Prison Scandal Indicates Gap in
U.S. Chain of Command
by: Ariana Eunjung Cha and Ellen McCarthy - The Washington Post
May 5, 2004
Questions about the role of civilian interrogators in the abuse of inmates at
the Abu Ghraib prison have put the spotlight on the accountability of tens of
thousands of contractors in Iraq and on whether the administrative setup at
the prison gave contractors too much freedom from and too much power over
military units.
"As we begin to dig below the surface, we're seeing the larger involvement of
contractors in this war and within the prison itself," said Justin Hamilton,
legislative director for Rep. Chris Bell (D-Tex.). Bell wants Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to begin a military inspector-general
investigation of abuses at the prison.
Private contractors, Hamilton said, "at this point don't seem to be in the
chain of command. They don't answer to the military chain of command."
Another member of Congress, Rep. Janice D.
Schakowsky (D-Ill.), in a letter to President Bush, proposed
suspending all contracts with civilian firms for "security, supervision and
interrogation of prisoners."
"The sadistic abuses of Iraqis at a U.S. military prison raise serious
questions about the accountability of U.S.-hired private military contractors
who are involved in illegal activity," said
Schakowsky, a longtime critic of
the growing prominence of civilian contractors.
CACI International Inc. and Titan Corp., employees of which were named in the
inquiry, said Tuesday that they still had not received notice from the
Pentagon about any charges against their employees and that they therefore had
not taken disciplinary action.
The use of contractors has increased significantly since Sept. 11, 2001, and
the line between the military and defense contractors has blurred further. No
longer are civilians providing only support services such as cooking or
driving trucks. They are responsible for some of the military's most sensitive
tasks. They are building giant databases of credit cards and travel
information for patterns that might indicate terrorist attacks. They are
training international police forces. They provide security for U.S. officials
such as L. Paul Bremer, the occupation government's top administrator in Iraq.
U.S. soldiers operating in war zones are subject to a strict code of conduct.
It's less clear what legal framework the tens of thousands of contractors
supporting U.S. troops and working on reconstruction in Iraq must adhere to.
Under an order issued last summer by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional
Authority, contractors are not subject to Iraqi law. If they are suspected of
a crime, the military can send them to their home countries to face charges.
Marc E. Garlasco, a senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, said: "If
there are three people from three different countries and they commit the same
crime, they will face three different judicial systems and three different
sanctions. There is certainly potential for abuse of this system."
A law passed in 2000, after DynCorp employees in Bosnia accused of trafficking
in prostitutes were not prosecuted, theoretically could be used to charge
private contractors. But the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which
authorizes the Justice Department to investigate military contractors, is
untested, said Deborah D. Avant, an associate professor of political science
at George Washington University and author of a book on the privatization of
security.
The prisoner-abuse report by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba that has caused an
international furor names two civilian contractors who he said should be
reprimanded for their role in the abuses. Steven Stephanowicz, described as an
interrogator working for CACI, made a false statement regarding "the locations
of his interrogations, the activities during his interrogations and his
knowledge of abuses." Another contractor, interpreter John Israel, "denied
ever having seen interrogation processes in violation . . . which is contrary
to several witness statements." It is not clear from Taguba's report what
company employs Israel.
Taguba wrote that he believes two military officials and Stephanowicz and
Israel were either "directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu
Ghraib."
Stephanowicz "allowed and/or instructed" military police to assist in
interrogations by "setting conditions." "He clearly knew his instructions
equated to physical abuse," Taguba wrote.
Another contractor, Adel L. Nakhla, whom the report said was a Titan employee,
was identified as a "suspect."
Nakhla said he observed: "They made them do strange exercises by sliding on
their stomach, jump up and down, throw water on them and made them some wet,
called them all kinds of names such as 'gays' do like they like to make love
to gays, then they handcuffed their hands together and their legs with
shackles and started to stack them on top of each other."
The Taguba report raises the question of who was in charge at Abu Ghraib. Some
of the soldiers who were disciplined blamed not their military supervisors but
a military intelligence unit staffed in part by private contractors.
Some analysts say the use of civilians as interrogators raises questions
regarding oversight and training of contractors.
"If they are working sources, how are they working sources? What are their
rules of engagement? I don't think they exist," said Paul C. Forage, a
military analyst at Florida Atlantic University.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks showed an intelligence gap, the Defense
Department rushed to hire private contractors. "[I]n our rush to meet the
requirements, the mere numerical requirements, I think folks were brought on
based on those initial checks and then the more detailed checks followed as
time permitted," Charles S. Abell, principal deputy undersecretary of defense,
said in testimony to the Senate in October. "We have found a couple who were
not as trustworthy as we had hoped initially."
