State Eschews Probes for Iraq, Afghan Embassy Attacks

November 12, 2007 9:35 AM

Justin Rood Reports:

Stateeschewsp_mn If terrorists attack the U.S. embassy in Iraq and injure or kill American diplomats serving there, the State Department does not have to investigate the incident as it would if it occurred anywhere else in the world, thanks to a tweak to federal law.

Two years ago, the State Department quietly requested -- and received -- a legal provision exempting the secretary of state from a requirement she order rigorous after-action investigations into incidents against embassies or personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the congressman who sponsored the bill. The reason, the lawmaker told ABC News at the time, was that Rice was reluctant to send investigators into harm's way.

The change in the law has gone largely unnoticed until now, when Rice is preparing to require diplomatic personnel to deploy to Iraq to make up a shortfall in State Department officials voluntarily serving there.

A State Department Bureau of Diplomatic Security spokesman told ABC News in an e-mailed statement that the new law gave Rice "greater flexibility" in how incidents in Iraq or Afghanistan would be investigated, because "the original review procedures...may not be appropriate in such circumstances." All incidents would still be investigated, he said.

"The Department takes the security of the people under its responsibility very seriously and will continue to look into each and every incident involving death, serious injury or significant destruction of property," wrote spokesman Darby Holladay.

The Accountability Review Boards, once required to be assembled in the wake of any attack against State Department personnel or facilities, have been respected for their rigorous investigations and sober conclusions, several former senior State Department officials told ABC News.

In 1998, one such panel criticized then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright for failing to "take a personal and active role" in protecting the lives of her diplomatic corps following the terrorist bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. In a public statement, Albright said she accepted that responsibility.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., introduced the bill, which exempted the secretary of state from convening the investigative panels, or Accountability Review Boards, in the aftermath of a bombing, murder or other attack on State Department personnel or facilities in Iraq or Afghanistan until September 2009.

At the time of his bill's passage, Smith told ABC News the State Department wanted the law changed "for the safety of the members of the Accountability Review Board." He did not respond to a request for comment.

"I worry about any slackening of the accountability," said retired Adm. Bobby R. Inman, who led a panel in the 1980s which recommended the creation of the Accountability Review Boards.  Inman's panel was convened after an embassy bombing in Beirut killed hundreds of U.S. personnel.

The board members, typically a mix of government officials and private-sector executives, are given the power to issue subpoenas to compel testimony and unearth documentation. Roughly a dozen incidents in the last two decades have triggered the State Department to convene special investigative panels to ask difficult questions and determine who should be held responsible.

Inman noted that when his panel recommended the Accountability Review Board process, "it was not done with a thought about having them in an ongoing combat zone."

Do you have a tip for Brian Ross and the Investigative Team?

To Blotter Homepage

November 12, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (10)

User Comments

Why is it that the Bush administration and the Republicans never want investigations or accountability? What are they trying to hide?

Oh wait, they always want investigations of sexual affairs. At least for Democrats. They don't seem to want any for their "indiscressions".

Posted by: Samantha Stickers | Nov 12, 2007 10:28:11 AM

It's ok to send untrained staffers to serve and be killed in Iraq, but not ok to send trained Cops to find out why or how they were killed. That will save on the Insurance payouts, no investigation, no payout. Brilliant money saving move. I'm sure this instills more confidence in Condi from the sacrificial staffers being sent to die with our soldiers.

Posted by: Smiley | Nov 12, 2007 3:58:14 PM

Liberals don't care about anyone except themselves. They didn't care about all the diplomats and soldiers killed overseas before the War on Terror and they don't now. They are just looking for more ways to help the terrorists win.

Posted by: Neo Politicus | Nov 12, 2007 4:47:07 PM

That last comment by Neo Politicus shows how bankrupt conservatives are. He doesn't talk about the law, he doesn't talk about the need for accountability, he doesn't address any of the concerns aired in the story. All we get is a reflexive, boiler-plate, content-free attack on "liberals," which, as usual, is completely untrue. Glad to see he is capable of rote memorization. It's an open question whether he's capable of thought. Conservatism has crested and is now on the downslope. Thank God.

Posted by: Panskeptic | Nov 12, 2007 5:19:37 PM

Panskeptic: Because of one guys comment, you want to cast all Republicans as being bankrupt. So should I cast all Democrats as being morally corrupt because of the antics of Fred Phelps?

As for this article, it has been two years since the law was passed. Why didn't the media jump on this back then? I thought news organizations had journalists in the DC Bureau that covered what the government was doing. Here's a hint, if a bill is proposed, it might be come a law. When it becomes law, it might be important to cover. The news sure seems eager to cover the passage of bills such as the Elvis stamp and National Appreciation (blank) Month. Stop with the trivial coverage and focus on laws that cause some impact.

Posted by: Lokifer | Nov 13, 2007 4:24:28 AM

Vote NOT for Hillery Clinton. Puleeze!

Posted by: Hillary | Nov 13, 2007 1:14:04 PM

If the behavior of some republicans around me are any indication, then BANKRUPT is going easy on them. Facing failure in the face of their egotistical megalomaniac in the WHITEWASH HOUSE is comedy par excellence.

Posted by: daddy | Nov 13, 2007 4:13:15 PM

So should I cast all Democrats as being morally corrupt because of the antics of Fred Phelps?
===================================

I don't know if he is registered as a Democrat but it is clear that Phelps isn't one now.

Posted by: Steve J. | Nov 16, 2007 2:30:02 AM

Inman's panel was convened after an embassy bombing in Beirut killed hundreds of U.S. personnel.
=====================================

It wasn't an embassy bombing.

Posted by: Steve J. | Nov 16, 2007 2:32:13 AM

Steve J.:

How can you say that it's clear that Phelps is not a Democrat now? He hasn't came out publicly and switched parties or gone independent. (Remember this guy isn't shy about giving his opinion on politics, relgion or anything else.) By the way, Fred Phelps was a major fundraiser for Al Gore in the 1980s, so much so that he was a delegate in the 1988 Democratic National Convention. Additionally, Phelps has ran for various political offices as a Democrat in 1990, 1993, 1994, 1997 and 1998.

Posted by: Lokifer | Nov 16, 2007 8:52:09 PM

Post a comment