The SM masters having fun in Iraqs prison

[pelastration]

American dignity and freedom in Iraq? The great feeling of having the power? Shame on US ... bring prisoners to JUSTICE ?. What justice? Sick Justice.

A photo from TV shows an Iraqi prisoner with a hood over his head, standing on a box and with wires connected to his hands. Photo: Sky News
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/04/29/430_hoodedman,0.jpg

United States soldiers at a prison outside Baghdad have been accused of forcing Iraqi prisoners into acts of sexual humiliation and other abuses.

The charges, first announced by the military in March, were documented by photographs taken by guards in the prison.

Some of the photographs, and descriptions of others, were broadcast in the US on Wednesday by a CBS television news program and were verified by military officials.

Of the six people reported in March to be facing preliminary charges, three have been recommended for courts martial.

The program reported that poorly trained US reservists were forcing Iraqis to conduct simulated sexual acts in order to break down their will before they were turned over to others for interrogation.

In one photograph naked Iraq prisoners stand in a human pyramid, one with a slur written on his skin in English. Photo: http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/04/29/200_humanpyramid,0.jpg

In another, a prisoner stands on a box, his head covered, wires attached to his body. The news show said that, according to the army, he had been told that if he fell off the box he would be electrocuted. Other photographs show male prisoners positioned to simulate sex with each other.

"The pictures show Americans, men and women, in military uniforms, posing with naked Iraqi prisoners," a transcript said.

"And in most of the pictures, the Americans are laughing, posing, pointing or giving the camera a thumbs-up."

The program's producers said the army also had photographs showing a detainee with wires attached to his genitals and another that showed a dog attacking a prisoner.

The photographs were taken inside Abu Ghraib prison, near Baghdad, where US forces have been holding hundreds of Iraqis.

Gary Myers, the lawyer for one of the enlisted men who has been charged, said the military had treated the six enlisted soldiers as scapegoats and had failed to deal adequately with the responsibilities of senior commanders and intelligence personnel involved in the interrogations.

Officers at the prison, including a brigadier-general, faced administrative review, officials said.

Mr Myers said that the accused men, all from a reserve military police unit, were told to soften up the prisoners by more senior interrogators, some of whom they believe were intelligence officials and outside contractors.

"This case involves a monumental failure of leadership, where lower level enlisted people are being scapegoated," Mr Myers said. "The real story is not in these six young enlisted people. The real story is the manner in which the intelligence community forced them into this position."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/29/1083224523783.html

[studentx]

the US will bring them to justice :)

[Zero]

No surprise...the military is ill-suited to dispense justice, as anyone with a bit of sense should be able to figure out.

[pelastration]

the US will bring them to justice :)
You mean the prisoners?

[pelastration]

This is a case that came in the public. How much more ... undiscovered or unknown?

[pelastration]

Brig. Gen. Janice Karpinski, in charge of the prison, could be relieved of her command, blocked from promotion or receive a letter of reprimand after a noncriminal administrative investigation relating to events at Abu Ghraib prison, said Col. Jill Morgenthaler, a military spokeswoman in Baghdad.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4992675

But of course the good news is : That this Brig. Gen. can be hired by Halliburton. People with experience are high valued in the private business. :biggrin: ... and that's really good news ... isn't it? So Brig. Gen. Janice Karpinski can be soon back in Iraq to keep all 'stay in ..... course'!

[phatmonky]

So, the people in the military broke the military's rules, and are now being dealt with - I fail to see the point. Shame on ths US for stopping this rule breaking?

[Adam]

As always it works like this:
- Something good happens, and we can thank America, Bush, and "freedom".
- Something bad happens, and it's all the fault of those few little guys over there.

The USA signed laws to avoid this stuff, to prevent it happening, and every time they get busted, they attempt to avoid responsibility by simply blaming a few individuals.

[hughes johnson]

they attempt to avoid responsibility by simply blaming a few individuals.

When a crime is committed, it is generally considered proper to punish the people who committed that crime. Do you not understand the logic behind this concept?

[Adam]

The commander is responsible for the actions fo his troops. Command structure. Do you understand the logic behind this concept?

[phatmonky]

The commander is responsible for the actions fo his troops. Command structure. Do you understand the logic behind this concept?


Yes, and the higher ups are punishing those and taking measures to stop this from happening.
Perhaps, when Australian servicemen go out raping, we should blame you - for in the eyes of a democracy, it is the people who are really in control of the government.

[russ_watters]

The commander is responsible for the actions fo his troops. Command structure. Do you understand the logic behind this concept? There is a failure here on many levels:

Even a private should be mature enough to know at least on a basic level what is/isn't acceptable - but I know a lot aren't.

The staff sgt in charge wasn't qualified for the job. He should have done more about that.

Any officers within earshot certainly did know what was ok and what wasn't. That's part of officer training. Regardless of what orders they get from above, they have an enormous amount of power on a local level. I put most of the blame on them.

The upper levels of the military - high officers in the theater and up into the pentagon should have a clear policy in place for treatment of POWs and procedures for making sure it happens. The basic guidlines for that policy come from...

...The President himself.

[Adam]

Yes, and the higher ups are punishing those and taking measures to stop this from happening.
Perhaps, when Australian servicemen go out raping, we should blame you - for in the eyes of a democracy, it is the people who are really in control of the government.

Quite right. So yes, the people of the USA are responsible for their government, and for the actions of their military, who broke a law that nation signed on to.

[phatmonky]

Quite right. So yes, the people of the USA are responsible for their government, and for the actions of their military, who broke a law that nation signed on to.
So yeah, the people are all facing court martial - what more do you want? to predict the wrongs of individuals?

[Adam]

Perhaps the USA government and people could accept responsibility for what they have done, rather than simply say "It was those few guys over there, and we're firing them, so we can all forget about it and move on now".

