Bush Administration's Craven Misuse of the USS Bataan

I just read a post by Solly Mack on the Democratic Underground site where I learned for the first time that the USS Bataan was used as one of the Bush administration's prison ships.

The US has admitted that the USS Bataan and USS Peleliu were used as prison ships between December 2001 and January 2002.

So not only did the Bush administration have these dastardly prison ships but they specifically allowed the USS Bataan's name to be tarnished for being one of them. Why is the use of the USS Bataan any worse than using another ship for this purpose? Here's why.

Here are some snippets of information about the history of the USS Bataan from their website.

USS Bataan memorializes the valiant resistance of American and Filipino troops on the Bataan Peninsula in the dawning days of World War II.

snip>

Tens of thousands of American service members died either in battle or during the unconscionable “Bataan Death March.” The 65-mile “Death March” alone claimed the lives of more than 21,000 allies in less than a week and is marked as one of the greatest travesties of World War II. Those who survived the march faced starvation and disease aboard “hell ships” during transportation and later in prison camps until Japan's formal surrender in 1945.

snip>

Bataan was the last American stronghold in the Pacific theater to fall until MacArthur fulfilled his famed prophecy, “I shall return,” by reconquering the Philippine Islands two-and-one-half years later. The battle of Bataan and ensuing “Death March” are widely regarded as one of the greatest examples of allied courage, endurance and sacrifice in the history of military conflict.

So the cowardly Bush administration turned a valiant ship, whose very name brings to mind the courage of our military personnel, who endured savage mistreatment at the hands of our enemy, into a ship who will also be remembered for playing a part in our own savage mistreatment of prisoners. Yeah, they turned the USS Bataan into one of their floating prison ships that were specifically designed to enable them to conceal prisoner's whereabouts from the Red Cross, human rights lawyers and others. 

Based upon our knowledge of how the Bush administration treated prisoners it's also quite possible that these prisoners were also tortured on board the USS Bataan. This pathetic misuse of the USS Bataan makes me so angry because it adds insult to the injury our country has already experienced from operating these prison ships in the first place. It was bad enough that we had prison ships but how could anyone, who knows the proud history of the USS Bataan, have allowed her, of all ships, to be used for this despicable purpose?

The people who did this have no honor and obviously have no respect for the military or the values of this country. They must not be allowed to get away with their crimes or their cowardly misuse of a ship whose very name represented our proud heritage.  

** Update** After I wrote this diary someone in the comments section suggested that I look for additional information about this issue. I thought it was a great idea and one that I really should have done before writing my diary (inexperience). Evidently, according to Military.com there is some disagreement about the extent of how the USS Battan and other ships have been used.

The U.S. Navy said that ships have been used to hold a small number of prisoners for short periods, but it denied that vessels were used as long-term floating prisons. "We do not operate detention facilities on board Navy ships," said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman. "Department of Defense detention facilities are in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay."

The human rights group, Reprieve, posted this information on their website:

A former Guantánamo prisoner told Reprieve about conditions aboard the USS Bataan: There were about 50 other people on the ship. They were all closed off in the bottom of the ship. The prisoner commented to me that it was like something you see on television. The people detained on the ship were beaten even more severely than in Guantánamo. The USS Bataan is also known to have been operating in the Indian Ocean region. Reprieve believes that prisoners held aboard the USS Bataan were routinely photographed and examined by medical personnel in between interrogations, and that such records are held by the US administration. 

They also stated this:

In June 2005 the UN's special rapporteur on terrorism spoke of “very, very serious” allegations that the United States was secretly detaining terrorism suspects in various locations around the world, notably aboard prison ships in the Indian Ocean region. Reprieve, the legal action charity, believes that the US has operated a number of ships as floating prisons (possibly as many as 17), where prisoners have been interrogated under torturous conditions before being rendered to other, often undisclosed locations. Details regarding the operation of prison ships have emerged through a number of sources, including the US military and other administration officials, the Council of Europe, various parliamentary bodies and journalists, as well as the testimonies of prisoners themselves. 

I hope that what Cmdr. Gordon states is true but based upon our knowledge of how our government has lied to us over and over when it concerns prisoners I won't just take Cmdr. Gordon's word at face value. I think this is another area where the American people deserve to know the truth.

***Big hat tip to Adios who posted a link to a story that appeared in the Guardian that referenced Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon (the guy that denied that we used navy ships like the USS Bataan as floating prisons). In my opinion after reading that story there is very little room for doubt that Gordon was probably lying through his teeth when he said 

"We do not operate detention facilities on board Navy ships"  

Yeah, just like you don't torture.

Previously published on Daily Kos 3/9/09 and revised here.

Clark & Taguba - A Media Tale of Two Generals

As we all know everyone in the media seems to have an opinion about General Wes Clark's remarks about McCain when Clark appeared on Face the Nation this past Sunday. 

