On Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith resurrected the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, connecting it to the current debate over interrogation methods used toward terror suspects under the Bush administration: "Torture on trial. In a major shift, President Obama now says he is open to investigating Bush administration officials for crimes related to torture...We'll talk to the former general in charge of Abu Ghraib. Were the soldiers there made to be scapegoats?"
Smith interviewed former Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who was demoted following Abu Ghraib, and suggested a link between aggressive interrogation tactics and the prisoner abuse: "...a Senate Armed Services Committee report...suggests that the roots of torture, the roots of the idea of torture were being circulated in the Pentagon and the CIA as early as 2002...Is there a line? Do you see that there is a lining run -- that goes from 2002 to Abu Ghraib to the hundreds of times waterboards were used in these cases of these few CIA cases?" Karpinski replied: "Absolutely. The line is very clear that it was cloudy for years, obviously, seven years, if 2002 were the initial discussions. But the line is clear. It went from Washington, D.C., from the very top of the administration with the legal opinions, through Bagram, to Guantanamo Bay, and then to Iraq via the commander from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. And the contractors who were hired to do those things."
Earlier in the interview, Smith exclaimed: "Because part of your sense is that this was pervasive in certain parts of the military culture. That the people who did the tortures in Abu Ghraib didn't act alone. They didn't act -- this didn't grow organically out of a cell or some place."
In his final question to Karpinski, Smith wondered: "And in the -- in the end, end, you feel like, for instance, the people who were prosecuted for these crimes who were under your command, and even yourself, you believe were scapegoated?" That gave Karpinski the opportunity to declare: "Absolutely. I mean, scapegoat is the perfect word and it's an understatement. Right now, with the hard, fast, facts in those memos, the black and white proof, the administration is suggesting that those operatives should be immune from any investigations or persecution. But what about the soldiers who were categorized as seven bad apples back in 2004?"
Here is the full transcript of the segment:
7:00AM TEASE:
HARRY SMITH: Torture on trial. In a major shift, President Obama now says he is open to investigating Bush administration officials for crimes related to torture.
BARACK OBAMA: I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws.
SMITH: We'll talk to the former general in charge of Abu Ghraib. Were the soldiers there made to be scapegoats?
7:02AM SEGMENT:
HARRY SMITH: First, though, top of the news. President Obama has opened the door, if just a little, to prosecuting Bush administration officials for authorizing torture against terror suspects. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante has more. Good morning, Bill.
BILL PLANTE: Good morning, Harry. As the President has said in the past, he doesn't believe that the people who carried out those interrogations should be prosecuted. He got a lot of blowback on that. So yesterday he did open the door to the possible prosecution of Bush administration officials who gave those orders.
BARACK OBAMA: I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to pre-judge that.
PLANTE: The remarks by President Obama came just days after the controversial declassification and release of the CIA torture memos. They disclosed that three Al Qaeda operatives had been waterboarded more than 260 times. Many legal experts insist that waterboarding is torture and that those who had sanctioned it need to be held accountable.
WILLIAM BANKS [SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY LAW PROFESSOR]: They're wrong because they allowed their zeal and their passion and their concern about the safety of the United States to overcome reason.
PLANTE: Former Vice President Dick Cheney, a supporter of the controversial interrogation tactics, believes that they helped keep America safe after 9/11.
DICK CHENEY: And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity.
PLANTE: Cheney's not the only one. Intelligence Director Dennis Blair sent a private memo to his staff, since authenticated, in which he said 'high-value information' was gained using those methods. But he added, 'I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past.' Blair, like his boss, the President, doesn't believe the people who carried out the orders should be prosecuted. Harry.
SMITH: Bill Plante at the White House this morning, thanks. In 2003, Janis Karpinski was the Brigadier General who ran the prisons in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib. She was demoted to Colonel in the aftermath of the scandal and has since retired. She's with us this morning. As we see this morning in the front pages of many papers around the country, there are findings this morning from a Senate Armed Services Committee report, which is scheduled for release later today, that suggests that the roots of torture, the roots of the idea of torture were being circulated in the Pentagon and the CIA as early as 2002. That's two years preceding what happened at Abu Ghraib. When you hear things like that, what do you think?