[Njorl]

Things like this do happen in most wars. The scale determines who should be punished. So far, at least there was no attempted cover up. It was not exposed by the press, it was exposed by an enlisted man, a private I believe, who went outside the chain of command to report it.

What I want to know, is why was it publicized by 60 minutes instead of the Army. Long before 60 minutes knew about it , the army knew it. The army should have put one of their own journalists on it. They should have written it up, translated it into Arabic and given it widespread dissemination in Iraq. The story then would have been "American Army aggressively proscecutes soldiers who abuse Iraqis." Instead, it is "American soldiers torture Iraqis in Saddam's prison."

Both stories are true. Which do we want Iraqis reading?

Njorl

[russ_watters]

What I want to know, is why was it publicized by 60 minutes instead of the Army.

The story then would have been "American Army aggressively proscecutes soldiers who abuse Iraqis." Instead, it is "American soldiers torture Iraqis in Saddam's prison."

Both stories are true. Which do we want Iraqis reading? I know its rhetorical, but unfortunately, thats simply not how militaries or governments - or in all fairness, most individuals, deal with problems.

[phatmonky]

Perhaps the USA government and people could accept responsibility for what they have done, rather than simply say "It was those few guys over there, and we're firing them, so we can all forget about it and move on now".

And this would change our actions how?

[pelastration]

Things like this do happen in most wars. The scale determines who should be punished. So far, at least there was no attempted cover up. It was not exposed by the press, it was exposed by an enlisted man, a private I believe, who went outside the chain of command to report it.

What I want to know, is why was it publicized by 60 minutes instead of the Army. Long before 60 minutes knew about it , the army knew it. The army should have put one of their own journalists on it. They should have written it up, translated it into Arabic and given it widespread dissemination in Iraq. The story then would have been "American Army aggressively proscecutes soldiers who abuse Iraqis." Instead, it is "American soldiers torture Iraqis in Saddam's prison."

Both stories are true. Which do we want Iraqis reading?

Njorl
This give some info:

Two weeks ago, 60 Minutes II received an appeal from the Defense Department, and eventually from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, to delay this broadcast -- given the danger and tension on the ground in Iraq.

60 Minutes II decided to honor that request, while pressing for the Defense Department to add its perspective to the incidents at Abu Ghraib prison. This week, with the photos beginning to circulate elsewhere, and with other journalists about to publish their versions of the story, the Defense Department agreed to cooperate in our report.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0428-13.htm
I suggest you read the full article, since it contains interesting quote like:

(1) "Military intelligence has encouraged and told us 'Great job.' "

"They usually don't allow others to watch them interrogate. But since they like the way I run the prison, they have made an exception."

"We help getting them to talk with the way we handle them. ... We've had a very high rate with our style of getting them to break. They usually end up breaking within hours."

(2)"The elixir of power, the elixir of believing that you're helping the CIA, for God's sake, when you're from a small town in Virginia, that's intoxicating,” says Myers. “And so, good guys sometimes do things believing that they are being of assistance and helping a just cause. ... And helping people they view as important.""

[quartodeciman]

AI on WOT detentions --->
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510612004

[pelastration]

AI on WOT detentions --->
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510612004
Thanks. Very interesting. It took me time to read all ... but sharp.

[Bystander]

"Torture?"

High school hazing is uglier than this.

Somebody ask McCain if he'd prefer the Hanoi Hilton to kiddy stuff.

[Adam]

And this would change our actions how?

Well, perhaps, if the US government, and thus the population, took responsibility for its messes, they would be hesitant about doing such things again. Maybe next time they would not charge in for oil, kill 8,000+ innocent civilians, mistreat prisoners, et cetera...

[phatmonky]

Well, perhaps, if the US government, and thus the population, took responsibility for its messes, they would be hesitant about doing such things again. Maybe next time they would not charge in for oil, kill 8,000+ innocent civilians, mistreat prisoners, et cetera...


Taking responsibility is exactly what is happening with court martialing the guilty in this case.

[hughes johnson]

Maybe next time they would not charge in for oil...

Why would you think that anyone "charged in for oil"? Oil is cheap and plentiful. I don't even know the current price at the pumps, and I have a Lincoln town car, and an SUV. We waste millions of barrels of the stuff every year without even thinking about it.

[Adam]

And again, Adam, the man who loves to accuse others of so many things - why don't you drop the rhetoric, and actually say what that entails. Taking responsibility is exactly what is happening with court martialing the guilty in this case.
Perhaps you will be blaming muslims for all muslim terrorist in the future as well.

"Muslim" is a nation, in which the government is responsible to its people??? Wow. Surprising.

[Adam]

Why would you think that anyone "charged in for oil"? Oil is cheap and plentiful. I don't even know the current price at the pumps, and I have a Lincoln town car, and an SUV. We waste millions of barrels of the stuff every year without even thinking about it.

Thank you. I rest my case.

[phatmonky]

"Muslim" is a nation, in which the government is responsible to its people??? Wow. Surprising.



How is court martialing those that are guilty, and putting new people in under new guidlines NOT taking repsonsibility? You want to blame all the time, but you can't even tell me what we are being blamed for.

[Zero]

"Torture?"

High school hazing is uglier than this.

Somebody ask McCain if he'd prefer the Hanoi Hilton to kiddy stuff.
So torture is ok, so long as there is an example of worse torture?

[pelastration]

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/8563859.htm

On Friday, the president defended his May 1, 2003, statements during a White House Rose Garden appearance with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.

"A year ago I did give the speech from the carrier saying we had achieved an important objective, accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein," Bush said. "As a result, there are no longer torture chambers or mass graves or rape rooms in Iraq."

[hughes johnson]

Thank you. I rest my case.

