Church Report To Vindicate Pentagon

[gilliam]

Kevin McCullough: Church Report To Vindicate Pentagon

Kevin McCullough has a source within the Pentagon which claims that the report from the Admiral Church investigation into torture and detainee abuse will vindicate the Pentagon’s actions and administration. The report will find the following, according to Kevin:

1. There was no policy that condoned torture.
2. There was no policy that encouraged abuse.
3. There was a lot of inconsistency across interrogation techniques. Many of those techniques were developed in the combat theater and migrated to other areas.
4. There was a general lack of military command guidance in dealing with the CIA. He found 30 ghost detainees. One such detainee was in that status for 45 days.
5. There were missed interrogation opportunities in part because the military failed to take account of lessons from prior conflicts.
6. There was no guidance to CENTCOM or by CENTCOM on interrogations.

The New York Times has a preliminary look at the Church findings as well. Instead of leading with the overall findings, though, the Gray Lady chose to highlight one case of failure as its lead and wait until the eleventh paragraph to cover in the most superficial way the actual results of the inquiry:

Admiral Church’s report faults senior American officials for failing to establish clear interrogation policies for Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving commanders there to develop some practices that were unauthorized, according to the report summary. But the inquiry found that Pentagon officials and senior commanders were not directly responsible for the detainee abuses, and that there was no policy that approved mistreatment of detainees at prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.The Paper of Record buries the lead, once again, in favor of supporting its continuing narrative of assuming the very worst about the military and its management of the war.

 

[Norwich]

1. There was no policy that condoned torture

Good Start but was there one that condemned it?

1. There was no policy that encouraged abuse.

Still Going, but was it actively discouraged?

1. There was a lot of inconsistency across interrogation techniques. Many of those techniques were developed in the combat theater and migrated to other areas.

This equals poor coordination and adminstration.

1. There was a general lack of military command guidance in dealing with the CIA. He found 30 ghost detainees. One such detainee was in that status for 45 days.

Does this mean the CIA were out of control? If so poor leadership.

1. There were missed interrogation opportunities in part because the military failed to take account of lessons from prior conflicts.

An inability to learn from past mistakes?

1. There was no guidance to CENTCOM or by CENTCOM on interrogations.

i.e. poor to non existent communications.

And you consider that vindication?

 

[gilliam]

Norwich:

And you consider that vindication?

CENTCOM is not the Pentagon and the other problems seem to be further down the chain.

Here is another good analysis of the report and additional information.

 

[gilliam]

Pentagon Report: Detainee Abuse Result of Lapses, Not Policy

 

[Catholicvegan]

Dear Gilliam,

Why on Earth would the Pentagon be honest about what happened to those prisoners?

 

[gilliam]

Catholicvegan:

Dear Gilliam,

Why on Earth would the Pentagon be honest about what happened to those prisoners?

Because if they get caught lieing it would be their jobs and they have a code of honor.

Why are you honest?

 

[gilliam]

Continuing the discussion:

Michelle Malkin - “No over-arching reason”…
Captain’s Quarters - “NYTimes buried the lead - AGAIN!”
Blogs For Bush - report vindicates Pentagon…
Winds Of Change - WaPo at least got the lead right…
GOPBloggers - yeah - what he said…
Confederate Yankee - may exonerate DOD, Rumsfeld, fight of the ‘Times’…
The Fourth Rail - touches on the Democrats “reform” ideas…
Outside the Beltway - KMC is wrong on shutting up Kennedy…
Blue State Conservatives - is suspicious whether it will end the debate…
The New York Times has reviewed the prelims of the report and lends some additional, albeit strongly slanted, review of the matter.

Hat tip