- Originally published by the Washingtonpost.com on August 29, 2004
ONLY A FEW years ago, it seemed the slightest suggestion of malfea-
sance by a presidential administration -- allegations of tampering with
a minor administrative office, say, or indications that a cabinet
secretary might have understated the amount of money given to a former
girlfriend -- could trigger a formidable response from the other two
branches of government: grand juries, special prosecutors, endless
congressional hearings, even impeachment proceedings. Some of that
auditing, especially during the Clinton administration, went too far.
Yet now the country faces a frightening inversion of the problem.
Though there is strong evidence of faulty and even criminal behavior by
senior military commanders and members of President Bush's cabinet in
the handling of foreign detainees, neither Congress nor the justice
system is taking adequate steps to hold those officials accountable.
Investigations by the Army, including one completed last week, could
result in prosecution or disciplinary action for up to 50 persons
involved in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. But almost all are
low-ranking soldiers; the most senior officer to be targeted is a
female reserve brigadier general, who plausibly argues she has been
scapegoated by higher-ranking officers. The military investigations and
a separate probe by a panel picked by Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld have issued reports making it clear that senior commanders in
Iraq and the civilian leadership at the Pentagon also bear specific
responsibility for an affair that has gravely damaged the U.S. mission
in Iraq and American prestige around the world. But no court,
prosecutor or disciplinary panel is even considering action against
these top officials. Only one more congressional hearing, by the Senate
Armed Services Committee, is planned.
What's particularly troubling about this breakdown of checks and
balances is that some of the most disturbing behavior by senior
officials has yet to be thoroughly investigated. For example, Mr.
Rumsfeld is now known to have approved, in December 2002, the use of
dogs to frighten detainees under interrogation. That technique, which
was immediately adopted in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, was described
by Army Maj. Gen. George R. Fay as "a clear violation of applicable
laws and regulations." Mr. Rumsfeld has also publicly acknowledged that
he ordered that some prisoners in Iraq not be registered with the
International Red Cross, an unambiguous violation of Army regulations
and the Geneva Conventions. Yet Mr. Rumsfeld has never been called upon
to explain these actions to legal investigators or to Congress.
The former commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, also issued
an interrogation policy allowing the illegal use of dogs. Subsequently,
he testified under oath to Congress that he had never approved this or
other illegal measures listed above his signature. No formal criminal
or administrative action against him is under consideration. Former CIA
director George J. Tenet, according to Mr. Rumsfeld, requested that
detainees in Iraq be concealed from the Red Cross. According to Gen.
Fay's investigation, CIA operatives abused detainees, introduced
improper interrogation methods to the theater and contributed
substantially to the breakdown of discipline at Abu Ghraib. Yet the
only investigation of the agency and its leaders is being conducted by
its own inspector general.
When the prisoner abuse allegations first became public in May, many
members of Congress, including several senior Republicans, vowed to
pursue the evidence up the chain of command and not to allow
low-ranking reservists to be prosecuted while more senior officials
escaped sanction. Yet, as matters now stand, Mr. Rumsfeld, Gen. Sanchez
and other senior officials are poised to execute just such an escape.
When the scandal began, these leaders told Congress they were prepared
to accept responsibility for the wrongdoing. As it turns out, they
didn't mean that in any substantive respect. Their dodge shames not
only them but the legal and legislative bodies charged with enforcing
accountability.