Who's Lane McCotter?

Letters at 3AM

Who's Lane McCotter?

BY MICHAEL VENTURA

illustration by Jason Stout

Who is Lane McCotter, and what
exactly was he
doing in Iraq?

As of this writing, no
congressional committee has
asked that question, but
sooner or later, they'll
have to. It is a question that
may bring down the
Bush administration. This is
why.

George W. Bush promises that
all prisoners in Iraq
are covered and protected by
the Geneva
Convention, which states
(Section 1, Article 17):
"No physical or mental
torture, nor any other form
of coercion, may be inflicted
on prisoners of war to
secure from them information
of any kind
whatever. Prisoners of war who
refuse to answer
may not be threatened,
insulted, or exposed to
unpleasant or disadvantageous
treatment of any
kind."

Yet someone identified by The
New York Times
(May 15) as a "senior military
official" at U.S.
headquarters in Baghdad says,
"There are
reasonable people and very
intelligent people who
can differ on what is
authorized, what's permissible
under the Geneva Convention."
No there aren't.
Read it again: "No physical or
mental torture, or
any other form of coercion ...
unpleasant or
disadvantageous treatment of
any kind." Another
provision reads: "Outrages
upon personal dignity,
in particular humiliating and
degrading treatment
shall be prohibited at any
time." There's no room for
argument. The "senior military
official" in Baghdad
was dispensing disinformation
? lying.

In that vein, it is
interesting that U.S. military
lawyers were excluded from
determining
procedures in Iraq, as the Los
Angeles Times
reported on May 14. Scott
Horton, former
chairman of the New York City
Bar Association
committee that filed a brief
on Iraqi interrogations
earlier this month, said that
senior military
lawyers "were extremely upset.
They said they
were being shut out of the
process, and that civilian
political lawyers, not the
military lawyers, were
writing these new rules of
engagement [for
interrogation]." Remember that
the chief White
House counsel called the
Geneva accords "obsolete."
The LA Times goes on: "The
military lawyers
complained that the Pentagon
was 'creating an
atmosphere of legal
ambiguity,' Horton said.
'What's happened is not an
accident. It is exactly
what they [the military
lawyers] were warning
about a year ago.'"

Which brings us to Lane
McCotter. Do a Web search
on McCotter and you'll come
across an article in the
March 4 newsletter The Utah
Sheriff featuring a
photo taken last year of Lane
McCotter giving a
tour of the Abu Ghraib prison
to none other than
Donald Rumsfeld's right-hand
man Paul Wolfowitz.
So: Who's McCotter, and what
was he doing in Iraq?

According to a NY Times report
on May 8, Lane
McCotter was an MP in Vietnam
who eventually
rose to the rank of colonel.
His last Army
assignment was as warden of
the Army's central
prison at Fort Leavenworth. In
civilian life he
eventually became director of
the Utah
Department of Corrections, a
post he resigned under
pressure in 1997 "after an
inmate died while
shackled to a restraining
chair for 16 hours. The
inmate, who suffered from
schizophrenia, was kept
naked the whole time."
McCotter later became a top
executive in a private prison
company that ran a
Sante Fe jail that was "under
investigation by the
Justice Department" for
"unsafe conditions and lack
of medical care for inmates."

Here comes the good part:

While he and his company were
under
investigation by the Justice
Department, the
department's chief, Attorney
General John
Ashcroft, hand-picked McCotter
to "rebuild [Iraq's]
criminal justice system." (NY
Times) Inhale that:
Ashcroft selected a man his
own department was
investigating, a man who had
to leave the top
corrections post in Utah or
face scrutiny for what
can only be called torture.
And that's what
inner-circle Republicans are
so frightened of: If the
prison abuse investigation
gets to Ashcroft, it gets to
the White House.

It would seem that McCotter
was chosen not in spite
of his record but because of
it. It's likely that
Ashcroft and Wolfowitz, and
the people they report
to (Rumsfeld and Bush), knew
exactly who they
were hiring and what was
expected of him. It was
McCotter who, in the parlance
of The NY Times,
"directed Abu Ghraib prison in
Iraq last year and
trained the guards." The
guards McCotter trained
did the infamous things, took
the infamous
photographs. What did Ashcroft
say when he
appointed McCotter? This: "Now
all Iraqis can taste
liberty in their native land,
and we will help make
that freedom permanent by
assisting them to
establish an equitable justice
system based on the
rule of law and standards of
basic human rights."
Orwell would chortle. When The
NY Times (May 8)
queried why McCotter was hired
even though he
was under investigation, the
Justice Department
didn't return the calls. Hard
to blame them. What
could Justice possibly say?

