Ghosts of Abu Ghraib

American-style "freedom" is not a path to liberty, writes Nader Fergany*

---

The Abu Ghraib prison, notorious under Saddam, could have been turned into a clinic, an educational institute or a cultural monument. It could have been, had the US-UK alliance done what it promised to do, which is bring freedom and prosperity to Iraq. But the alliance had other things on its mind, and has succeeded in echoing what Saddam Hussein and his henchmen once did to the Iraqis.

The US army has taken action against six of its men and women over the crimes committed in Abu Ghraib, over loathsome actions that breach the international humanitarian law, deviate from the Geneva Conventions and every human or moral norm known to man. The legal measures taken against six minor criminals may, however, be just a smokescreen designed to protect the higher-ups. This is a tactic long employed by corrupt regimes; blame a small perverted minority for your own wrongdoing.

Violations of human rights and dignity were an integral part of the conduct of the coalition in Iraq; a sign of the inherent contempt the current US administration has for human values. The very act of occupying Iraq, as well as unconditional US support of the despicable occupation of Palestine, provides ample evidence of the intentions of the alliance. But let's start at the beginning.

The Abu Ghraib prison has turned, following the coalition's victory, into a US military prison. As such, it should have been subject to international humanitarian law. As an occupying power, the US is entitled under the Geneva Conventions to detain civilians perceived as an "imperative" security threat. As an occupying power, it also has to introduce regular procedures insuring that only civilians who continue to be a genuine security threat are kept imprisoned. All prisoners should have the right to appeal any internment decision and have their cases reviewed. But who were the prisoners in Abu Ghraib?

As of autumn 2003, thousands of detainees were held at Abu Ghraib, mostly civilians, including women and children. Many of those were rounded up during random military search operations and at road checkpoints. Some were common criminals. Others were suspected of committing "crimes against the alliance".

According to the report prepared by General Antonio Taguba, the prison was overcrowded with detentions administered without adequate scrutiny, which means that numerous innocents were held. Some detainees were held indefinitely, for no procedure existed for contesting their detention. The report estimates that over 60 per cent of civilian detainees represented no genuine security threat and should have been released.

Much has been published about the crimes committed in Abu Ghraib. Suffice it to note here that under the command of the US- UK alliance, an army that promised us civilisation and freedom, innocent people were electrocuted on sensitive parts of their bodies and others were made to engage in humiliating sexual practices while alliance soldiers -- men and women -- watched them and took pictures. How does this differ from the conduct of the worst tyrannical regimes? At least one detainee has been tortured to death by CIA agents. Iraqi women have been sexually molested and some are said to have been raped.

The torture and the degradation were not scattered incidents, but amounted to a consistent pattern of conduct. This is why charges must be brought against those who gave the despicable orders, not just those who carried them out. The Pentagon has already reprimanded six low-ranking servicemen from among 13 charged with torture. A reprimand would likely lead to dismissal. Such is the punishment the alliance deems proportionate -- as laughable as it is insulting.

As of autumn 2003, violations were reported. The US army ordered its chief law enforcement official, General Donald Ryder, to look into the system of prisons in Iraq. His investigation concluded that there are violations that relate to practices associated with the Afghanistan war. Ryder stopped short of concluding that the situation was critical. General Taguba's report was more blunt. Taguba noted that between October and December 2003 numerous instances occurred of "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses", constituting a systematic and illegal pattern of conduct.

Taguba's report was finalised last February but was not published. No action was taken to redress the grievous conduct it documented. Why has such a report, submitted by a high-ranking officer, had such a minimal impact for so long? It was a conscientious low-ranking serviceman who finally blew the whistle that turned the world upside down. Up to the point the story broke, neither Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld nor the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Meyers, are thought to have read Taguba's report. The British, it later transpired, were engaged in similar violations.

The report blames two sets of individuals for the violations: military intelligence, which seems to have been given a free hand at Abu Ghraib, to the point where its operatives were asking regular servicemen to "soften" detainees ahead of interrogation, and civilian contractors, who are hired to do the dirty work regular troops cannot do. Even after the alliance command knew of the violations, the only step it took was relieve the woman in charge of Iraqi prisons, General Janis Karpinski, from her job. No punishment, not even a trial.

Karpinski, for her part, claims that Ricardo Sanchez, commander of US troops in Iraq, should assume part of the blame. US human rights groups are known to have protested to Rumsfeld about the treatment of civilian detainees in Iraq but to no avail.

The US president saw no reason to apologise for the crimes of his army. And not one Arab leader took the trouble of even condemning the crimes. In a long interview with an Egyptian newspaper, Jalal Talabani made excuses and voiced support for the alliance. The US president let Rumsfeld and the British prime minister offer an apology.

Whether or not President Bush extends an apology in person is immaterial. The US administration must atone for its sins against the entire Arab nation, must make up for its violations of the legitimate rights of our people in Palestine and Iraq. Supposing it wants to -- which it does not -- this is an easy task. The crimes of the current US administration are so diverse and inexcusable that it would take perseverance and creativity, over a long span of time, to make things good. Obviously, the US administration is not going to consider atoning for its crimes unless the Arabs, nations and governments, take action beyond anger and denunciation, unless they do something to fight off imperialism, unless they start boycotting products and harming US interests.

To those Arabs who dream of freedom at the hands of the Americans, I have this to say: Look at what is happening to the Iraqis.

* The writer is director of Almishkat Centre for Research and Training and chief author of the Arab Human Development Report.