We had lots of oil before the war. We had lots of oil during the war. We have lots of oil now. We would have lots of oil if Iraq didn't even exist. We have so much oil that we don't even bother drilling for a lot of it so as not to wake up the caribou with all the noise. We have enough oil inside the U.S. to supply Iraq for the foreseeable future. We have lots of oil. Plenty. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

[pelastration]

Bush said. "As a result, there are no longer torture chambers or mass graves or rape rooms in Iraq."

Shocking details from the New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact

A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release, was completed in late February. Its conclusions about the institutional failures of the Army prison system were devastating. Specifically, Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company http://members.tripod.com/~dlgdyer/mugsweb/372mp.html, and also by members of the American intelligence community. (The 372nd was attached to the 320th M.P. Battalion, which reported to Karpinski’s brigade headquarters.) Taguba’s report listed some of the wrongdoing:

Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

There was stunning evidence to support the allegations, Taguba added— “detailed witness statements and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence.” Photographs and videos taken by the soldiers as the abuses were happening were not included in his report, Taguba said, because of their “extremely sensitive nature.”

The photographs — several of which were broadcast on CBS’s “60 Minutes 2” last week — show leering G.I.s taunting naked Iraqi prisoners who are forced to assume humiliating poses. Six suspects—Staff Sergeant Ivan L. Frederick II, known as Chip, who was the senior enlisted man; Specialist Charles A. Graner; Sergeant Javal Davis; Specialist Megan Ambuhl; Specialist Sabrina Harman; and Private Jeremy Sivits—are now facing prosecution in Iraq, on charges that include conspiracy, dereliction of duty, cruelty toward prisoners, maltreatment, assault, and indecent acts. A seventh suspect, Private Lynndie England, was reassigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, after becoming pregnant.

The photographs tell it all. In one, Private England, a cigarette dangling from her mouth, is giving a jaunty thumbs-up sign and pointing at the genitals of a young Iraqi, who is naked except for a sandbag over his head, as he masturbates. Three other hooded and naked Iraqi prisoners are shown, hands reflexively crossed over their genitals. A fifth prisoner has his hands at his sides. In another, England stands arm in arm with Specialist Graner; both are grinning and giving the thumbs-up behind a cluster of perhaps seven naked Iraqis, knees bent, piled clumsily on top of each other in a pyramid. There is another photograph of a cluster of naked prisoners, again piled in a pyramid. Near them stands Graner, smiling, his arms crossed; a woman soldier stands in front of him, bending over, and she, too, is smiling. Then, there is another cluster of hooded bodies, with a female soldier standing in front, taking photographs. Yet another photograph shows a kneeling, naked, unhooded male prisoner, head momentarily turned away from the camera, posed to make it appear that he is performing oral sex on another male prisoner, who is naked and hooded.

Such dehumanization is unacceptable in any culture, but it is especially so in the Arab world. Homosexual acts are against Islamic law and it is humiliating for men to be naked in front of other men, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at New York University, explained. “Being put on top of each other and forced to masturbate, being naked in front of each other—it’s all a form of torture,” Haykel said.

Two Iraqi faces that do appear in the photographs are those of dead men. There is the battered face of prisoner No. 153399, and the bloodied body of another prisoner, wrapped in cellophane and packed in ice. There is a photograph of an empty room, splattered with blood.

The 372nd’s abuse of prisoners seemed almost routine—a fact of Army life that the soldiers felt no need to hide. On April 9th, at an Article 32 hearing (the military equivalent of a grand jury) in the case against Sergeant Frederick, at Camp Victory, near Baghdad, one of the witnesses, Specialist Matthew Wisdom, an M.P., told the courtroom what happened when he and other soldiers delivered seven prisoners, hooded and bound, to the so-called “hard site” at Abu Ghraib—seven tiers of cells where the inmates who were considered the most dangerous were housed. The men had been accused of starting a riot in another section of the prison. Wisdom said:

SFC Snider grabbed my prisoner and threw him into a pile. . . . I do not think it was right to put them in a pile. I saw SSG Frederic, SGT Davis and CPL Graner walking around the pile hitting the prisoners. I remember SSG Frederick hitting one prisoner in the side of its [sic] ribcage. The prisoner was no danger to SSG Frederick. . . . I left after that.

When he returned later, Wisdom testified:

I saw two naked detainees, one masturbating to another kneeling with its mouth open. I thought I should just get out of there. I didn’t think it was right . . . I saw SSG Frederick walking towards me, and he said, “Look what these animals do when you leave them alone for two seconds.” I heard PFC England shout out, “He’s getting hard.”

Wisdom testified that he told his superiors what had happened, and assumed that “the issue was taken care of.” He said, “I just didn’t want to be part of anything that looked criminal.”

The abuses became public because of the outrage of Specialist Joseph M. Darby, an M.P whose role emerged during the Article 3 hearing against Chip Frederick. A government witness, Special Agent Scott Bobeck, who is member of the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division, or C.I.D., told the court, according t an abridged transcript made available to me, “The investigation started after SPC Darby . . got a CD from CPL Graner. . . . He came across pictures of naked detainees.” Bobec said that Darby had “initially put a anonymous letter under our door, then he late came forward and gave a sworn statement. H felt very bad about it and thought it was ver wrong.

Questioned further, the Army investigator said that Frederick and his colleagues had not been given any “training guidelines” that he was aware of. The M.P.s in the 372nd had been assigned to routine traffic and police duties upon their arrival in Iraq, in the spring of 2003. In October of 2003, the 372nd was ordered to prison-guard duty at Abu Ghraib. Frederick, at thirty-seven, was far older than his colleagues, and was a natural leader; he had also worked for six years as a guard for the Virginia Department of Corrections. Bobeck explained:

What I got is that SSG Frederick and CPL Graner were road M.P.s and were put in charge because they were civilian prison guards and had knowledge of how things were supposed to be run.