Twelve days later, Justice
lamely told ABC News
that "the department was aware
of the background
of the men [McCotter and John
J. Armstrong, who
has an even worse record]. ...
The official said they
were among the few who were
willing to go."

The hiring of McCotter sheds
more light on what
Gen. Janis Karpinski,
nominally in charge of Abu
Ghraib, told Aaron Brown on
CNN, May 10: "I don't
think there was anything
improper done. Because
there wasn't a violation of
procedure. This was
something they [the guards]
were instructed to do
as a new procedure." A general
officer in the U.S.
Army said that. Those gruesome
photos record a
procedure the guards were
trained to do. By
military intelligence? By
McCotter? Both?
Eventually, McCotter and
Ashcroft must be called
to testify. Wolfowitz, too.
What did he learn on
McCotter's tour? If Wolfowitz
knew, Rumsfeld did,
but what and how much? What
Rumsfeld and
Ashcroft knew, Bush knew or
(just as bad) should
have known.

And then other pieces fall
into place. The NY Times,
May 7: Amnesty International,
Human Rights
Watch, and Human Rights First
all report that they
complained of Iraqi prisoner
maltreatment to
Coalition Provisional
Authority boss L. Paul Bremer
III and Condoleezza Rice, who
shined them on ?
which again takes the abuse
case straight to the
White House. The LA Times, May
9: "[T]he
recently resigned, handpicked
Iraqi human rights
minister was quoted as saying
that he notified L.
Paul Bremer III, head of the
Coalition Provisional
Authority, in November of
possible prisoner abuse,
'but there was no answer.' The
minister was not
even allowed to visit the
prisons." Bremer knew
what he would see. When our
top commanders in
Iraq, Gens. Abizaid and
Sanchez, testified to
Congress on May 19 that they
knew nothing of the
Red Cross reports, either they
were lying, or
top-level civilians like Rice
and Bremer kept the
reports from them.

And our poor troops? The
disregard for our soldiers
by this administration is in
some ways the greatest
disgrace of all. The NY Times,
May 9: "Army
doctrine calls for a military
brigade to handle about
4,000 prisoners. But a single
battalion ? about a
third of the size of a brigade
? was handling 6,000
to 7,000 prisoners at Abu
Ghraib." That's what
happens when Bush refuses to
commit the
necessary number of troops to
Iraq because it would
look bad politically. The
pressure on our people in
uniform was horrendous.
Undertrained and
mal-trained, and under fire
the whole time ? Abu
Ghraib was regularly the
target of bombardments
? they were ordered to do the
impossible. Instead,
they did the unthinkable. And
it will hang over
them all their lives, as it
should, while the people
they trusted, the people who
put this system in
place ? Rumsfeld, Ashcroft,
Bush, Cheney, Rice,
Bremer ? spout platitudes and
avoid accountability
... so far.

The LA Times, May 11: "Most
Arrested by 'Mistake'
? Coalition Intelligence Put
Numbers at 70% to
90% of Iraqi prisoners." The
Red Cross, which "made
29 visits to Coalition-run
prisons and camps
between late March and
November of last year, said
it repeatedly presented its
reports of mistreatment
to prison commanders, U.S.
military officials in
Iraq and members of the Bush
administration in
Washington." (Why hasn't the
Red Cross been called
to testify?) In a separate
story the same day: "US
Army officials have
acknowledged detaining
women in hopes of persuading
male relatives to
provide information. ...
Interrogators sometimes
threatened to kill [the
innocent women] detainees."

Kidnapping and threatening
people's wives.
Blackmail. Indiscriminate
arrests. Torture. But
when Rumsfeld and his generals
are asked who,
exactly, was in real command
of Abu Ghraib, they
claim not to know even that,
while their so-called
commander in chief claims
complete ignorance of
every issue in this affair.

If that's the truth, they're
incompetent. If it's not,
they're war criminals.
-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

