Okay, ASLANSPAL, let's start Colonel Hackworth's comments on this subject. Bear with me, friends, as this requires a lengthy answer to properly address the subject:
Let me restate that Colonel Hackworth served his country well and merits respect for having done so. Let me also restate that some things he's expressed - such as the negative effect of individual rotations within units and the relative lack of, not with standing the Marine CAP program, a lasting level of village security in Viet Nam - I agree with completely. However, on the subject of detainee operations in this current war I believe he was completely wrong in the referenced article. Here's why:
Hackworth incorrectly claimed that American soldiers had committed "... atrocities as high on the national shame scale as Vietnam's My Lai." The conduct revealed at Abu Ghraib was unacceptable but it in no way compared to what happened at My Lai. At My Lai an officer ordered the murder of civilians and his troops carried out that order along with him. About the only thing common between these two incidents is that neither represented the typical, accepted, nor tolerated conduct with the military and both were dealt with through the military justice system. To compare Abu Ghraib to My Lai, to call either a "national" shame, etc. are gross exaggerations.
The next problem is that Hackworth claimed that the leadership - the "whales" as he names them - disregarded the Geneva Convention and that President Bush somehow created a new category of "unlawful combatants". This is also completely untrue. The 1949 Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War define categories of persons that may fall into the hands of a military force. It spells out the criteria that must be met for a person to be properly labeled as a prisoners of war and the rights to which they're thereby entitled. It also makes it clear that other categories do not met these qualifications and are not entitled to the same protection. Here's just a small part - the starting point for classification - of the relevant Geneva Conventions document:
The military's regulations, manuals, doctrine, orders, etc. all comply with the full intent and letter of the Geneva Conventions. Nothing "special" has been created to circumvent these requirements for situations an hand. If anything, we've always sought to err of the safe side.
Here's how our Army and Marines Law of Land Warfare manual further clarifies the definition of "other militias and members of other volunteer corps" in the GPW:
Persons that don't meet the proper criteria are not prisoners of war and fall into other categories that are not protected to the same degree as those classified as prisoners of war. It should be resonably clear that terrorists don't meet the definition of lawful combatants given.
This, by the way, does not imply that such persons can be mistreated. All persons in our custody must be treated humanely at all times.
There are different degrees of legal protection afforded to lawful and unlawful combatants. The most significant is that legitimate prisoners of war - lawful combatants - can not be tried by military commissions - tribunals - whereas others can be. The acts of lawful combatants in the course of lawful war fighting can not be punished. The acts of unlawful combatants, however, can be. This is one major reason why it would be so ill advised to classify terrorists as prisoners of war or, perhaps worse yet, as common criminals subject to US civil law.
The next problem is that Hackworth claimed that President Bush somehow created a new category of "unlawful combatants". The comment about the President by Hackworth only confirms his disdain for this administration and a willingness to lay blame at the President's feet for anything that might go wrong.
This criteria and the US law, military regulations, and military doctrine have been in place since before President Bush as born. They continue to be refined and clarified but the basics have been there a long time. In fact a lot of American policy on proper handling of prisoners of war, and others, dates back to the time of President Lincoln when orders on the subject were developed and published on the subject.
Here are some excerpts from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld orders regarding the aggressive interrogation techniques that were authorized. He prepared this after considerable review and discussion within the military and civilian authorities on proper compliance with applicable law:
It should be very clear from this that no inhumane treatment nor anything else not permitted by the Geneva Conventions was authorized by the President through the Secretary of Defense. The specific techniques detailed in the order are those defined in our standard interrogation procedures and do not include any of the misconduct that occurred at Abu Ghraib. This is even aside from the fact that this order was to Southern Command for JTF-GITMO (formerly JTF-160/170) where the unlawful combatants were being held.
Lastly, with respect to Colonel Hackworth's comments, is "... our leaders are, so far, successfully ducking any responsibility for the crimes perpetrated on their watch." and the connection to Germany's actions during World War II. This is more irresponsible unfounded allegations. The "Final Solution" in Germany was a state planned, organized, and executed wholesale annihilation of "enemies of the state" known to and orchestrated by the highest levels of government. There's nothing about Abu Ghraib, or even GITMO where no significant misconduct has been found, that even approaches that level of evil much less its consequences. The "Hitler connection" made by Hackworth was a very low blow more often heard from highly liberal commentators.
Further, our leaders have not been "ducking responsibility" but rather have been prudently addressing it. The leaders in our Dept. of Defense and our Armed Forces are fighting a serious war on our behalf seeking to win it through all available legal means.
Two "whales", with respect to Abu Ghriab, the Commanders of the 800th MP Brigade and of the 205th MI Brigade, have been held accountable for not properly supervising their units. Rarely is it necessary to demote a Brigadier General but it was done in this case and justly so.
So, with no disrespect whatsoever to the late Colonel Hackworth's record or reputation, he was, never the less, either uniformed on this subject or purposefully chose to ignore certain facts.
I've got to do some other things but I'll try, ASLANSPAL, to address your others points later if I have time. This stuff can take up a lot of person's time. I do it only because I believe it is my duty to stand up for and defend the truth.