Bobeck also testified that witnesses had said that Frederick, on one occasion, “had punched a detainee in the chest so hard that the detainee almost went into cardiac arrest.”

next ....

[pelastration]

continu ...

At the Article 32 hearing, the Army informed Frederick and his attorneys, Captain Robert Shuck, an Army lawyer, and Gary Myers, a civilian, that two dozen witnesses they had sought, including General Karpinski and all of Frederick’s co-defendants, would not appear. Some had been excused after exercising their Fifth Amendment right; others were deemed to be too far away from the courtroom. “The purpose of an Article 32 hearing is for us to engage witnesses and discover facts,” Gary Myers told me. “We ended up with a c.i.d. agent and no alleged victims to examine.” After the hearing, the presiding investigative officer ruled that there was sufficient evidence to convene a court-martial against Frederick.

Myers, who was one of the military defense attorneys in the My Lai prosecutions of the nineteen-seventies, told me that his client’s defense will be that he was carrying out the orders of his superiors and, in particular, the directions of military intelligence. He said, “Do you really think a group of kids from rural Virginia decided to do this on their own? Decided that the best way to embarrass Arabs and make them talk was to have them walk around nude?”

In letters and e-mails to family members, Frederick repeatedly noted that the military-intelligence teams, which included C.I.A. officers and linguists and interrogation specialists from private defense contractors, were the dominant force inside Abu Ghraib. In a letter written in January, he said:

I questioned some of the things that I saw . . . such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell—and the answer I got was, “This is how military intelligence (MI) wants it done.” . . . . MI has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window, for as much as three days.

The military-intelligence officers have “encouraged and told us, ‘Great job,’ they were now getting positive results and information,” Frederick wrote. “CID has been present when the military working dogs were used to intimidate prisoners at MI’s request.” At one point, Frederick told his family, he pulled aside his superior officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Phillabaum, the commander of the 320th M.P. Battalion, and asked about the mistreatment of prisoners. “His reply was ‘Don’t worry about it.’”

In November, Frederick wrote, an Iraqi prisoner under the control of what the Abu Ghraib guards called “O.G.A.,” or other government agencies—that is, the C.I.A. and its paramilitary employees —was brought to his unit for questioning. “They stressed him out so bad that the man passed away. They put his body in a body bag and packed him in ice for approximately twenty-four hours in the shower. . . . The next day the medics came and put his body on a stretcher, placed a fake IV in his arm and took him away.” The dead Iraqi was never entered into the prison’s inmate-control system, Frederick recounted, “and therefore never had a number.”

Frederick’s defense is, of course, highly self-serving. But the complaints in his letters and e-mails home were reinforced by two interna Army reports—Taguba’s and one by th Army’s chief law-enforcement officer, Provos Marshal Donald Ryder, a major general

Last fall, General Sanchez ordered Ryder to review the prison system in Iraq and recommend ways to improve it. Ryder’s report, filed on November 5th, concluded that there were potential human-rights, training, and manpower issues, system-wide, that needed immediate attention. It also discussed serious concerns about the tension between the missions of the military police assigned to guard the prisoners and the intelligence teams who wanted to interrogate them. Army regulations limit intelligence activity by the M.P.s to passive collection. But something had gone wrong at Abu Ghraib.

There was evidence dating back to the Afghanistan war, the Ryder report said, that M.P.s had worked with intelligence operatives to “set favorable conditions for subsequent interviews”—a euphemism for breaking the will of prisoners. “Such actions generally run counter to the smooth operation of a detention facility, attempting to maintain its population in a compliant and docile state.” General Karpinski’s brigade, Ryder reported, “has not been directed to change its facility procedures to set the conditions for MI interrogations, nor participate in those interrogations.” Ryder called for the establishment of procedures to “define the role of military police soldiers . . .clearly separating the actions of the guards from those of the military intelligence personnel.” The officers running the war in Iraq were put on notice.

Ryder undercut his warning, however, by concluding that the situation had not yet reached a crisis point. Though some procedures were flawed, he said, he found “no military police units purposely applying inappropriate confinement practices.” His investigation was at best a failure and at worst a coverup.

Taguba, in his report, was polite but direct in refuting his fellow-general. “Unfortunately, many of the systemic problems that surfaced during [Ryder’s] assessment are the very same issues that are the subject of this investigation,” he wrote. “In fact, many of the abuses suffered by detainees occurred during, or near to, the time of that assessment.” The report continued, “Contrary to the findings of MG Ryder’s report, I find that personnel assigned to the 372nd MP Company, 800th MP Brigade were directed to change facility procedures to ‘set the conditions’ for MI interrogations.” Army intelligence officers, C.I.A. agents, and private contractors “actively requested that MP guards set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses.”

Taguba backed up his assertion by citing evidence from sworn statements to Army C.I.D. investigators. Specialist Sabrina Harman, one of the accused M.P.s, testified that it was her job to keep detainees awake, including one hooded prisoner who was placed on a box with wires attached to his fingers, toes, and penis. She stated, “MI wanted to get them to talk. It is Graner and Frederick’s job to do things for MI and OGA to get these people to talk.”

Another witness, Sergeant Javal Davis, who is also one of the accused, told C.I.D. investigators, “I witnessed prisoners in the MI hold section . . . being made to do various things that I would question morally. . . . We were told that they had different rules.” Taguba wrote, “Davis also stated that he had heard MI insinuate to the guards to abuse the inmates. When asked what MI said he stated: ‘Loosen this guy up for us.’‘Make sure he has a bad night.’‘Make sure he gets the treatment.’” Military intelligence made these comments to Graner and Frederick, Davis said. “The MI staffs to my understanding have been giving Graner compliments . . . statements like, ‘Good job, they’re breaking down real fast. They answer every question. They’re giving out good information.’”