Wow. Thanks for another good one, Kraig. Very enlightening. What's
your source for this?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> Letters at 3AM
>
> Who's Lane McCotter?
>
> BY MICHAEL VENTURA
>
>
>
>
>
> illustration by Jason Stout
>
>
> Who is Lane McCotter, and
what
> exactly was he
> doing in Iraq?
>
> As of this writing, no
> congressional committee has
> asked that question, but
> sooner or later, they'll
> have to. It is a question
that
> may bring down the
> Bush administration. This
is
> why.
>
> George W. Bush promises
that
> all prisoners in Iraq
> are covered and protected
by
> the Geneva
> Convention, which states
> (Section 1, Article 17):
> "No physical or mental
> torture, nor any other form
> of coercion, may be
inflicted
> on prisoners of war to
> secure from them
information
> of any kind
> whatever. Prisoners of
war who
> refuse to answer
> may not be threatened,
> insulted, or exposed to
> unpleasant or
disadvantageous
> treatment of any
> kind."
>
> Yet someone identified by
The
> New York Times
> (May 15) as a "senior
military
> official" at U.S.
> headquarters in Baghdad
says,
> "There are
> reasonable people and very
> intelligent people who
> can differ on what is
> authorized, what's permissible
> under the Geneva
Convention."
> No there aren't.
> Read it again: "No
physical or
> mental torture, or
> any other form of
coercion ...
> unpleasant or
> disadvantageous treatment
of
> any kind." Another
> provision reads: "Outrages
> upon personal dignity,
> in particular humiliating
and
> degrading treatment
> shall be prohibited at any
> time." There's no room for
> argument. The "senior
military
> official" in Baghdad
> was dispensing
disinformation
> ? lying.
>
> In that vein, it is
> interesting that U.S. military
> lawyers were excluded from
> determining
> procedures in Iraq, as
the Los
> Angeles Times
> reported on May 14. Scott
> Horton, former
> chairman of the New York
City
> Bar Association
> committee that filed a
brief
> on Iraqi interrogations
> earlier this month, said
that
> senior military
> lawyers "were extremely
upset.
> They said they
> were being shut out of the
> process, and that civilian
> political lawyers, not the
> military lawyers, were
> writing these new rules of
> engagement [for
> interrogation]." Remember
that
> the chief White
> House counsel called the
> Geneva accords "obsolete."
> The LA Times goes on: "The
> military lawyers
> complained that the
Pentagon
> was 'creating an
> atmosphere of legal
> ambiguity,' Horton said.
> 'What's happened is not an
> accident. It is exactly
> what they [the military
> lawyers] were warning
> about a year ago.'"
>
> Which brings us to Lane
> McCotter. Do a Web search
> on McCotter and you'll
come
> across an article in the
> March 4 newsletter The
Utah
> Sheriff featuring a
> photo taken last year of
Lane
> McCotter giving a
> tour of the Abu Ghraib
prison
> to none other than
> Donald Rumsfeld's right-
hand
> man Paul Wolfowitz.
> So: Who's McCotter, and
what
> was he doing in Iraq?
>
> According to a NY Times
report
> on May 8, Lane
> McCotter was an MP in
Vietnam
> who eventually
> rose to the rank of
colonel.
> His last Army
> assignment was as warden
of
> the Army's central
> prison at Fort
Leavenworth. In
> civilian life he
> eventually became
director of
> the Utah
> Department of
Corrections, a
> post he resigned under
> pressure in 1997 "after an
> inmate died while
> shackled to a restraining
> chair for 16 hours. The
> inmate, who suffered from
> schizophrenia, was kept
> naked the whole time."
> McCotter later became a top
> executive in a private
prison
> company that ran a
> Sante Fe jail that
was "under
> investigation by the
> Justice Department" for
> "unsafe conditions and lack
> of medical care for
inmates."
>
> Here comes the good part:
>
> While he and his company
were
> under
> investigation by the
Justice
> Department, the
> department's chief,
Attorney
> General John
> Ashcroft, hand-picked
McCotter
> to "rebuild [Iraq's]
> criminal justice system."
(NY
> Times) Inhale that:
> Ashcroft selected a man
his
> own department was
> investigating, a man who
had
> to leave the top
> corrections post in Utah
or
> face scrutiny for what
> can only be called
torture.
> And that's what
> inner-circle Republicans
are
> so frightened of: If the
> prison abuse investigation
> gets to Ashcroft, it gets to
> the White House.
>
> It would seem that
McCotter
> was chosen not in spite
> of his record but because
of
> it. It's likely that
> Ashcroft and Wolfowitz,
and
> the people they report
> to (Rumsfeld and Bush),
knew
> exactly who they
> were hiring and what was
> expected of him. It was
> McCotter who, in the
parlance
> of The NY Times,
> "directed Abu Ghraib
prison in
> Iraq last year and
> trained the guards." The
> guards McCotter trained
> did the infamous things,
took
