To the Memory of Alyssa Peterson

Scott Horton

"He has honor if he holds himself to an ideal of conduct though it is inconvenient, unprofitable or dangerous to do so."

- Walter Lippmann, A Preface to Morals (1929)

This week brings news of the circumstances of the death of Alyssa Peterson, an intelligence NCO, in Iraq on September 13, 2003. The facts of her death had been misrepresented by the Department of Defense and were uncovered due to the diligent pursuit of a Freedom of Information request by Kevin Elston, reporter for National Public Radio station KNAU in her hometown, Flagstaff, AZ. Alyssa was a devout Mormon with a flair for languages. She had done missionary work in the Netherlands and mastered Dutch in the process. She volunteered for military service and was assigned for Arabic language training. By all accounts her performance was consistently superior. Alyssa was also described by her contemporaries as a person of exceptional moral character and conscience. She also had more than the average share of patriotism and drive for service. In fact, she volunteered for assignment to Iraq in substitution for a contemporary who did not want to go.

But Alyssa's fate in Iraq was driven by events on the other side of the world, in a conference room in the Pentagon. In the summer of 2003, Donald Rumsfeld, at an intel briefing in the Pentagon, expressed his anger that he was not getting "good humint" out of Iraq. He banged his fist on the table and demanded that they "get Geoffrey Miller out to Iraq and gitmoize the situation." By the phrase "gitmoize," Rumsfeld meant the introduction of a palette of highly coercive interrogation techniques developed for use on detainees in Guantánamo. These techniques included cold cell, long-time standing, sound and light deprivation, and on several documented occasions, waterboarding. In implementation of this vocal command, which was entrusted to Dr Stephen Cambone and his deputy LTG William ("My God Can Beat Your God") Boykin, MG Miller traveled to Iraq at the end of the summer, visiting with LTG Ricardo Sanchez in Baghdad and traveling out to Abu Ghraib itself to speak with senior military intelligence personnel. Throughout this process, Miller advocated the introduction into Iraq of Guantánamo techniques – techniques which are plainly seen in the photographs that emerged in April 2004 when 60 Minutes and The New Yorker broke the Abu Ghraib story. Miller also advocated the use of military police forces to "prepare" detainees for interrogation – in breach of military doctrine concerning the training and deployment of military police personnel. He specifically discussed and advocated the use of military dogs for purposes of terrorizing detainees. Contemporaneously with Miller's visit, and in the weeks before, instructions went out throughout the military intelligence network in Iraq, to "take the gloves off." Physical assault on detainees was authorized and occurred in hundreds of documented cases.

The Guantánamo techniques, ultimately determined to be unlawful by a Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan, under which Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was found applicable to Guantanamo detainees, were designed from the outset not to conform to the Geneva Conventions. The order given by Rumsfeld to introduce those techniques into Iraq – which was clearly covered by the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions – was a criminal act, a "grave breach" in the language of the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld's strategy to avoid indictment and prosecution has, up to this point, focused on retaining his position as Secretary of Defense and using the massive power associated with that office to shield himself and to scapegoat others. As demands for Rumsfeld's removal mount (including the editorial of the Army Times which will appear on Monday, an editorial which gives voice to the near unanimous view of the senior brass in the Pentagon), it is clear that Rumsfeld's desire to avoid prosecution is a major factor behind his clinging to power. Indeed, Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator, has been stripped of immunity and bound over for trial on charges which are extremely close to those which Rumsfeld will face – giving authorization for the torture and abuse of detainees.

Alyssa Peterson was serving in Tal-Afar, in northwestern Iraq near the Syrian border. Following the Rumsfeld vocal command, her unit was directed to begin the use of a series of brutal, highly coercive techniques, likely including physical assaults on prisoners. Alyssa reacted to this with shock and she refused to participate.

“Peterson objected to the interrogation techniques used on prisoners. She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit known as the cage. Army spokespersons for her unit have refused to describe the interrogation techniques Alyssa objected to. They say all records of those techniques have now been destroyed. ...".

After tracking down and interviewing other members of her unit, Elston states that there was a consistent theme. All stressed that she strongly, vehemently objected to the interrogation practices that had just been introduced - practices quite different from what she and her cohort had learned at Fort Huachuca. After this conflict with her command authority, Alyssa was given training for suicide watch and sent to supervise Iraqi guards. An investigation concluded that on the night of September 13, she committed suicide using her service rifle.

However, not everybody is happy with the characterization of suicide that the Pentagon is so adamant about applying to this case. It is interesting that after publication of this account, a flood of letters arrived, most of which questioned the suggestion that she committed suicide and raised the prospect of a homicide. This fact pattern parallels closely the death of Col Ted Westhusing, the Army's leading ethicist, who died under mysterious circumstances after he uncovered strong evidence of corruption in the dealings of a powerful contractor. I discussed Westhusing's case and the concept of "honor" which had been the core of his academic work in this post. The Army insisted it was a suicide and trotted out a highly dubious psychologist's report to support this conclusion. Indeed, highly dubious psychologist's reports now seem to be emerging as a Rumsfeld Pentagon staple. (I expect we will be reading much more on this subject shortly).

In the debate which has emerged over detainee abuse practices, the great focus has been on the detainees and the suffering they incurred. I don't question this approach. But religious scholars and ethicists are quick to point out that torture and mistreatment presents damage at many levels. Obviously the victim. But what about the dignity and integrity of the uniformed service personnel who are ordered to use these techniques? They are morally compromised by this act. Many sustain long-term mental health damage as a result. The literature also suggests that interrogators who use abusive techniques frequently become demoralized and unruly, precisely because they question the moral authority of a command structure which authorizes such obviously immoral conduct.

And then we have the cases like Alyssa Peterson and Ted Westhusing. I am far from convinced that either of these cases is a suicide. But in both we have soldiers who held fast to the concept of honor, and for that both merit our respect. More than this, Peterson and Westhusing are two of the most clear-cut American heroes to fall in this conflict. And it is telling that the Department of Defense expends enormous energy falsifying the noble circumstances of their death. It is telling that they are ashamed of the concept of "honor." It is also strange that the Pentagon is hell-bent on making both of these cases into suicides. Indeed, it seems an overly convenient way to close a disturbing chapter.

Dick Cheney tells us that he pushed for torture to give our interrogators the tools they needed to go the job. But the truth is that the interrogators never asked for these tools, didn't want them, and were as a class offended by Cheney's depraved attitudes. The essential tools for our military, Mr Cheney, are not waterboarding and long-time standing, they are integrity and honor. So why are you determined to take these tools away?
Posted 12:05 PM by Scott Horton [link]