Photos v. Words

Before the panel members of Sgt. Michael Smith's court martial had been selected, before any opening statements were made, I could see the strategies of both the prosecution and the defense on full display.  During a 39A hearing, both sides provided the exhibits they would  introduce as evidence.  The prosecution put forward almost exclusively  photographs from Abu Ghraib  - many of them the same or similar to ones the world has seen.  The defense, on the other hand, offered almost only memorandums and other written documents that address the use of dogs in detention and interrogation.  In essence, it  comes down to two competing messages: "The images speak for themselves" or "These photos are explained by orders Sgt. Smith received."

 

The prosecution opened by laying out the details of what Smith is accused of - including maltreatment of detainees, conspiring  to maltreat detainees, dereliction of duty, aggravated assault, and an indecent act.  Smith could face up to 24 1/2 years if convicted on all counts.

 

Prosecutor Maj. Matthew Miller compared the situation of Sgt. Smith and other guards at Abu Ghraib to "foxes in the henhouse" who have been "given the keys to the locks from the inside."  Miller laid out how Sgt. Smith tried to make detainees, including juveniles, urinate and defecate on themselves out of fear of his dog, to make other detainees do the "doggie dance" out of fear, but Miller also noted that there would be evidence of a leadership failure on the part of Col. Thomas Pappas and that he deviated from Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez' established interrogation policy.  This latter point may be the government's own spin of course.  At  the very least one of the big questions for everyone is what was the policy from on high, and was Pappas and then his subordinates deviating, or just following what was in fact policy, which for a long time did appear to include the use of dogs in interrogation.  After describing the vivid details of some of the abuses, the prosecution stated its key point, "that there is no soldier who would honestly and reasonably believe that such conduct was lawful or authorized."  Maj. Miller concluded with "This is what happens when a guard or a cop turns bad."

 

The defense sought to portray of course a decidedly different story - describing how the young Smith (he is now 24) spent one of his first days at Abu Ghraib - Thanksgiving - amid a riot, shooting and finally death.  The defense described much of the chaotic scenes at Abu Ghraib all the while stressing that Smith was the youngest and lowest ranking of the dog handlers assigned to Abu Ghraib.  The defense also tried to minimize what Smith had done, saying that all he had the dog do was bark - "that was his job; that's what dogs do."  But the main theme was that Smith was following orders from then Sergeant, now Private, Ivan Fredrick, or contract civilian interrogator Stephen Stephanowicz or Col. Pappas.  "He was young - he was doing what he thought his superiors wanted . . . put yourself in his shoes" and most importantly, "don't get distracted by the misconduct of others."

 

It's hard to say who had the more compelling opening statement.  Were Sgt. Smith's actions authorized?  They were not lawful and we do know that at least one other dog handler, Master at Arms 1st Class William Kimbro, refused to participate in the harassment of detainees with his dog.  But is it reasonable to think he would have resisted the orders if they came from Fredrick?  Maj. Dinenna?  Col. Pappas?  There's a lot more to learn -  in particular what was Sgt. Smith ordered to do and what were the rules and policies in place on the treatment of detainees and especially with respect to dogs.  But with one day down I already feel a pit in my stomach - sad and queasy over what occurred.