> the infamous
> photographs. What did
Ashcroft
> say when he
> appointed McCotter?
This: "Now
> all Iraqis can taste
> liberty in their native
land,
> and we will help make
> that freedom permanent by
> assisting them to
> establish an equitable
justice
> system based on the
> rule of law and standards
of
> basic human rights."
> Orwell would chortle.
When The
> NY Times (May 8)
> queried why McCotter was
hired
> even though he
> was under investigation,
the
> Justice Department
> didn't return the calls.
Hard
> to blame them. What
> could Justice possibly
say?
>
> Twelve days later, Justice
> lamely told ABC News
> that "the department was
aware
> of the background
> of the men [McCotter and
John
> J. Armstrong, who
> has an even worse
record]. ...
> The official said they
> were among the few who
were
> willing to go."
>
> The hiring of McCotter
sheds
> more light on what
> Gen. Janis Karpinski,
> nominally in charge of Abu
> Ghraib, told Aaron Brown
on
> CNN, May 10: "I don't
> think there was anything
> improper done. Because
> there wasn't a violation
of
> procedure. This was
> something they [the
guards]
> were instructed to do
> as a new procedure." A
general
> officer in the U.S.
> Army said that. Those
gruesome
> photos record a
> procedure the guards were
> trained to do. By
> military intelligence? By
> McCotter? Both?
> Eventually, McCotter and
> Ashcroft must be called
> to testify. Wolfowitz,
too.
> What did he learn on
> McCotter's tour? If
Wolfowitz
> knew, Rumsfeld did,
> but what and how much?
What
> Rumsfeld and
> Ashcroft knew, Bush knew
or
> (just as bad) should
> have known.
>
> And then other pieces fall
> into place. The NY Times,
> May 7: Amnesty
International,
> Human Rights
> Watch, and Human Rights
First
> all report that they
> complained of Iraqi
prisoner
> maltreatment to
> Coalition Provisional
> Authority boss L. Paul Bremer
> III and Condoleezza Rice,
who
> shined them on ?
> which again takes the
abuse
> case straight to the
> White House. The LA
Times, May
> 9: "[T]he
> recently resigned,
handpicked
> Iraqi human rights
> minister was quoted as
saying
> that he notified L.
> Paul Bremer III, head of
the
> Coalition Provisional
> Authority, in November of
> possible prisoner abuse,
> 'but there was no
answer.' The
> minister was not
> even allowed to visit the
> prisons." Bremer knew
> what he would see. When
our
> top commanders in
> Iraq, Gens. Abizaid and
> Sanchez, testified to
> Congress on May 19 that
they
> knew nothing of the
> Red Cross reports, either
they
> were lying, or
> top-level civilians like
Rice
> and Bremer kept the
> reports from them.
>
> And our poor troops? The
> disregard for our soldiers
> by this administration is
in
> some ways the greatest
> disgrace of all. The NY
Times,
> May 9: "Army
> doctrine calls for a
military
> brigade to handle about
> 4,000 prisoners. But a
single
> battalion ? about a
> third of the size of a
brigade
> ? was handling 6,000
> to 7,000 prisoners at Abu
> Ghraib." That's what
> happens when Bush refuses
to
> commit the
> necessary number of
troops to
> Iraq because it would
> look bad politically. The
> pressure on our people in
> uniform was horrendous.
> Undertrained and
> mal-trained, and under
fire
> the whole time ? Abu
> Ghraib was regularly the
> target of bombardments
> ? they were ordered to do
the
> impossible. Instead,
> they did the unthinkable.
And
> it will hang over
> them all their lives, as
it
> should, while the people
> they trusted, the people
who
> put this system in
> place ? Rumsfeld,
Ashcroft,
> Bush, Cheney, Rice,
> Bremer ? spout platitudes
and
> avoid accountability
> ... so far.
>
> The LA Times, May
11: "Most
> Arrested by 'Mistake'
> ? Coalition Intelligence
Put
> Numbers at 70% to
> 90% of Iraqi prisoners."
The
> Red Cross, which "made
> 29 visits to Coalition-run
> prisons and camps
> between late March and
> November of last year, said
> it repeatedly presented
its
> reports of mistreatment
> to prison commanders, U.S.
> military officials in
> Iraq and members of the
Bush
> administration in
> Washington." (Why hasn't
the
> Red Cross been called
> to testify?) In a separate
> story the same day: "US
> Army officials have
> acknowledged detaining
> women in hopes of
persuading
> male relatives to
> provide information. ...
> Interrogators sometimes
> threatened to kill [the
> innocent women] detainees."
>
> Kidnapping and threatening
> people's wives.
> Blackmail. Indiscriminate
> arrests. Torture. But
> when Rumsfeld and his
generals
> are asked who,
> exactly, was in real
command
> of Abu Ghraib, they
> claim not to know even
that,
> while their so-called
> commander in chief claims
> complete ignorance of
> every issue in this
affair.
>
> If that's the truth,
they're
> incompetent. If it's not,
> they're war criminals.
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST