Downing Street Says

Asked if Adam Ingram was expected to make a substantive announcement this afternoon on the outcome of the investigation into the Mirror photos, the PMOS said that Mr Ingram would make the position as clear as he could within the constraints imposed by the ongoing investigation and the legal position. Both of those requirements obviously took precedence over everything else. Asked for a reaction to the suggestion that we had known the results of the investigation for several days, the PMOS said that the idea that we were deliberately holding anything back was false. He repeated that it was necessary for us to work within the constraints imposed by the ongoing investigation and the legal position. Asked if he was suggesting that the investigation into the Mirror pictures was still ongoing, the PMOS said that Adam Ingram would update the Commons this afternoon on the latest position. He was not going to pre-empt what he might say. Asked to clarify the constraints under which Mr Ingram was operating, the PMOS said that Mr Ingram would set out the position in more detail later today. As he understood it, the constraints related to the possibility of criminal charges, as was usual in investigations of this sort.

Asked if the Prime Minister was sympathetic to the idea of handing over control of Iraqi prisoners to Iraqis, the PMOS said he was surprised that the Times had been taken aback by the fact that this was an idea. As he had told journalists at yesterday afternoon’s briefing, we wanted to ‘Iraqi-ise’ the situation on the ground as quickly as possible, both politically, economically and administratively, as well as in terms of the security forces, including prison authorities. Discussions were currently ongoing with Lakhdar Brahimi as to how that might work post 30 June. Obviously we would also have to talk to the Interim Authority about this issue. Mr Brahimi was due to report back to the UN at the end of the month. Our objective was to achieve local control as quickly as possible. In order to do that, however, we had to be sure that the Interim Authority had the capacity to deal with these matters. Thus, this whole issue was not a matter of dispute. It was simply a matter of a common sense working through of issues and problems.

Asked if the Prime Minister or any senior Ministers had seen the additional pictures of abuse and mistreatment which Senators in Washington had been given the opportunity to view yesterday, the PMOS said no. These were matters for the US authorities, not for us.

Asked if the Prime Minister continued to have full confidence in Adam Ingram, the PMOS said that the position had not changed from yesterday. The answer was yes.

10 Comments »

Adam Ingram did indeed give a statement to Parliament this afternoon. In the statement, he said:

"it is deeply disturbing that there are those prepared to casually vilify our armed forces without first establishing the facts".

Is this guy taking the piss? How about a Government who took us to war without ‘first establishing the facts’ ?
Comment by Colin Williams — 13 May 2004 on 5:23 pm | Link
I agree with both sentiments. Firstly, Adam Ingram was right in what he said about vilifying our forces. Even before the veracity of the pictures was established people were jumping in with both feet. As an ex-serviceman myself, I was always skeptical – those pictures of UK squaddies always looked fake. Having said that, I have worked with the US forces on a number of occasions in the past, and I have absolutely no trouble in believing pretty much anything they are supposed to have done.

However Colin also has a very good point – once again we have arrived at Government double-standards time. And wasn’t it just typical of Tony Blair to try to pull the patriotism card to get himself off the hook?!?!
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 13 May 2004 on 5:42 pm | Link
Those photographs looked fake all right, but there is a case for our Government to answer. I don’t for one minute believe that abuse was as systematic amongst our forces as it was in the US controlled areas, but there is still the matter of two Iraqi detanees murdered in British custody.

I have no direct experience of any armed forces, but from TV pictures and the report into abuse at Abu Ghraib it does seem that our forces are a world apart from the US Army when it comes to discipline. The camp commander left his post for 2 weeks without informing his superiors, for God’s sake.
Comment by Colin Williams — 13 May 2004 on 6:00 pm | Link
"The camp commander left his post for 2 weeks without informing his superiors, for God’s sake"

Nothing new in that, mate; all officers above the rank of Major (and I would imagine that a Camp commandant would be at least a full Colonel) are of the opinion that they are above such worldly considerations as work, duty, schedules and so on. British Army officers are exactly the same when they can get away with it.

You’re right about the standards of discipline in general though. In the US army people are often pally between ranks – something that rarely happens in the British Army. The general rule in the UK is one up, one down; that means that if you are for instance a Sergeant, then you can call people 1 rank above (ie; Staff Sergeant) by first names, as well as 1 rank down (Corporal). Privates can usually call Lance Corporals by name, but Corporals are usually referred to by rank (unless the Private in question has served for some years). Any further up or down the chain, and it’s back to the use of rank instead of first name.