When asked why he did not inform his chain of command about the abuse, Sergeant Davis answered, “Because I assumed that if they were doing things out of the ordinary or outside the guidelines, someone would have said something. Also the wing”—where the abuse took place—“belongs to MI and it appeared MI personnel approved of the abuse.”

Another witness, Specialist Jason Kennel, who was not accused of wrongdoing, said, “I saw them nude, but MI would tell us to take away their mattresses, sheets, and clothes.” (It was his view, he added, that if M.I. wanted him to do this “they needed to give me paperwork.”) Taguba also cited an interview with Adel L. Nakhla, a translator who was an employee of Titan, a civilian contractor. He told of one night when a “bunch of people from MI” watched as a group of handcuffed and shackled inmates were subjected to abuse by Graner and Frederick.

General Taguba saved his harshest words for the military-intelligence officers and private contractors. He recommended that Colonel Thomas Pappas, the commander of one of the M.I. brigades, be reprimanded and receive non-judicial punishment, and that Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, the former director of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center, be relieved of duty and reprimanded. He further urged that a civilian contractor, Steven Stephanowicz, of CACI International, be fired from his Army job, reprimanded, and denied his security clearances for lying to the investigating team and allowing or ordering military policemen “who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations by ‘setting conditions’ which were neither authorized” nor in accordance with Army regulations. “He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse,” Taguba wrote. He also recommended disciplinary action against a second CACI employee, John Israel. (A spokeswoman for CACI said that the company had “received no formal communication” from the Army about the matter.)

“I suspect,” Taguba concluded, that Pappas, Jordan, Stephanowicz, and Israel “were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuse at Abu Ghraib,” and strongly recommended immediate disciplinary action.

next ...

[pelastration]

continu...

The problems inside the Army prison system in Iraq were not hidden from senior commanders. During Karpinski’s seven-month tour of duty, Taguba noted, there were at least a dozen officially reported incidents involvin escapes, attempted escapes, and other seriou security issues that were investigated by officers of the 800th M.P. Brigade. Some of the incidents had led to the killing or wounding of inmates and M.P.s, and resulted in a series of “lessons learned” inquiries within the brigade Karpinski invariably approved the reports an signed orders calling for changes in day-to-da procedures. But Taguba found that she did no follow up, doing nothing to insure that the orders were carried out. Had she done so, h added, “cases of abuse may have been prevented.

General Taguba further found that Abu Ghraib was filled beyond capacity, and that the M.P. guard force was significantly undermanned and short of resources. “This imbalance has contributed to the poor living conditions, escapes, and accountability lapses,” he wrote. There were gross differences, Taguba said, between the actual number of prisoners on hand and the number officially recorded. A lack of proper screening also meant that many innocent Iraqis were wrongly being detained—indefinitely, it seemed, in some cases. The Taguba study noted that more than sixty per cent of the civilian inmates at Abu Ghraib were deemed not to be a threat to society, which should have enabled them to be released. Karpinski’s defense, Taguba said, was that her superior officers “routinely” rejected her recommendations regarding the release of such prisoners.

Karpinski was rarely seen at the prisons she was supposed to be running, Taguba wrote. He also found a wide range of administrative problems, including some that he considered “without precedent in my military career.” The soldiers, he added, were “poorly prepared and untrained . . . prior to deployment, at the mobilization site, upon arrival in theater, and throughout the mission.”

General Taguba spent more than four hours interviewing Karpinski, whom he described as extremely emotional: “What I found particularly disturbing in her testimony was her complete unwillingness to either understand or accept that many of the problems inherent in the 800th MP Brigade were caused or exacerbated by poor leadership and the refusal of her command to both establish and enforce basic standards and principles among its soldiers.”

Taguba recommended that Karpinski and seven brigade military-police officers and enlisted men be relieved of command and formally reprimanded. No criminal proceedings were suggested for Karpinski; apparently, the loss of promotion and the indignity of a public rebuke were seen as enough punishment.

After the story broke on CBS last week, the Pentagon announced that Major Genera Geoffrey Miller, the new head of the Iraq prison system, had arrived in Baghdad and way on the job. He had been the commander of th Guantánamo Bay detention center. Genera Sanchez also authorized an investigation into possible wrongdoing by military and civilian interrogators

As the international furor grew, senior military officers, and President Bush, insisted that the actions of a few did not reflect the conduct of the military as a whole. Taguba’s report, however, amounts to an unsparing study of collective wrongdoing and the failure of Army leadership at the highest levels. The picture he draws of Abu Ghraib is one in which Army regulations and the Geneva conventions were routinely violated, and in which much of the day-to-day management of the prisoners was abdicated to Army military-intelligence units and civilian contract employees. Interrogating prisoners and getting intelligence, including by intimidation and torture, was the priority.

The mistreatment at Abu Ghraib may have done little to further American intelligence, however. Willie J. Rowell, who served for thirty-six years as a C.I.D. agent, told me that the use of force or humiliation with prisoners is invariably counterproductive. “They’ll tell you what you want to hear, truth or no truth,” Rowell said. “‘You can flog me until I tell you what I know you want me to say.’ You don’t get righteous information.”

Under the fourth Geneva convention, an occupying power can jail civilians who pose an “imperative” security threat, but it must establish a regular procedure for insuring that only civilians who remain a genuine security threat be kept imprisoned. Prisoners have the right to appeal any internment decision and have their cases reviewed. Human Rights Watch complained to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that civilians in Iraq remained in custody month after month with no charges brought against them. Abu Ghraib had become, in effect, another Guantánamo.

As the photographs from Abu Ghraib make clear, these detentions have had enormous consequences: for the imprisoned civilian Iraqis, many of whom had nothing to do with the growing insurgency; for the integrity of the Army; and for the United States’ reputation in the world.

