1.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We begin today with a look
into a stunning new investigation
by The New York Times into claims of military abuses and a possible
cover-up that goes up the chain of command. The article, titled “Navy SEALs, a
Beating Death and Claims of a Cover-Up,” uncovers accounts that in May 2012 members
of a Navy SEAL team stationed at an outpost in Kalach, in southern Afghanistan, abused
detainees that had been rounded up as suspects after a bomb exploded at a
military checkpoint, killing one
member of the Afghan Local Police unit the SEALs had been training. According
to a report by the
Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which the Times acquired
through a FOIA request, three Navy SEALs dropped heavy stones on the detainees’
chests, stomped on their heads, and poured bottles of water on their faces in a
modified form of waterboarding. One of the detainees was beaten so badly that
he eventually died from his injuries.
2.
AMY GOODMAN: But what happened after the
incident has many military justice experts questioning whether Navy commanders
worked to cover up the case. Four U.S. soldiers working
with the SEALs at the outpost reported that they had witnessed the
abuse, but Navy commanders chose to deal with the matter in a closed
disciplinary process, one usually reserved for minor infractions. The SEALs
were cleared of any wrongdoing. Two of the SEALs implicated in the abuse of the
detainees and their lieutenant have since been promoted, despite calls by one
commander to have them forced out of the SEAL team. Retired Rear Admiral Donald Guter, who
as former judge advocate general of the Navy was in charge of all its lawyers,
he said of the process, quote, “It’s unfathomable. It really does look like
this was intended just to bury this.”
New York Times reporters spoke
with some of the soldiers who reported the abuse, as well as one of the Afghan
men who was detained. They also spoke with the brother of Muhammad Hashem, the man who died
after being interrogated at the base.
Well, for more, we’re joined by Nicholas
Kulish, a correspondent for The New York Times, lead reporter of this exposé,
“Navy SEALs, a Beating Death and Claims of a Cover-Up.”
Welcome to Democracy Now! It’s
great to have you with us, Nick. Why don’t you start off with how you learned
about this incident that, well, happened back in May of 2012?
3.
NICHOLAS KULISH: Sure. Well, initially,
we had a tip from a confidential source that this had taken place, which is
what led us to the Naval Criminal Investigative report. The problem at
that point was that it was entirely redacted, and it said that the soldiers
involved, or the witnesses, had recanted their statements. So, at
that point, unless we could figure out who these soldiers were, track them down
and find out what they had actually seen and what they had actually said, there
was nothing we could really do with it. So that was where we focused our
efforts.
4.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And you were able to track
down some of these soldiers. And had they recanted their testimony?
5.
NICHOLAS KULISH: All
of the soldiers, and they all said that they had not recanted their testimony.
6.
AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about what you
believe happened on that day.
7.
NICHOLAS KULISH: I mean, I can talk about
what the witnesses said.
8.
AMY GOODMAN: What they told you.
9.
NICHOLAS KULISH: And they said that there
had been an IED, a bomb blast, that
had killed one of the ALP members. The ALP picked up—
10.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s the Afghan police.
11.
NICHOLAS KULISH: The Afghan Local Police
picked up the—sort of rounded up the usual suspects, you might say. They
grabbed some out-of-town scrap merchants, as well as the people that they were
staying with, and brought them to the base, beating
them with rifle butts, whipping them with car antennas along the way. One
of the soldiers who was closest to the incident when it took place said that he
expected the SEALs to stop the abuse. And with a
kick to one of the kneeling, bound detainees, he said that it began with the
SEALs taking over and leading the abuse themselves from that point on.
12.
AMY GOODMAN: And then what happened?
13.
NICHOLAS KULISH: Two of the soldiers were
standing on a rooftop nearby. Two of the soldiers were standing on another
rooftop slightly farther away. All four describe a fairly consistent set of
circumstances, which you alluded to—dropping rocks, one of the soldiers said
to me, so heavy that a muscular SEAL needed two hands to lift them, which would
mean at least 20 pounds probably, dropping them onto their chests, at one point
pulling their legs apart, dropping them on their groins, standing on one of the
victims’ heads eight to 10 times—so, I mean, you know, if the
witness statements are correct, a really pretty gruesome circumstance.
14.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, one of the things
that struck me in some of these statements that were given is the—that this
apparently may not have been an isolated incident in terms of how the SEALs
were dealing with the local population, because one of the soldiers said—and
this is an enlisted man, not part of the SEALs—”My initial thought of the SEAL’s was that
I thought they were disciplined professionals. As time went on it seemed the
SEAL’s became bored. They started throwing grenades off the roof of the camp,
shoot at local nationals that were on ridgelines, most of the time they would
do it without warning. When they did shoot warning shots at the locals it was
for no reason, they were no threat. ... This didn’t happen everyday, but it was
often.” So, it did seem that there was definitely conflict between
some of the regular soldiers and the SEALs on the way they were handling their
assignments.
15.
NICHOLAS KULISH: Yeah, absolutely. There
were other incidents that I heard about. At one point,
one of the SEALs pulled a gun on a soldier in the base gym—as a joke,
supposedly, but that’s a very—that, in and of itself, we’ve been told by
military lawyers, would be a serious offense; shooting
at a kitten under an ammunition shed, which, aside from the kitten
itself, you talk about possibly hitting explosives or a ricochet hitting one of
the servicemembers on the base. And, you know, I’d like to point out that we
spoke with Afghan elders and villagers, who confirmed a lot of this, such as shooting at people
in their almond groves or wheat fields, just, you know, warning shots or for
fun or however you want to characterize it.
16.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to an excerpt
from the statement by the soldiers who witnessed the abuse of the detainees.
One of the soldiers, whose name was redacted from the report, spoke of the
general actions by the Navy SEALs, saying, quote, “Me
and my guys witnessed all sorts of inappropriate behavior by the SEALs. I
personally witnessed them throwing grenades over the wall of the compound for
no particular reason. I saw them shoot at random vehicles with the .50cal and I
also saw one of the SEAL’s shoot an Mk-13 grenade launcher towards an Afghan
male as a warning shot. They didn’t kill anyone, but it was all very excessive.”
So, you have this situation, and the question is: How does the military
then deal with it?
17.
NICHOLAS KULISH: Well, and that’s the
real issue. You know, the commander—these SEALs were from SEAL Team 2. And the
commander of SEAL Team 2, who was in Afghanistan at the time—
18.
AMY GOODMAN: And explain where this is in
Afghanistan.
19.
NICHOLAS KULISH: Sure. This is in—you would say southern or
eastern, southeastern Afghanistan. It’s a very
remote area. You wouldn’t—you don’t even have cellphone service there. But
there is a road crossing and a bus stop, so there is, you know, by Afghan
standards, some sort of bustling commerce that takes place there.
So, the soldiers
actually did not report the abuse immediately. There was some concerns, at such
an isolated outpost, outnumbered by the Navy personnel. They waited until they
got back to the larger
regional base at Tirin Kot, where they then reported the abuse up the
chain of command. The Navy SEAL commander who was in charge of the four SEALs
who were accused called in
the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, took their guns away, and—
20.
AMY GOODMAN: NCIS.
21.
NICHOLAS KULISH: NCIS. And when it became
clear that there were serious allegations, he sent them home. So, as far as the
criminal justice experts that we’ve spoken to—the military justice experts, I
should say—that was all handled correctly, the way that you would expect.
22.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: So, but then what
happened? How come they were not court-martialed?
23.
NICHOLAS KULISH: I think that’s the
biggest question that remains. I think that, you know, the former JAGs that we
spoke to, Judge
Advocate General Corps military lawyers, all said that the logical next
step would have been an Article 32 hearing. That’s similar to a grand jury for the
military. I think some people might be familiar with it, because Bowe Bergdahl
recently had an Article 32 hearing. But for some reason, that did not take—that
did not take place. The
Navy captain, Robert E. Smith, said that he believed that conflicting
statements between the Naval personnel and the Army soldiers was enough that he
should handle it with his own closed hearing.
24.
AMY GOODMAN: One of the military experts
you spoke to is Geoffrey
Corn, a former military lawyer who was the Army’s senior expert adviser
on the law of war. He warned that not taking charges seriously damages ethical
standards and morale. You quote him saying, “What’s the message for the 10,000
guys that were in the same moment and said, ‘No, we’re not crossing this line’?
It diminishes the
immense courage it takes to maintain that line between legitimate and
illegitimate violence.” This is a very profound point, Nick.
25.
NICHOLAS KULISH: Yeah, you know, and I
think that Geoffrey Corn felt very passionate about that, that it’s not—it’s
not easy to be out there in these difficult situations in places like
Afghanistan or Iraq, losing friends at times to wounds, or even being killed,
and then being expected to follow the laws of war and behave yourself and be
respectful to the local population. By overlooking or choosing to ignore
serious allegations of abuse, you’re, in some ways, I think—Geoffrey Corn would
say you’re kind of invalidating all the efforts and hard choices that those
other soldiers have made.
26.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what’s the—what was
the effect of this, in terms of the local—you said you talked to some local
elders—on the surrounding community, of these kinds of actions?
27.
NICHOLAS KULISH: Sure. I think it’s
important to note that the point of this mission was to win over the local
population. The reason they were in such a small outpost is that they were
supposed to be close to the people, getting to know the people, building up a
local police force that could defend them from the Taliban. After this incident
and the series of incidents that preceded it, many people fled for the
Taliban-controlled area. We very recently learned, just in the past couple of
weeks, that after this incident took place—or, just recently, that the Taliban
are in control of the area and, with the help of the villagers, bulldozed the
outpost, that the Americans had retreated from.
28.
AMY GOODMAN: In May 2010, Matthew McCabe was the
last of three Navy SEALs acquitted after facing courts-martial on charges that
they mistreated an
Iraqi prisoner suspected in the deaths of four Blackwater security guards whose
charred bodies were dragged through
the city of Fallujah in 2004. U.S. military officials had charged
one of the SEALs with punching the prisoner, Ahmed Hashim Abed, after he was taken into
custody September 1st in Iraq. All three SEALs had been charged with
dereliction of duty and lying to Navy investigators to cover up the incident.
This is Matthew McCabe
speaking to Fox News after he was cleared.
29.
MATTHEW McCABE: I’m
ridiculously happy right now. This is an amazing feeling, and I’m glad we can just
tie it up with me being found not guilty. And, you know, the other two guys
were already found not guilty, so this is amazing. I’m on cloud nine right now.
30.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Matthew McCabe
speaking to Fox News after he was cleared. He also described the court-martial
process.
31.
MATTHEW McCABE: There’s kind of some
misconception about—what we did is we denied general’s mast, which doesn’t
necessarily mean that we request court-martial; however, that is the next step
if the convening authority does not want to dismiss the charges. So, we ended
up coming to court-martial, and that was in the best interest of everybody
anyways, and we all got acquitted.
32.
AMY GOODMAN: So that’s an example in
another case not related to this one, but what this means. And if you can talk
about not only the Navy SEALs not being court-martialed—this, in Afghanistan,
in your case—but people being promoted?
33.
NICHOLAS KULISH: Yeah, and I think that
for the witnesses, in fact, the witnesses did not know what had happened, what
the disposition of this case was. They believed that they were testifying at a
court-martial, when in fact it was just the—what’s called the captain’s mast procedure. And
I think it’s fair to say that they were stunned when they learned that the
people involved had been—that the SEALs who they had accused had been promoted.
They were absolutely shocked.
34.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Has there been
any reaction, since your article came out, to the—to what you reported?
35.
NICHOLAS KULISH: I mean, there’s
been a great deal of reaction from readers. People have really been very
interested in the story there. There has not, since it’s been reported, been
anything from the Navy command or from the Pentagon. In their statements to us,
they’ve said that they defend the prerogative of a commander to deal with these
discipline issues, as a broader point, that there’s a long tradition of that
being the way that it’s handled, whether they agree with each and every case or
not.
36.
AMY GOODMAN: How does this—is there a
possibility of this being reopened? And what has been the response to your
piece? It was front page of The New York Times yesterday.
37.
NICHOLAS KULISH: Sure. You know, we spoke with Rachel
VanLandingham, who was the chief legal adviser to the Army’s—or the military’s
Central Command for detainee matters. And she said very strongly, after reviewing the entire NCIS file,
that she thought that the case should be reopened. So the question—I
think the open question is whether that will happen.
38.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you
for being with us, Nicholas Kulish, correspondent for The New York Times,
one of the lead reporters on their new exposé,
“Navy SEALs, a Beating Death and Claims of a Cover-Up.” He’s also the author of
The Eternal Nazi: From Mauthausen to Cairo, the Relentless Pursuit of SS
Doctor Aribert Heim.
This is Democracy
Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. When we come back, we go to Denver, Colorado, to a case of a
man who’s been held in prison for decades. The evidence? The dream of a
woman who said she believed he raped her, based on her dream. Stay with us.
No comments:
Post a Comment