While working with the US however, I have heard senior Privates telling Sergeants to wind their necks in, officers being on first name terms with Privates and junior NCOs, etc. Although to a lot of people this may seem much more comfortable and familiar than in our own regimented system, in fact it has the very opposite effect in a lot of cases. The old saw "familiarity breeds contempt" is perfectly apt here. That’s exactly what happens; officers, senior and junior NCOs all treat each other almost as equals, and before you know it it is almost impossible to directly order someone to do something (try it one day with one of your mates, they’ll tell you to get stuffed!) and there we have discipline going down the chute. I’m not trying to say this is what happened at Abu Ghraib; just an example of how lax their everyday discipline is. And of course in this case we aren’t even talking about regular soldiers but Reservists who are naturally going to have even less self-confidence and knowledge of the situations they find themselves in. So if some big hairy-arsed Sergeant-Major comes along and tells Private Nobody to stand and hold a dog on a leash and point and laugh, the fact that it is Sergeant-Major Hairyarse giving the order is good enough for Private Nobody – after all, he is a reservist in his early 20s whereas the Sertgeant Major has served for 30 years and has seen, done and knows everything; he MUST know what he is doing.

Then, of course, we have the bully types who like having power over people; the Intelligence people telling all the Private Nobodys that they are acting on orders direct from God; the CIA reinforcing that perception, and so on. Personally I feel kind of sorry for those reservists; although I don’t for a moment believe that they didn’t have the common sense to refuse what were obviously illegal orders (it is acceptable in certain circumstances for a soldier to disobey a direct order if he or she thinks that order is illegal; there are very strict guidelines), at the same time they are being made the scapegoats for things which had to have went much higher up the chain of command, possibly even the top (although of course I’m sure Don Rumsfeld didn’t give them the order personally!)
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 13 May 2004 on 6:52 pm | Link
Thaks for the info, that was interesting. As you suspected, the camp commander was some kind of Colonel. He took two weeks off, and another Colonel running a nearby prison camp took over to cover for him.

According to the US Army report, the soldiers had not received specific training in running a prison. It says that some of the reservists who are also civilian prison officers had been giving advice and instructions to the others. This looks like a systemic failure to prepare the guards for their duties before flying to Iraq. Presumably failure to train the guards means that responsibility for their behaviour rests with someone higher up, although I don’t expect to see anyone outside that camp being charged with dereliction of duty.

As for Donald Rumsfeld, he told the US Congress that he took ‘full responsibility’ for the incidents of mistreatment. If that were really true, he would be prepared to resign.

One question about orders from a superior. Instead of refusing the order, can a soldier ask for it in writing to cover himself?
Comment by Colin Williams — 14 May 2004 on 12:30 pm | Link
Well, in general "only obeying orders" isn’t a defence. As I understand it, personnel have a duty to refuse an illegal order in any case.
Comment by Chris Lightfoot — 14 May 2004 on 12:48 pm | Link
So – no training as to how to treat prisoners. No doubt an important part of the "Hearts and Minds" philosophy. Well done there then.
Comment by Lodjer — 14 May 2004 on 1:46 pm | Link
You’re right up to a point Chris – yes, personnel do have a duty to refuse illegal commands; however, I would suggest it all depends on the experience and length of service of the person being ordered. If that person is an old sweat then of course he is going to be very cynical about getting himself into trouble by following dodgy orders. However, if the person being ordered is a 20 year old reservist who is as out of their depth as it is possible to be, then I would suggest that a certain amount of leniency should be afforded to that person. Bear in mind the immeasurable gulf between civilian and military life, the pressures of a direct order THERE AND THEN means that an inexperienced person WILL follow an order, relying on the experience of the people around him. So yes, I do believe that a certain amount of discretion should be shown for the younger and less experienced among the Americans indicted at Abu Ghraib.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 14 May 2004 on 9:32 pm | Link
great joy being here..good work.
Comment by Sofia Loreen — 20 Dec 2004 on 10:20 am | Link
This is really a crazy world. How can anybody understand all this crazy stuff all around? It’s so meaningless, but in one way it’s fantastic!
Comment by Sybill june — 26 Apr 2005 on 2:41 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Thursday, May 13, 2004

Iraq

10 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries