Abu Ghraib Roundup

A whole bevy of stories on the widening scandal appears in today’s papers. Most of the stories focus on the command climate surrounding the abuses. Not only is it becoming increasingly clear that the abuses were much more widespread than it initially appeared, but the nexus between Guantanimo, Iraq, and even Afghanistan is crystalizing. The interaction between military intelligence and military police is coming under increased scrutiny and the wisdom of allowing soldiers to be directly involved in the handling of prisoners of the opposite sex should soon become a major question. There is also an allegation that a large chunk of the Taguba Report was omitted from the version sent to Congress. Finally, there’s a rumor that former Senator Dan Coats, now Ambassador to Germany, has been approached as a possible successor to SECDEF Don Rumsfeld should the latter resign over the scandal.

WSJ — Pentagon Reviews Detainee Deaths [$]

Bush administration claims that abuse in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison appear to be isolated acts by low-level soldiers sprang more leaks with the Pentagon’s acknowledgment that it is reviewing the deaths of 33 detainees captured in Iraq and Afghanistan, including nine homicides.

Of the nine, three in Afghanistan and six in Iraq, most appear to have come as a result of beatings, according to death certificates released by the Pentagon. A senior Pentagon military official said most of the beatings appear to have been delivered during interrogations. One death, involving a senior Iraqi general, was the apparent result of strangulation, the reports said.

Though a senior Pentagon military official cautioned that investigators haven’t ruled out natural causes or justifiable force as having contributed to the deaths, the expanded investigation suggests President Bush may have spoken too quickly when he said the prison-abuse scandal “was the wrongdoing of a few.” The president’s approval rating has fallen amid the recent chaos and reports of prisoner abuse, and polls show deep public concern about the course of U.S. involvement in Iraq.

***

The Pentagon’s wider probe of prison abuses extends throughout various sites in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of the 33 cases appear to be deaths related to heart problems, though one unnamed detainee died of multiple gunshot wounds on May 18, the records say. Of the homicides, six note “blunt force injuries.” The death certificate for former Iraqi Army Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush says he died of “asphyxia, due to smothering and chest compression.”

LA Times — Army Widens Abuse Probe

As the investigation of prisoner abuses in Iraq shifts to the role of military intelligence, two intelligence soldiers identified in the notorious pictures from the Abu Ghraib detention facility have been ordered to remain in Baghdad as part of the expanding probe, according to witness statements and commanders of the soldiers’ reserve units.

U.S. Army Spcs. Armin J. Cruz and Israel Rivera, both members of a reserve unit in Texas, are so far the only military intelligence soldiers known to be at the scene of the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners in a high-security cellblock at Abu Ghraib.

Neither Cruz nor Rivera has been charged. But their role in the burgeoning scandal may be an important link for investigators seeking to determine whether the abuses were the work of a rogue unit of military police, or were directed by intelligence officers pushing guards to “soften up” detainees for interrogation.

More broadly, the photographs from Abu Ghraib have focused attention on U.S. interrogation practices and raised questions about systemic problems in military prisons from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Bagram air base in Afghanistan.

Senior military officials and defense lawyers said additional charges may be pending, raising the prospect that the criminal probe is poised to expand beyond the guilty plea of one MP and the planned courts-martial of six others accused of taking part in the abuse.

***

Edward J. Rivas, a chief warrant officer at the prison, testified that Cruz “was removed [from interrogation duty] because of a situation when a detainee was stripped naked.” Rivas was referring to an incident in which Cruz and another Army specialist, Luciana Spencer, forced a prisoner to walk naked past other inmates to humiliate him and punish him for not cooperating.

Another interrogator, Sgt. Theresa A. Adams, told Army investigators that the prisoner was completely stripped and then walked to the interrogation booth “as part of the approach” for getting him to talk.

In an interview last week, Provance said that although Cruz and Rivera were both analysts, there was such a shortage of interrogators at Abu Ghraib that it was common for soldiers with no training to be sent into the booth to question prisoners. ” ‘Interrogator’ is kind of a loose term out at Abu Ghraib,” Provance said.