"I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark told Bob Schieffer.

We've had multiple stories, blog posts and chats in the major newspapers and the cable folks can't seem to get enough of the story. The pundits are all drooling over the prospect of having another crack at opining about Clark's comments - McCain's response - Obama's reponse - McCain's response to Obama's response, yada, yada, yada. Why even Howie Kurtz, the supposed media critic for the Washington Post, got into the act when he wrote his own column about Clark. 

The majority of the media discussion seems to imply that Clark was at fault. According to some of the narratives, it was even implied that Clark was somehow guilty of dissing the suffering that McCain experienced as a POW even though Clark praised McCain's service and called him a hero for the torture he endured as a POW. Now I have an opinion on the Clark comments but for the purpose of this diary it's irrelevant because this diary is about a media tale of two generals.

Unlike General Clark, the second general in our tale got very little coverage in the media for his comments. Maj. General Anthony Taguba didn't make his comments on a talkshow. He didn't even say them out loud. He wrote a preface to a report by Physicians for Human Rights called Broken Laws, Broken Lives. Included in that preface were these words by General Taguba:

This report tells the largely untold human story of what happened to detainees in our custody when the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture. This story is not only written in words: It is scrawled for the rest of these individuals’ lives on their bodies and minds. Our national honor is stained by the indignity and inhumane treatment these men received from their captors.

He also used words like wanton cruelty, willful infliction of harm and finally he said this:

...there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.

The media isn't quite as taken with Gen. Taguba as they are with Gen. Clark. The pundits aren't lined up to opine on Taguba's remarks and Howie Kurtz didn't write about the media's coverage or even their lack of coverage. In fact, some of you might not have even heard about what General Taguba said because it disappeared pretty quickly from the media, if it was covered at all (there were a few notable exceptions). I did a quick check on the Washington Post website and they only had four entries for "Taguba" show up while using their search tool. Three of the four pieces that talked about General Taguba appeared in Dan Froomkin's blog. Mr. Froomkin even had one blog entry with the appropriate headline: 

General Accuses WH of War Crimes

Now I may not be a journalist but even I know that it's not every day that you have a former Maj. General in the Bush administration, who actually conducted the first Abu Ghraib investigation, come forward and accuse the WH of war crimes. And you'd think that for such an unprecedented story like this that contained such a serious charge that it would be a front page story for sure. In fact you'd probably think that such a story would even include side stories to go along with the main story. But, if you thought any of that would happen you'd be wrong, at least if you were reading the Washington Post. The Post had no front page story about General Taguba and his charge of war crimes. They didn't have an A2, A3, A4, A5 or even an A6 story.  

The fourth Washington Post Taguba reference that turned up in my search was for a story by Joby Warrick. The Warrick story appeared on page A7 of the Post but the title on the story didn't mention General Taguba. It didn't even mention war crimes like the Froomkin blog title accurately described. In fact, if you were looking for the Taguba story on June 19, 2008, as I was that day, you might have missed it. The Warrick piece, which was the only non-blog piece about Taguba that I could find in the Post (if someone knows of another please let us know), was called:  

Exams Back Up Reports of Detainee Abuse, Group Says

Not exactly a sizzling headline for such a dramatic story, is it? Like the bland headline above, the actual Warrick story never mentioned the extraordinary charge of war crimes made by Taguba. The closest Warrick ever got to mentioning war crimes was when he said this:

In a statement accompanying the report, retired Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who led the Army's first official investigation on Abu Ghraib, said the new evidence suggested a "systematic regime of torture" inside U.S.-run detention camps.

Now it's pretty clear from reading General Taguba's actual words that he did more than just suggest torture, he said there was no doubt. But you wouldn't know that from reading the Warrick story (In fairness it should be noted that while I reference the Post in this diary they were by no means the only media outlet to downplay this explosive story).  

Most of us don't really need any more examples to know how far our media has strayed from it's traditional role of informing the public and acting as the public's watchdog because we've already seen far too many examples of that fact. But for me, A Media Tale of Two Generals is about a subject far too important for me to let it go without comment.

So while Gen. Clark, is getting unwarranted coverage from the media for comments that will probably be forgotten long before the election, the same media is dissing the importance of Gen. Taguba's comments, by downplaying or not even covering his accusation that the Bush administration committed war crimes when they systematically tortured their prisoners. Taguba's comments are not just some campaign banter but serious charges against the Bush administration that deserve far more coverage than they've been given so far. The next time you are tempted to post a comment on a MSM website about General Clark's remarks about McCain, I hope you will remember A Media Tale of Two Generals and tell the media that they are covering the wrong general. You can then explain to them that it's General Taguba and not General Clark who made the kind of important, history making comments that deserve the scrutiny of the press.

This was originally published on Daily Kos 7/3/08

Technorati Profile