JANIS KARPINSKI: I think it took far too long for this information to surface and to come out. And when you were preparing soldiers, units and soldiers to deploy to war it would have been very helpful to arm them with as much information as you had available. So in 2002, people were well aware of these policies and the discussions. But it certainly would have been important to share that with the soldiers that you were sending off to war to conduct these operations.
SMITH: Because part of your sense is that this was pervasive in certain parts of the military culture. That the people who did the tortures in Abu Ghraib didn't act alone. They didn't act -- this didn't grow organically out of a cell or some place.
KARPINSKI: Absolutely. From the beginning, I've been saying, that these soldiers didn't design these techniques on their own, and the soldiers routinely said, as much as they could in their own court-martials, 'you know, we were following orders. We were bringing this to our chain of command and they were saying whatever the military intelligence tells you to do out there you are authorized to do.'
SMITH: Okay. We're showing waterboarding now, which was not part of the techniques, per se, in Abu Ghraib, but were used in -- by the CIA against Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and others. Is there a line? Do you see that there is a lining run -- that goes from 2002 to Abu Ghraib to the hundreds of times waterboards were used in these cases of these few CIA cases?
KARPINSKI: Absolutely. The line is very clear that it was cloudy for years, obviously, seven years, if 2002 were the initial discussions. But the line is clear. It went from Washington, D.C., from the very top of the administration with the legal opinions, through Bagram, to Guantanamo Bay, and then to Iraq via the commander from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. And the contractors who were hired to do those things.
SMITH: And in the -- in the end, end, you feel like, for instance, the people who were prosecuted for these crimes who were under your command, and even yourself, you believe were scapegoated?
KARPINSKI: Absolutely. I mean, scapegoat is the perfect word and it's an understatement. Right now, with the hard, fast, facts in those memos, the black and white proof, the administration is suggesting that those operatives should be immune from any investigations or persecution. But what about the soldiers who were categorized as seven bad apples back in 2004?
SMITH: Colonel, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us.
KARPINSKI: Thank you.
SMITH: Do appreciate it.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Karpinski is a a disgrace
April 22, 2009 - 10:47 ET by Prester John'you know, we were following orders. We were bringing this to our chain of command and they were saying whatever the military intelligence tells you to do out there you are authorized to do.'
Well, she was at the top of the chain of command!! Is she saying that she told her soldiers to do whatever the MI folks wanted them to do???!! Or is she saying she was so incompetent she had no clue about what was going on?
She was in charge of the prisons and as anyone who has ever been in the military knows, the commander is responsible for everything that happens or doesn't happen in his/her command.
She has no credibility whatsoever. I guess that is why Harriet had her on.
karpinsky, clark, kerry, et-all
April 22, 2009 - 11:10 ET by grumpyoldbJust another in a long line of worms placed in command position that throw their people under the bus the second anything controvercial happens.
Consider the stink that was raised over Abu Graib (or however the heck you spell it) and consider that these SAME people say nothing about terrorists hacking the heads off their screaming victims with dull knives in the name of "allah". It seems that the American definition of torture now includes anything that hurts the scumbags feelings. The only way to get these terrorists to leave us alone, is to make them FEAR US, not to stand around worrying about whether or not we made them feel bad.... Hook their nuts up to a 12 volt car battery....
As for commanders that sell their people out. I believe that falls under "Conduct Unbecoming an Officer" and is grounds for a dishonerable discharge.
What about our lovely president?
April 22, 2009 - 15:46 ET by jiffypopYou failed to mention the flip flopping decisions of our darling president. Over the weekend he was saying that he doesn't believe that anyone should be prosecuted. http://www.newsy.com... this link has footage from ABC and FOX that show his reps. directly telling the media that this prosecuting is against Obama's beliefs. I for one have a problem with the fact that he can't make up his mind and should have probably thought this out more througholy before deciding to talk to media outlets. But what can be expected from a dim-witted democrat.
Dear Harriet: I believe the term is turncoat, not scapegoat
April 22, 2009 - 10:48 ET by SickofLibsKarpinksi is on the same bowling team as Scott McClellan.
women!
April 22, 2009 - 10:56 ET by Calypso JonesThey do not belong in positions such as these. They are not suited to it, they are predisposed to leftism and they will betray you in a sec.
I'd go with the Kevlar II
April 22, 2009 - 11:48 ET by SickofLibsI'd go with the Kevlar II full body armor.
OBJECTION!
April 22, 2009 - 12:15 ET by aakaakaakSo they're using the person who was at fault as a valid consultant on an issue that they have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt was beyond their capacity. What was the logical fallacy in this again?
Oh right, Appeal to authority: http://www.nizkor.or...
http://www.americanw...
Scape Goat???
April 22, 2009 - 12:19 ET by kdoliverI was in Baghdad with a small team during 2004 and we had to deal with the fallout from her. If anyone made the the junior soldiers scapegoats it was HER. She was the commanding officer and the buck stops with her. If she had discovered their actions and had been the one to start the investigations then she would have been doing the responsibile thing. However, she was allowed to slide. That is where the Army was negligent. She should be serving years in jail right along with the those junior enlisted.
I could go on and on about how this messed up operations on the ground, but I will refrain.
http://thelazytriath...
I was wondering the same thing
April 22, 2009 - 13:15 ET by KC MulvilleA policy can't come from the White House and Pentagon to reach local soldiers ... and yet bypass the local commander. You can't claim there was a connection from A to C, but it curiously never went past B. There was a connection or there wasn't.
This is such an obvious, self-serving, manufacture of excuses that it's embarrassing.
KC: You are correct.
April 23, 2009 - 08:38 ET by BDKC:
You are correct. The abuses were organized by Charles Grainer who did it as part of his attempt to keep a svengali like control over his followers made up of junior enlisted persons, mostly famale whom he treated not unlike Charles Manson's family.
Grainer was a reservist who was a somewhat "Failed" guard at a prison near his home in West Virginia. Current thought is that he needed this control to keep his sexual control over the dippy underlings like Lyndy England who if I remember correctly he inpregnated in theater.
Supposedly Someone in the WHitehouse reached down and contacted Grainer to tell him to put prisoners in a naked pile? That cannot be believed on its face.
Predictably, Harry Smith
April 22, 2009 - 12:20 ET by TEPredictably, Harry Smith falsely asserts: "That the people who did the tortures in Abu Ghraib didn't act alone."
There were no "tortures" at Abu Ghraib. Lyndie England placing a dog collar around a prisoner's neck is not "torture". Placing panties over a prisoner's head is not "torture". Placing a hood over a prisoner's head is not "torture". Having prisoner's form a pyramid is not "torture".
Prosecute Clinton
April 22, 2009 - 13:29 ET by kiwikitClinton and his minions were responsible for the deaths of thousands on 9/11.
Hang him high! Why should he not be just as responsible as is Bush: he for killing Americans while Bush saved them.
We're now without any real intelligence due to BO's dictates. Earlier the Church committee destroyed our intelligence resulting in ten years of terrorists' attacks. All Democrats should be strung up! They hate our country and are trying to destroy it. That's what the Tea Parties are about, not just taxes.
torture
April 22, 2009 - 15:02 ET by ferv888Looking at the list of what the NYT calls torture was interesting to me. From that list, the only thing my Mother did not do to me when I was a turd was waterboarding.
If what the NYT called torture, is the most we did to these characters then we were not doing enough!
FERV888
Oh Sheesh
April 22, 2009 - 15:57 ET by BlondeI can't believe I'm even going to go here, but I just have to.
As for women in the Military, Karpinski is the perfect example of all in, or all out.
By relegating women to support roles only, this is what we get. All of the blind ambition, with none of the combat experience....and hence a lack of honor, and responsibility.
This woman sickens me. They should have busted her to private and kicked her out, with a dishonorable discharge.
I hope he fails, too.