Military officials who worked at the prison said analysts often accompanied interrogators into the booth but were not supposed to take part in questioning prisoners.

NYT — Pentagon Approved Intense Interrogation Techniques for Sept. 11 Suspect at Guantánamo [RSS]

Interrogators at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp received Pentagon approval to use special, harsher interrogation procedures on a Saudi Arabian detainee who was believed to be the planned 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 terror plot, government officials said Thursday.

The decision followed a debate among Pentagon and military legal authorities that centered on how to question Mohamed al-Kahtani, who tried unsuccessfully to enter the United States in August 2001.

After he was turned away by a Customs inspector, Mr. Kahtani returned to the Middle East. He was later captured in Afghanistan and sent to Guantánamo, where he was one of the highest ranking Al Qaeda figures at the base.

Mr. Kahtani was believed to have information about the Sept. 11 plot, about possible future attacks and about funding for the Al Qaeda terrorist network, and the internal legal debate showed how the issue of coercive treatment had swirled through the Pentagon before American forces entered Iraq.

At a Pentagon briefing on Thursday, the officials said that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had approved a range of more aggressive interrogation techniques in response to a desire in late 2002 to pry more information from a specific detainee at Guantánamo. But they did not disclose the detainee’s identity.

A senior Pentagon civilian lawyer said there was “some urgency” to increasing the pressure on this detainee because he likely “had information that the people at Guantánamo believed was important, not just about perhaps 9/11, but about future events.”

Mr. Kahtani was specifically identified in separate interviews with several United States government officials as the detainee at the center of the debate.

A range of techniques harsher than those described in standard military doctrine were sought, based on the administration’s legal determination that the Guantánamo detainees were not conventional prisoners of war, covered by the Geneva Conventions, but terrorists and illegal enemy combatants.

Pentagon officials have declined to list the approved techniques, saying that they remain classified.

NYT — Afghan Deaths Linked To Unit At Iraq Prison [RSS]

A military intelligence unit that oversaw interrogations at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was also in charge of questioning at a detention center in Afghanistan where two prisoners died in December 2002 in incidents that are being investigated as homicides.

For both of the Afghan prisoners, who died in a center known as the Bagram Collection Point, the cause of death listed on certificates signed by American pathologists included blunt force injuries to their legs. Interrogations at the center were supervised by Company A, 519th Military Intelligence Battalion, which moved on early in 2003 to Iraq, where some of its members were assigned to the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center at Abu Ghraib. Its service in Afghanistan was known, but its work at Bagram at the time of the deaths has now emerged in interviews with former prisoners, military officials and from documents.

Two men arrested with one of the prisoners who died in the Bagram Detention Center that month said in southeastern Afghanistan on Sunday that they were tortured and sexually humiliated by their American jailers; they said they were held in isolation cells, black hoods were placed over their heads, and their hands at times were chained to the ceiling. “The 10 days that we had was a very bad time,” said Zakim Shah, a 20-year-old farmer and a father of two who said he felt he would not survive at times. “We are very lucky.”

The account provided by the two men was consistent with those of other former Afghan prisoners, including those interviewed by The New York Times and cited in reports by human rights officials.

In interviews, the two men and other former prisoners who were held at the center in Afghanistan at that time have described an environment similar in some ways to that of Abu Ghraib, whose outlines have been depicted in photographs and testimony. At both places, prisoners were hooded, stripped naked and mocked sexually by female captors, according to a variety of accounts.

In Iraq, at least three members of the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion who had been assigned to the joint interrogation center at Abu Ghraib have been quietly disciplined for conduct involving the abuse of a female Iraqi prisoner there, an Army spokesman said.

At least one officer, Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, served in supervisory positions at the interrogation units both at the Bagram Collection Point from July 2002 to December 2003 and then again at the joint center at Abu Ghraib, according to Army officials. That center was established in the fall of 2003. In Congressional testimony last week, a senior Army lawyer, Col. Marc Warren, praised Captain Wood as an officer who took initiative in Iraq at a time when American commanders had yet to spell out rules for interrogation. But he also singled out Captain Wood and her unit as having brought to Iraq interrogation procedures developed during their service in Afghanistan. No one is known to have accused Captain Wood of any wrongdoing in connection with the abuses at Abu Ghraib or the deaths of prisoners there or in Afghanistan.

