The Abu Ghraib detention facility has reentered the public eye with the U.S. military announcing that it is prosecuting Army intelligence officer Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan in connection with detainee abuse at the prison.  The charges, brought April 28, 2006, include specific reference to the conduct of interrogations.

Respect for rule of law is a bedrock of military effectiveness, and experts caution that, in intelligence interrogation, criminal behavior by interrogators is not only immoral and illegal but notably unhelpful at producing good intelligence.

Jordan, a reservist called up for active duty, is the highest-ranking officer prosecuted thus far over Abu Ghraib abuse.  Jordan ran Abu Ghraib’s Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center in the second half of 2003, a timeframe coinciding with the abuse depicted in infamous photographs of nude detainees.  While it is unclear whether Jordan is connected to those particular events, he is accused of cruelty and detainee maltreatment, including having been aware of detainee forced nudity and intimidation with dogs, as well as later lying to investigators.  

With more than two years passing since Jordan’s posting at Abu Ghraib, questions may be raised over why a military justice system reputed to act efficiently and decisively took so long to move on the matter if evidence existed to bring charges. 

Jordan was, during his time at Abu Ghraib, the second-highest ranking U.S. intelligence officer at the facility after Col. Thomas Pappas.  Pappas himself has been fined and reprimanded but not prosecuted.

Defense officials in the past initially argued that the abuse depicted in the above-mentioned photographs was the work of a nightshift gone haywire.  That abuse has resulted in the prosecution of low-ranking soldiers, most of whom were military police of questionable qualifications.  It still is not clear that any of the detainees in those infamous photographs had intelligence value, were abused in the course of interrogation, or that any of the abuse depicted in the photographs had any other connection with efforts to extract information.  Past investigators nevertheless speculated whether differences in standards at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere spawned confusion as to which standards applied in which setting, and whether a culture of “pushing the envelope” on detainee treatment developed and somehow migrated to Iraq.

The Jordan prosecution involves not military police on the night-shift but a higher ranking officer who briefly helped run intelligence operations.  The charges allege he was aware of forced nudity and intimidation with dogs in connection with interrogations and lied about it later in an apparent effort to dodge accountability. 

The next stage will be an Article 32 hearing, analogous to a civilian grand jury, to determine if the case goes to a court martial. 

Seven formal charges covering 12 counts have been brought against Jordan, such as:

• cruelty and maltreatment of prisoners, including “oppress[ing] Iraqi detainees, persons subject to his orders, by subjecting them to forced nudity and intimidation by military working dogs”
   
• disobeying a superior commissioned officer, including failing to get permission from Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez to employ interrogation techniques that included the use of military working dogs
   
• failure to obey a regulation
   
• dereliction of duty, including failing adequately to train soldiers and ensure they met military requirements for interrogation
   
• false swearing and interfering with an investigation, including three counts of lying to both Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, sent to conduct the first official investigation of the Abu Ghraib abuse, and a later 2004 Pentagon investigation; Jordan allegedly denied ever seeing nude prisoners or knowing dogs were used in interrogations

As a result, the prosecution goes further into the issue of interrogation practices then previous Abu Ghraib prosecutions and further up the chain of command, although certainly other prosecutions, such as the death of an Iraqi general with a sleeping bag over his head, also related to interrogation.  The number of investigations and prosecutions has gradually widened, nevertheless still leaving unanswered questions about the extent to which particular patterns of abuse have ever been systematic or how high up the chain of command responsibility should be placed.

The Jordan case raises the prospect once again of a defendant possibly casting aspersions on the broader military and political establishment.  Long before he was prosecuted Jordan already started arguing that there was pressure from higher-ups to obtain information.  His claims may pit him against former federal prosecutor and current White House Homeland Security Advisor Fran Townshend, who in a previous role as an aide to then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice briefly visited Abu Ghraib, and who has dismissed Jordan’s allegations of undue pressure as ridiculous.

In any event, beyond the case itself, any soul-searching looking back over how the Iraq conflict has unfolded undoubtedly will continue to include reflections on the confusion, chaos, understaffing, poorly equipped nature, and general mismanagement of past Abu Ghraib operations.  Abu Ghraib and other detainee operations loom large in questions over, not just whether things were done the right way, and whether more could have been done to gather good intelligence, but how the campaign for hearts and minds was impacted by bad conduct falling short of military standards and military law.

In the meantime, last fall an overwhelming bipartisan consensus in Congress passed - by a veto-proof margin - the McCain amendment prohibiting mistreatment of U.S. detainees and requiring uniform treatment for all Department of Defense (DOD) detainees.  With the law in this area evolving, what remains to be seen is the extent to which the military tradition of duty and honor can ensure discipline, professionalism, accountability, humane treatment, and lawfulness in detainee operations, including justice for past abuses.

Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan has been on active duty for three years and is currently based in the Washington, D.C., area assigned to the Army Intelligence and Security Command.   

The charges have been brought at Fort Meade, Md.

Further reading:

“Abu Ghraib officer describes ‘pressure’ to extract information,” USA Today, June 18, 2004, http://www.armytimes.com/print.php?f=1-292925-3021231.php

Rupert Cornwell, “Abu Ghraib deputy faces charges,” Independent Online, April 30, 2006, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article361046.ece

Will Dunham, “Army colonel charged in Abu Ghraib scandal,” Reuters, April 29, 2006, http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=
hotStocksNews&storyID=2006-04-29T115733Z_01_N28245660
_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-ABUSE.xml

“Lt. col. charged in Abu Ghraib abuse,” Army Times, April 28, 2006, http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=
1-292925-1739948.php

Jeff St.Onge, “Army Intelligence Officer Charged in Abu Ghraib Abuse Case,” Bloomberg, April 28, 2006, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=
10000103&sid=az0Xm6ytxSCE&refer=us

“U.S. Army colonel charged in Abu Ghraib scandal,” Reuters AlertNet, April 28, 2006, http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N28245660.htm.