-ranking officers, accepting responsibility for giving his subordinates an aggressive tool that was used to terrify detainees.

Col. Thomas M. Pappas, speaking publicly for the first time since the abuse at Abu Ghraib was revealed two years ago, told a military court-martial that in December 2003 he signed off on using dogs on one “high-value” detainee who was not responding to standard interrogation tactics. He said a series of interrogation memos from Baghdad that listed dogs as an option led him to believe he did not need to seek approval from Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, then the top general in Iraq.

“I wouldn’t say that I was confused, but later on it turned out that I was wrong,” Pappas said in a low voice, looking out over a small military courtroom at Fort Meade, Md. “I misinterpreted the language.”

Pappas—who was testifying at the trial of a military police dog handler accused of abuse at the prison—is the highest-ranking officer to take responsibility for misconduct there.

The abuse in late 2003 and early 2004 included soldiers putting detainees in painful stress positions, keeping them naked and sexually humiliating them. The dispute between the military and the accused is whether the actions were the work of a few bad soldiers or whether they were part of a system of aggressive tactics sanctioned by the highest levels of government.

Military Sexual Assault up 40%

Reports of sexual assaults in the military increased by nearly 40 percent last year, the Pentagon announced Thursday, saying the increase was at least partly due to a new program that encourages victims to come forward.

According to a report released Thursday, there were 2,374 allegations of sexual assaults reported during 2005, compared to 1,700 in 2004. Of last year’s reports, 435 were initially filed under a new program that allows victims to report the incident and receive health care or counseling services but does not notify law enforcement or commanders.

The restricted, confidential reporting program also allows the victims to consider pursuing an investigation later, and that was done in 108 of the 435 cases during 2005. Until that new policy went into effect last June, an investigation was automatically triggered by a sexual assault report.

“This is the most underreported crime in our society,” said Roger Kaplan, a Pentagon spokesman. “The key, at least in the military, is to make it less. We want victims to have treatment. And the more who come forward, the better chance we have of taking action and getting the offenders off the street.”

Kaplan said it is impossible to tell whether the increase in reports during 2005 signals any actual increase in sexual assaults. But he said he believes it shows that the military’s extensive program in recent years to better train troops and to encourage reporting has been successful.

Abu Ghraib Scandal

Army documents released Thursday substantiate assertions by Janis Karpinski, the highest-ranking officer punished in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, that she was innocent of two principal allegations lodged against her by the officer who initially investigated the abuse matter.

Among the documents was a January 2005 report by the Army Inspector General’s office that found insufficient evidence to support allegations that Karpinski had made a misleading statement to other Army investigators and that she failed to obey an order in connection with disciplinary action against soldiers under her command.

The inspector general did uphold one allegation: that Karpinski, in her role as commander of a military police brigade responsible for Abu Ghraib, was derelict in the performance of her duty to ensure adequate protection of her soldiers at the prison.

In her formal response to the report, which she submitted on Sept. 19, 2004, and which was among the documents released by the Army Thursday, she wrote that there was no merit to the charge of dereliction of duty, stating that she had repeatedly asked for reinforcements and other assets but was denied by higher authorities.

Army Rangers Are Involved in Pre and Post Abu-Garhib Abuse of POW’s

As the Iraqi insurgency intensified in early 2004, an elite Special Operations forces unit converted one of Saddam Hussein’s former military bases near Baghdad into a top-secret detention center. There, American soldiers made one of the former Iraqi government’s torture chambers into their own interrogation cell. They named it the Black Room.

In June 2004, Stephen A. Cambone, a top Pentagon official, ordered his deputy, Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, to look into allegations of detainee abuse at Camp Nama.

In the windowless, jet-black garage-size room, some soldiers beat prisoners with rifle butts, yelled and spit in their faces and, in a nearby area, used detainees for target practice in a game of jailer paintball. Their intention was to extract information to help hunt down Iraq’s most-wanted terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, according to Defense Department personnel who served with the unit or were briefed on its operations.

The Black Room was part of a temporary detention site at Camp Nama, the secret headquarters of a shadowy military unit known as Task Force 6-26. Located at Baghdad International Airport, the camp was the first stop for many insurgents on their way to the Abu Ghraib prison a few miles away.

Placards posted by soldiers at the detention area advised, “NO BLOOD, NO FOUL.” The slogan, as one Defense Department official explained, reflected an adage adopted by Task Force 6-26: “If you don’t make them bleed, they can’t prosecute for it.” According to Pentagon specialists who worked with the unit, prisoners at Camp Nama often disappeared into a detention black hole, barred from access to lawyers or relatives, and confined for weeks without charges. “The reality is, there were no rules there,” another Pentagon official said.

The story of detainee abuse in Iraq is a familiar one. But the following account of Task Force 6-26, based on documents and interviews with more than a dozen people, offers the first detailed description of how the military’s most highly trained counterterrorism unit committed serious abuses.

It adds to the picture of harsh interrogation practices at American military prisons in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as well as at secret Central Intelligence Agency detention centers around the world.

The new account reveals the extent to which the unit members mistreated prisoners months before and after the photographs of abuse from Abu Ghraib were made public in April 2004, and it helps belie the original Pentagon assertions that abuse was confined to a small number of rogue reservists at Abu Ghraib.

Civil Protest Erupting with Kurds

For nearly two decades, Kurds have gathered peacefully in this mountainous corner of northern Iraq to commemorate one of the blackest days in their history. It was here that Saddam Hussein’s government launched a poison gas attack that killed more than 5,000 people on March 16, 1988.

So it came as a shock when hundreds of stone-throwing protesters took to the streets here Thursday on the anniversary, beating back government guards to storm and destroy a museum dedicated to the memory of the Halabja attack.

The violence, pitting furious local residents against a much smaller force of armed security men, was the most serious popular challenge to the political parties that have ruled Iraqi Kurdistan for the past 15 years. Occurring on the day the new Iraqi Parliament met for the first time, the episode was a reminder that the issues facing Iraq go well beyond fighting Sunni Arab insurgents and agreeing on cabinet ministers in Baghdad.

Moussaui Trial

Lawyers for two airlines being sued by 9/11 victims prompted a federal attorney to coach witnesses in the Zacarias Moussaoui death penalty trial so the government’s case against the al-Qaida conspirator would not undercut their defense, victims’ lawyers allege.

One of the airline lawyers forwarded a transcript from the first day of the Moussaoui trial to Carla J. Martin, a Transportation Security Administration lawyer, the victims’ lawyers, Robert Clifford and Gregory Joseph, claim.

Martin forwarded that day’s transcript to seven federal aviation officials scheduled to testify later in the sentencing trial of the 37-year-old Frenchman, in violation of an order by Moussaoui trial judge Leonie Brinkema.

Martin’s e-mailing of the transcript and her efforts to shape their testimony prompted Brinkema to toss out half the government’s case against Moussaoui as contaminated beyond repair.

The contacts between Martin and lawyers for United Air Lines and American Airlines were detailed in a legal brief filed on Moussaoui’s behalf Thursday. That brief contained a March 15 letter from Clifford and Joseph complaining about Martin’s actions to U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who is presiding over the civil damage case in New York.

They wrote Hellerstein that the government’s opening statement in the Moussaoui case “took the position that the hijackings were completely preventable and that gate security measures could have been implemented to prevent the 9/11 hijackers from boarding the planes had security been on the look out for short-bladed knives and boxcutters.”

“This stands in stark contrast to the position that has been repeatedly articulated by counsel to the aviation defendants in the September 11 actions.”

Because that government position could have “devastating” impact on the airlines’ defense in the civil suit, American Airlines’ lawyer forwarded the transcript to a United Air Lines lawyer who forwarded it to Martin, Clifford and Joseph wrote. As proof, they cited March 7 e-mails that they provided to Hellerstein but which were not immediately available here.

In court on Tuesday, Brinkema said Martin violated federal witness rules when she sent trial transcripts to seven aviation witnesses, coached them on how to deflect defense attacks and lied to defense lawyers to prevent them from interviewing witnesses they wanted to call.

Brinkema warned her that she could face civil or criminal charges and that she appeared to have violated rules of legal ethics.

Note: Brinkema has since relented and will admit some evidence so that the trial may continue.

Conclusion:

It appears to us that the purpose of focusing the public on Operation Swarmer was to cover-up some of the worst news of the Bush presidency. These are huge problems with the military, matters of major incompetence at the Justice Department, and further deterioration of the political situation in Iraq. All add to the burden of Mr. Bush and his Administration.

These are news items that further erode the presidential job satisfaction rating, already in a very low range and now plummeted to a point where 6 out every ten Americans believe Mr. Bush is fumbling the administration of government and failing to win the war that he started in Iraq. This means Mr. Bush no longer has a mandate to lead America and it is bringing pressure for possible resignation of the Bush Administration.

We expect more of this press diversionary tactic to be employed in the future in order to hide bad news about the U.S. presidency and the sad state that it is now in.