The psychological conditions that may have contributed to the situation is the subject of a couple of stories. AP (Washington Times) has revisits a story that appeared over the weekend: — Abuse Pictures Taken Amid Losses

Many of the worst abuses that have come to light at the Abu Ghraib prison happened on a single November day amid insurgent violence in Iraq, many U.S. soldiers deaths and a breakdown of the guards’ command structure.

Nov. 8 was the day U.S. guards took most of the infamous photographs: soldiers mugging in front of a pile of naked Iraqis, prisoners forced to perform or simulate sex acts and a hooded prisoner in a scarecrowlike pose with wires attached to him.

It was not clear Friday whether most or all of the new pictures and video published by The Washington Post depicted events Nov. 8. At least one photo, showing Spc. Charles Graner Jr. with his arm cocked as if to punch a prisoner, is described in military court documents as having been taken that day.

When Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits tearfully pleaded guilty Wednesday to abusing prisoners, he described fellow soldiers committing an escalating series of abuses on eight prisoners that included stamping on their toes and fingers and punching one man hard enough to knock him out.

WaPo — Soldiers Vented Frustration, Doctor Says

Physical abuses by U.S. military police of Iraqi prison detainees stemmed from a mixture of soldiers’ anger and frustration over poor working conditions, their racism and the absence of any meaningful supervision, according to the report of an Air Force psychiatrist who studied the episode for the Army.

The unclassified report, by Col. Henry Nelson, provides the military’s principal, internal explanation for why the soldiers participated in the abusive actions. His independent study was based on a review of thousands of pages of interview transcripts and other documents the Pentagon has not released, and it is appended to a report of the Army investigation headed by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba.

At the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, “the worst human qualities and behaviors came to the fore” in an atmosphere of “danger, promiscuity and negativity” within a closed environment, wrote Nelson, a member of the Army’s investigating team. He noted training lapses, as others have, but also said that soldiers’ unfamiliarity with Islamic culture, their pervasive sense of danger and the indefinite nature of their tenure were factors that wore them down.

“The sadistic and psychopathic behavior was appalling and shocking,” Nelson wrote in the report, which was provided to The Washington Post by a government official. “Abuse with sexual themes occurred and was witnessed, condoned [and] photographed, but never reported.”

Much of the language in Nelson’s study supports the Army’s contention that the abuses were a product of a distorted environment at Abu Ghraib last year, amounting to a wartime version of the malicious conduct by marooned children in the novel “Lord of the Flies.” But the report is at odds with recent congressional testimony by top Army and military intelligence officials that the prison abuse involved only low-ranking soldiers and was not known by more senior officers.

***

In highlighting psychological and cultural factors underlying the abuses, Nelson noted that soldiers sent to Iraq were immersed in Islamic culture for the first time and said “there is an association of Muslims with terrorism” that contributed to misperceptions, fear and “a devaluation of a people.” He reported that one military police platoon leader was openly hostile to Iraqis, and that a police dog handler was “disrespectful and racist” — attributing to his dog a dislike of Iraqi “culture, smell, sound, skin tone [and] hair color.”

USA Today — ‘Time’: Report To Congress Short Pages

The Pentagon sought Sunday to explain why some 2,000 pages were missing from a congressional copy of a classified report detailing the alleged acts of abuse by soldiers against Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib prison.

Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita issued a statement saying “if there is some shortfall in what was provided, it was an oversight.” He was responding to a Time magazine report Sunday that about 2,000 of the report’s 6,000 pages submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee were missing. The report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba consists of a declassified summary and about 6,000 pages of classified annexes, including statements from witnesses, prison guards and military intelligence officials.

Reuters/Boston Globe — US Denies Offering Rumsfeld’s Job To Berlin Envoy

The US Embassy in Berlin denied a German magazine report yesterday that Ambassador Dan Coats was offered the job of secretary of defense if Donald H. Rumsfeld resigns over his handling of the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

Focus magazine reported that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice had made the offer to Coats during a recent trip to Berlin. Coats had been a leading candidate for the job in 2000 before Rumsfeld was picked. Coats is a former Republican senator from Indiana.

A US Embassy spokesman in Berlin denied the report. “As far as we know, he’s planning to be here in Berlin until after the [November] election,” the spokesman said.

According to Focus, Rice asked Coats, 61, if he were prepared in principle to take the job leading the Pentagon and Coats replied that he was available.

FILED UNDER: Uncategorized,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Paul says:

    Not only is it becoming increasingly clear that the abuses were much more widespread than it initially appeared, but the nexus between Guantanimo, Iraq, and even Afghanistan is crystalizing.

    WOW James,

    You don’t think that is overstepping the evidence a bit?

    In Gitmo a single detainee was singled out for harsher treatment in order to get time critical information from him. Approval was sought from the command structure and it went all the way to Secretary of Defense’s desk… That is a far cry from the panties on the head antics.

    As far as the abuses being more “widespread” that is still dubious. The media is hoping it is widespread. They will look for any shred of evidence that might make that case. So they “link” different events over the last 2 years and try to paint them as a single picture.

    When you have a few hundred thousand people detained, some will die in confinement. We have no idea what injuries these guys sustained during – you know- the war before we picked them up. To automatically imply, as the papers due (and you seem to back up,) that it was murder is getting several carts a head of the horse.

    Do we need to investigate? Obviously.

    Are people getting way, way, way ahead of the facts? Obviously.

  2. James Joyner says:

    Paul,

    I think you can read the “special permission” cases as evidence for either side. I read them the way you do. At first. But the evidence now seems to indicate that there were numerous “exceptions” granted and that respect for the Geneva protocols was non-existent. It’s also clear that military intelligence folks, apparently at least including junior officers, were violating the law.

    My initial reaction to the scandal was that, of course, it isn’t systemic because it goes against the training that soldiers received when I was in and would have been culturally anethema to us in those days. Apparently, though, there has been an effort to override that culture.

    It’s still unclear what exactly went on and what the extent was, but it’s been a huge disaster for our effort in Iraq. And Rumsfeld and company have, at the very least, been absolutely incompetent in managing the information flow.

  3. Boyd says:

    …Rumsfeld and company have, at the very least, been absolutely incompetent in managing the information flow.

    It’s odd that a sentence containing the word “absolutely” would still strike me as an understatement. At the very least, the Department’s actions (or lack of same) in regard to the Abu Ghraib story certainly undermine any accusations of managing information so only the desired story gets out.

  4. Paul says:

    I need to think about it some more but I really think you are getting ahead of the story.

    For now lemme mention this:

    I think you can read the “special permission” cases as evidence for either side. I read them the way you do. At first. But the evidence now seems to indicate that there were numerous “exceptions” granted and that respect for the Geneva protocols was non-existent.

    When you have a group of terrorists that might have information that saves lives of course you grant special permissions. (note I did not say exceptions)

    You can not say that “respect for the Geneva protocols was non-existent” because Al Qeada is not covered by the Geneva Protocols. IN FACT terrorists are specifically excluded from them.

    Remember that in the days after 9/11 we had constitutional and legal scholars saying that (true) torture was not against the constitution or the Geneva convention. At the time there was some discussion of using these methods.

    Fast forward 2 years and a (legit) strip search is now called torture.

    We’re throwing the baby out with the bath water. Big time.

  5. Discerning says:

    Provance was right after all.

Abu Ghraib Roundup

Several stories in the major papers today shed additional light on this scandal, although new questions are raised as well.

We have more confirmation that gaining information took priority over humane treatment of prisoners, at least in certain circumstances:

Boston Globe — General Says He Backed Interrogation Limits*

The American general who commands the facility at the center of the prison-abuse scandal said yesterday that he tried last summer to set limits to US military interrogation techniques in Iraq, including suggestions that soldiers stop using practices that appeared to violate the Geneva Conventions.

“There were growing errors, errors we made in good faith,” Major General Geoffrey Miller said in an interview inside the prison officers’ mess hall yesterday. “They were developing their procedures, teaching young leaders how to do a very difficult mission and do it correctly.”

Miller commanded the US military’s top-secret detention center for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba until this year. He arrived in Iraq last month to take control of the massive detention operation, in which about 40,000 Iraqis have been arrested since Saddam Hussein’s defeat 13 months ago.

Since the controversy erupted three weeks ago, critics have questioned whether Miller might have set the stage for the shocking abuses by issuing recommendations in a report to top American commanders last summer. In it, Miller said commanders could get better intelligence from detainees if military police were able to “set the conditions” for interrogations by military intelligence officers.

***

Miller denied he had suggested highly aggressive tactics to get prisoners to offer information about the growing insurgency in Iraq. Instead, he said he suggested “taking off the list of techniques” several tactics used with detainees in US military custody. Those included punishing people by changing their diet, and forcing them to assume painful positions for lengthy periods.

The New York Times reported today that Colonel Thomas M. Pappas, the American officer who was in charge of interrogations at Abu Ghraib, told a senior Army investigator that intelligence officers sometimes instructed the military police to force Iraqi detainees to strip naked and to shackle them before questioning them.

Pappas acknowledged to Major General Antonio M. Taguba that his unit, the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, had “no formal system in place” to monitor instructions they had given to military guards, who worked closely with interrogators to prepare detainees for interviews.

Pappas said he “should have asked more questions, admittedly” about abuses committed or encouraged by his subordinates. Portions of his sworn statements were read to the Times, the paper said, by a government official.

Meanwhile, Miller also denied that the Pentagon had a “black” operation for high-value detainees, in which interrogations are conducted without legal limitations. The “special access program” was first outlined in the May 24 edition of The New Yorker magazine yesterday, which cited unnamed intelligence agents. “The article in its whole is inaccurate,” said Miller, who said he had read it online Sunday night. “There is no special access program in Abu Ghraib.”

Still, we finally have testimony that clarifies the nature of the instruction given to the MPs:

NYT: M.P.’s Received Orders To Strip Iraqi Detainees [RSS]

The American officer who was in charge of interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison has told a senior Army investigator that intelligence officers sometimes instructed the military police to force Iraqi detainees to strip naked and to shackle them before questioning them. But he said those measures were not imposed “unless there is some good reason.”

The officer, Col. Thomas M. Pappas, commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, also told the investigator, Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, that his unit had “no formal system in place” to monitor instructions they had given to military guards, who worked closely with interrogators to prepare detainees for interviews. Colonel Pappas said he “should have asked more questions, admittedly” about abuses committed or encouraged by his subordinates.

The statements by Colonel Pappas, contained in the transcript of a Feb. 11 interview that is part of General Taguba’s 6,000-page classified report, offer the highest-level confirmation so far that military intelligence soldiers directed military guards in preparing for interrogations. They also provide the first insights by the senior intelligence officer at the prison into the relationship between his troops and the military police. Portions of Colonel Pappas’s sworn statements were read to The New York Times by a government official who had read the transcript.

Testimony from guards and detainees at a preliminary hearing for a soldier accused of abuse said that orders from interrogators at Abu Ghraib had stopped short of the graphic abuse seen in the photographs at the center of the prison scandal.

The interrogation techniques Colonel Pappas described were used on detainees protected by the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit inhumane treatment of prisoners. Military officials said on Monday that the United States had months ago quietly abandoned an early plan to designate as unlawful combatants some of the prisoners captured by American forces in Iraq. No prisoners in Iraq were classified as unlawful combatants.

That means that even foreign fighters and suspected Al Qaeda members captured in Iraq, along with Iraqis captured as prisoners of war and insurgents, have remained protected by the Geneva Conventions.

The option of designating prisoners captured in Iraq as unlawful combatants “has not been foreclosed, but this is not under consideration,” a senior military official said.

NYT — Abuse At Prison Exceeded Directives, Some Guards Say [RSS]

Interrogators from military intelligence and other government agencies told guards at the Abu Ghraib prison to deprive detainees of sleep and food, and would strip detainees and make them sleep naked in their cells, but their orders stopped well short of the abuse at the center of the prison scandal, guards and investigators have testified at a preliminary hearing for one of the soldiers accused of abuse.

According to a transcript of the hearing for the soldier, Sgt. Javal S. Davis, witnesses said that there were written “sleep management plans” and eating plans and that military intelligence members would regularly take away detainees’ clothes.

But the testimony offered no evidence to back up what lawyers for the accused soldiers have said: that their clients were following orders when they threw naked detainees in a pile, stomped on their hands and feet, forced them to masturbate and photographed them.

“They would tell us to take away something from an inmate, like a pillow or something, to make him uncomfortable,” said Sgt. William Cathcart, a guard in the 372nd Military Police Company, the accused soldiers’ unit. “I would tell them to put it in writing. If I had sensed they wanted someone `roughed up,’ then I would have said something.”

The charges against Sergeant Davis include accusations that he jumped into a pile of detainees and stomped on their fingers and toes. “Policy is not to pile detainees on the floor,” Sergeant Cathcart said. “There is no policy to dive on a pile of detainees or physically assault detainees.”

A transcript of the hearing obtained by The New York Times suggests that interrogators gave guards orders to treat detainees harshly to get them to talk. But it leaves open questions about how far those instructions went and how precise they were, and how harsh the behavior was that they authorized.

Some witnesses testified that the orders had been only “implied,” others said they had been written. Other guards insisted that they had been told to create uncomfortable conditions for detainees, but not to treat them roughly, and that the soldiers accused of abuse went far beyond direct orders.

“No one asked us to soften or roughen up detainees,” said Sgt. Hydrue S. Joyner [No relation. -ed.], a guard with the 372nd. “Maybe `give them a little more attention.’ ”

But Sergeant Joyner said: “No one would have to tell me not to assault any detainees. No one would have to tell me to not allow masturbation. I would wholeheartedly want it to stop.”

“If M.I. told me to make detainees masturbate together,” he testified, referring to military intelligence, “I would cut off his air supply until he turned blue in the face. This is not acceptable instruction to me.”

This strikes me as convincing, as it comports with my experience with American soldiers. Contrary to the image portrayed in the movies, troops aren’t unquestioning automatons that just do what they’re told. They’re apt to question even perfectly legal orders that they consider stupid.

The most disturbing story comes from the LA Times — Death Of Prisoner Detailed In Testimony

When CIA officers took the Iraqi detainee to Abu Ghraib prison, his head was covered with an empty sandbag and Army guards were ordered to take him directly to a shower room that served as a makeshift interrogation center at the overcrowded, shell-damaged facility outside Baghdad.

An hour later, during intensive questioning by intelligence officers, the prisoner collapsed and died. Only then did interrogators remove the hood to reveal severe head wounds that had not been treated.

The dead prisoner, whose identity has not been made public, would become famous around the world through a photograph of a body wrapped in plastic sheeting and packed in ice — among the most indelible images yet made public in the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

An account of his final hours, and of the failure to provide medical attention to a severely wounded prisoner, is contained in sworn statements provided to Army investigators by military police guards at Abu Ghraib.

After the man died, the documents say, officials argued over who was responsible for the body. Eventually, the body deteriorated to the point that it had to be disposed of.

***

In their testimony, Kenner and Brown agreed that the CIA had taken the prisoner to Abu Ghraib and ordered guards to take him to the interrogation center without removing the hood. They disagreed on who was involved in the subsequent questioning: Kenner said it was the CIA alone, while Brown said the CIA and military intelligence officers had worked together.

Both Kenner and Brown referred to the CIA by its commonly used pseudonym, the OGA, or Other Government Agency.

A CIA spokesman said Monday that he could not comment on the matter because it was under investigation by the agency’s inspector general’s office in conjunction with other military investigations.

In other testimony at the Davis hearing, guards said military intelligence officers routinely deprived prisoners of food, sleep, clothes, cigarettes and sometimes even sunshine, and expected guards to treat prisoners just as harshly or worse.

The Boston Globe reports that President Bush will address the nation on this scandal tonight.

*The userid/password combination otbblog/jamesotb will work for all the registration required articles.

FILED UNDER: Uncategorized,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.