Captain Robert Shuck, Frederick’s military attorney, closed his defense at the Article 32 hearing last month by saying that the Army was “attempting to have these six soldiers atone for its sins.” Similarly, Gary Myers, Frederick’s civilian attorney, told me that he would argue at the court-martial that culpability in the case extended far beyond his client. “I’m going to drag every involved intelligence officer and civilian contractor I can find into court,” he said. “Do you really believe the Army relieved a general officer because of six soldiers? Not a chance.”

[hughes johnson]

Wow, that's a lot of typing! I really didn't have time to read all of the stuff you wrote because of other obligations, but from what I saw you are unhappy about the treatment of the prisoners. I'm sure a lot of this stuff gets blown out of proportion. We're currently investigating the matter, and I'm sure we'll make some changes if we need to.

[pelastration]

Why did US Opposition to the International Criminal Court?
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out. USA wants to have also 'freedom' to act outside human rights.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/international/middleeast/02ABUS.html

The Army Reserve general whose military police officers were photographed as they mistreated Iraqi prisoners said Saturday that she had been "sickened" by the pictures and had known nothing about the sexual humiliation and other abuse until weeks later.

But the officer, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski of the 800th Military Police Brigade, said the special high-security cellblock at the Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad, where the abuses took place had been under the tight control of a separate group of military intelligence officers who had so far avoided any public blame.

In her first public comments about the brutality — which drew wide attention and condemnation after photographs documenting it were broadcast Wednesday night by CBS News — General Karpinski said that while the reservists involved were "bad people" and deserved punishment, she suspected they were acting with the encouragement, if not at the direction, of military intelligence units that ran the special cellblock used for interrogation.

Speaking in a telephone interview from her home in South Carolina, the general said military commanders in Iraq were trying to shift the blame exclusively to her and the reservists.

"We're disposable," she said of the military's attitude toward reservists. "Why would they want the active-duty people to take the blame? They want to put this on the M.P.'s and hope that this thing goes away. Well, it's not going to go away."

She said the special cellblock, known as 1A, was one of about two dozen in the large prison and was essentially off limits to soldiers who were not part of the interrogations.

----

More photos indicate it were not a number of isolated incidents: http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqi-pow/iraqi-pow

----
Amnesty International: ""Our extensive research in Iraq suggests that this is not an isolated incident. It is not enough for the USA to react only once images have hit the television screens". http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140172004

----

Since it becomes more and more clear that there is a kind of systematic behavior of US military or secret services in the the treatment of prisoners in Iraq we can look under what category of International crime they come.

Make your choice:

Article 7 (1) (f) Crime against humanity of torture 14
Elements
1. The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons were in the custody or under the control of the perpetrator.
3. Such pain or suffering did not arise only from, and was not inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions.
4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.


Article 7 (1) (g)-1 Crime against humanity of rape
Elements
1. The perpetrator invaded 15 the body of a person by conduct resulting in penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the victim or of the perpetrator with a sexual organ, or of the anal or genital opening of the victim with any object or any other part of the body.
2. The invasion was committed by force, or by threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power, against such person or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment, or the invasion was committed against a person incapable of giving genuine consent. 16
3. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
4. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

Article 7 (1) (g)-6 Crime against humanity of sexual violence
Elements
1. The perpetrator committed an act of a sexual nature against one or more persons or caused such person or persons to engage in an act of a sexual nature by force, or by threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power, against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment or such person’s or persons’ incapacity to give genuine consent.
2. Such conduct was of a gravity comparable to the other offences in article 7, paragraph 1 (g), of the Statute.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the gravity of the conduct.

Article 7 (1) (h) Crime against humanity of persecution
Elements
1. The perpetrator severely deprived, contrary to international law, 21 one or more
persons of fundamental rights.
2. The perpetrator targeted such person or persons by reason of the identity of a group or collectivity or targeted the group or collectivity as such.
3. Such targeting was based on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, of the Statute, or other grounds
that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law.
4. The conduct was committed in connection with any act referred to in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court. 22
5. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
6. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.


Article 7 (1) (i) Crime against humanity of enforced disappearance of persons 23,24
Elements
1. The perpetrator:
(a) Arrested, detained 25,26 or abducted one or more persons; or
(b) Refused to acknowledge the arrest, detention or abduction, or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of such person or persons.
2. (a) Such arrest, detention or abduction was followed or accompanied by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the
fate or whereabouts of such person or persons; or
(b) Such refusal was preceded or accompanied by that deprivation of freedom.
3. The perpetrator was aware that: 27
(a) Such arrest, detention or abduction would be followed in the ordinary course of events by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of such person or persons; 28 or
(b) Such refusal was preceded or accompanied by that deprivation of freedom.
4. Such arrest, detention or abduction was carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization.
5. Such refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of such person or persons was carried out by,
or with the authorization or support of, such State or political organization.
6. The perpetrator intended to remove such person or persons from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
7. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
8. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

Article 8 (2) (a) (ii)-1 War crime of torture
Elements 35
1. The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons.
2. The perpetrator inflicted the pain or suffering for such purposes as: obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation or coercion or for any reason
based on discrimination of any kind.
3. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
4. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
5. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
6. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

Article 8 (2) (a) (ii)-2 War crime of inhuman treatment
Elements
1. The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

Article 8 (2) (a) (iii) War crime of wilfully causing great suffering
Elements
1. The perpetrator caused great physical or mental pain or suffering to, or serious injury to body or health of, one or more persons.
2. Such person or persons were protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that protected status.
4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

[hughes johnson]

We'll see what the investigation uncovers, if anything. I'm sure we will make whatever changes are appropriate, if we need to.

[studentx]

Half those pics look fake
Especially the ones where several troops rape a woman, you would expect them to be tanned, but some are ridiculously pale. I dont think its possible to be pale in Iraq.

[pelastration]

We'll see what the investigation uncovers, if anything. I'm sure we will make whatever changes are appropriate, if we need to.
The investigation done by US? For sure is will find that it were 'isolated' incidents. CIA involvement and hired 'interogation' specialists will be kept out if possible.
Why trust US justice?

BTW, I am amazed about your very short comment.

[pelastration]

Half those pics look fake
Especially the ones where several troops rape a woman, you would expect them to be tanned, but some are ridiculously pale. I dont think its possible to be pale in Iraq.
I think that's a very artificial remark. It can be 'new' troops, fresh from Alaska. But a number of faces are recognizable, and can bring identification.

[studentx]

They could be from some random porn site and emailed to albasrah by anybody. But if theyre real than i think we all agree these men are animals and want to see them punished just as much as you

[russ_watters]

"Torture?"

High school hazing is uglier than this.

Somebody ask McCain if he'd prefer the Hanoi Hilton to kiddy stuff. I was thinking this too, but was letting it go: While true, this doesn't make it ok. Why did US Opposition to the International Criminal Court?
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out. USA wants to have also 'freedom' to act outside human rights. You'd like that to be true, but it isn't. I think you know it too. Even taking this incident into account, the US matches up quite well on human rights.

The real reason that we opposed the ICC is one of sovereignty and our government's duty to her citizens. America is fairly unique in that function of government and it matters to us. A lot. Its what makes ours different and better than what came before ours. So torture is ok, so long as there is an example of worse torture? As Adam would say, Zero, thats a straw-man.

[selfAdjoint]

By a straw man, do you intend to say you don't believe that? It's a valid question if it's stated positively; is torture a relative thing so that "painful hazing" might be more acceptable than bamboo slivers under the fingernails, and that in turn would be a little better than the rack? Or is there a low bar based on intent, so that if you MEAN to harm someone, even only slightly, and you do it, you have already crossed the line?

[pelastration]

By a straw man, do you intend to say you don't believe that? It's a valid question if it's stated positively; is torture a relative thing so that "painful hazing" might be more acceptable than bamboo slivers under the fingernails, and that in turn would be a little better than the rack? Or is there a low bar based on intent, so that if you MEAN to harm someone, even only slightly, and you do it, you have already crossed the line?
Good Question Dick.

[pelastration]

You'd like that to be true, but it isn't. I think you know it too. Even taking this incident into account, the US matches up quite well on human rights.
The real reason that we opposed the ICC is one of sovereignty and our government's duty to her citizens. America is fairly unique in that function of government and it matters to us. A lot. Its what makes ours different and better than what came before ours.

Human rights? Gitmo is one, but where are the rights of prisoners in the sadistic hands of private contractors 'hired' by the US Government. Hasn't that government any responsibility? No ??? Who brings them in the prison? Who lets them do whatever? That's an organized 'outlaw' justice allowing torture without punishment. Gestapo.
"No civilians, however, are facing charges as military law does not apply to them. Colonel Jill Morgenthaler, from CentCom, said that one civilian contractor was accused along with six soldiers of mistreating prisoners. However, it was left to the contractor to “deal with him”.
Russ if that is a normal procedure about human rights then there is something serious rotten in the US mentality.

About ICC: Do you believe the signatories of the treaty have no governmental duty to their citizens? Of course they have. But these countries forbid themselves to allow in all situations war-crimes. They don't fear to be brought before the ICC. They have no intention. For the newcon lead USA and dreaming about the New Century Empire war-crimes are allowed, can not be avoid. It's intentional. USA wants to stay outside the rules of International law. USA attacked Iraq remember, without real hard facts, and fabricated by the Wurmser cell. See Pentagon cell: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=David_Wurmser and http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405-2.html. By the newcons USA became an aggressive state. But not only to the outside but also internal. Now is the reduction of constitutional rights by the Patriot Act a governmental duty to it's citizens? If USA started under newcons to reduce USA citizen rights how would they respect the human rights of citizen of other countries. The Gitmo shame thing was discussed on PF in several posts, yes, no, yes, no ... POW's etc. but what we saw was that it violated 'common sense', a type of nature right to be treated as a human. Njorl hit the essence: This guys can even not defense themselves to be innocent. Newcon leader deny a number of rights to US citizen and other countries citizen. And that's Russ what USA is up to ... if you let Bush and mafia-controlled private contractors do. By privatization of the military ( and police ...?) there will be interrogations in USA by private contractors ... but without liability. Indeed, it will be left to the contractor to “deal with him” if it goes out of hand.


I suggest Russ you take a look to this and see if you can find some resemblance what's happening in US today:
Why? ... of course the people don't want war. . . . That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament or a communist dictatorship . . . the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. . . . All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.
--Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshal and Luftwaffe chief at Nuremberg trials, 1945”

http://www.sundayherald.com/41693
....
But these soldiers aren’t simply mavericks. Some accused claim they acted on the orders of military intelligence and the CIA, and that some of the torture sessions were under the control of mercenaries hired by the US to conduct interrogations. Two “civilian contract” organisations taking part in interrogations at Abu Ghraib are linked to the Bush administration.

California-based Titan Corporation http://www.titan.com says it is “a leading provider of solutions and services for national security”. Between 2003-04, it gave nearly $40,000 to George W Bush’s Republican Party. Titan supplied translators to the military.

CACI International Inc. describes its aim as helping “America’s intelligence community in the war on terrorism”. Richard Armitage, the current deputy US secretary of state, sat on CACI’s board.

No civilians, however, are facing charges as military law does not apply to them. Colonel Jill Morgenthaler, from CentCom, said that one civilian contractor was accused along with six soldiers of mistreating prisoners. However, it was left to the contractor to “deal with him”. One civilian interrogator told army investigators that he had “unintentionally” broken several tables during interrogations as he was trying to “fear-up” detainees.

Lawyers for some accused say their clients are scapegoats for a rogue prison system, which allowed mercenaries to give orders to serving soldiers. A military report said private contractors were at times supervising the interrogations.

Kimmitt said: “I hope the investigation is including not only the people who committed the crimes, but some of the people who might have encouraged the crimes as well because they certainly share some responsibility.”

Last night, CACI vice-president Jody Brown said: “The company supports the Army’s investigation and acknowledges that CACI personnel in Iraq volunteered to be interviewed by army officials in connection with the investigation. The company has received no indication that any CACI employee was involved in any alleged improper conduct with Iraqi prisoners. Nonetheless, CACI has initiated an independent investigation.”

However, military investigators said: “A CACI investigator’s contract was terminated because he allowed and/or instructed military police officers who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations which were neither authorised nor in accordance with regulations.”

Bio CACI vice-president Jody Brown: http://www.caci.com/about/bios/brown.shtml”
Titan Service: Developing and Deploying Physical Security Solutions: http://www.titan.com/products-services/abstract.html?docID=100

[pelastration]

If the Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld doesn't know who was in charge at the notorious Abu Ghraib jail, who would know? The great mystery.

Role: The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy adviser to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct concern to the Department of Defense, and for the execution of approved policy. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction and control over the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense is a member of the President's Cabinet and of the National Security Council. http://www.defenselink.mil/osd/topleaders.html

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3695543.stm

Defence tactics

Today, one of his tactics was to use the phalanx of officials around him ( Rumsfeld) to deflect the questions.

Their series of statements successfully used up a good portion of the time allocated for the hearing.

But as Mr Rumsfeld started passing questions over to them, it infuriated some of the senators.

John McCain, the independent-minded Republican and former presidential candidate, was clearly exasperated when Mr Rumsfeld passed on to a senior general a question about who was in charge at the notorious Abu Ghraib jail.

"No, Secretary Rumsfeld, in all due respect, you've got to answer this question, and it could be satisfied with a phone call," Mr McCain interjected.

"This is a pretty simple, straightforward question. Who was in charge of the interrogations?"

No clear answer came back from Mr Rumsfeld. And he came under more heat from several Democratic senators.

(snip)

Mr Rumsfeld and his generals were critical of the publication of the pictures - even though that is the event that has really brought this scandal to light.

So that the impression is that the Pentagon views this, above all, as public-relations disaster - not a human tragedy.

...
----
From: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/191377p-165387c.html
Rumsfeld: Sorry, but there's more
Worse yet to come, he warns - hint murder, rape, kid abuse

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters, "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience."

Congressional sources said some of the allegations of abuse involved acts against young boys, and Graham said "the worst is yet to come."

----
From: http://wid.ap.org/transcripts/040507iraq.html - Full text

(snip)
MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

I come to this hearing with a deep sense of sorrow and grave concern. Sorrow for -- after the shock and anger of seeing these pictures for the first time, that so many brave young Americans who are fighting and dying are under this cloud.

I attended the memorial service of Pat Tillman, a brave American who sacrificed his life recently, and he and others, unfortunately, at least in some way are diminished by this scandal.

I'm gravely concerned that many Americans will have the same impulse as I did when I saw this picture, and that's to turn away from them. And we risk losing public support for this conflict. As Americans turned away from the Vietnam War, they may turn away from this one unless this issue is quickly resolved with full disclosure immediately.

With all due respect to investigations ongoing and panels being appointed, the American people deserve immediate and full disclosure of all relevant information so that we can be assured and comforted that something that we never believed could happen will never happen again.

Now, Mr. Secretary, I'd like to know -- I'd like you to give the committee the chain of command from the guards to you, all the way up the chain of command. I'd like to know...

RUMSFELD: I think General Myers brought an indication of it, and we'll show it.

MCCAIN: Thank you.

I'd like to know who was in charge of the -- what agencies or private contractors were in charge of interrogations? Did they have authority over the guards? And what were their instructions to the guards?

RUMSFELD: First, with respect to the...

SMITH: We did not bring it.

RUMSFELD: Oh, my.

SMITH: Yes, oh, my is right.

RUMSFELD: It was all prepared.

SMITH: Yes, it was, indeed.

RUMSFELD: Do you want to walk through it?

MCCAIN: Anyway, who was in charge? What agency or private contractor was in charge of the interrogations? Did they have authority over the guards? And what were the instructions that they gave to the guards?

SMITH: I'll walk through the chain of command and...

MCCAIN: No. Let's just -- you can submit the chain of command, please.

WARNER: General Smith, do you want to respond?

MCCAIN: No. Secretary Rumsfeld, in all due respect, you've got to answer this question. And it could be satisfied with a phone call. This is a pretty simple, straightforward question: Who was in charge of the interrogations? What agencies or private contractors were in charge of the interrogations? Did they have authority over the guards? And what were the instructions to the guards?

This goes to the heart of this matter.

RUMSFELD: It does indeed.

As I understand it, there were two contractor organizations. They supplied interrogators and linguists. And I was advised by General Smith that there were maybe a total of 40.

MCCAIN: Now, were they in charge of the interrogations?

SMITH: Thirty-seven interrogators, and...

WARNER: The witnesses voice are not being recorded. You'll have to speak into your microphone.

Would you repeat the conversation in response to the senator's question?

SMITH: Yes, sir. There were 37 interrogators that were...

MCCAIN: I'm asking who was in charge of the interrogations.

SMITH: They were not in charge. They were interrogators.

MCCAIN: My question is who was in charge of the interrogations?

SMITH: The brigade commander for the military intelligence brigade.

MCCAIN: And were they -- did he also have authority over the guards?

SMITH: Sir, he was -- he had tactical control over the guards, so he was...

MCCAIN: Mr. Secretary, you can't answer these questions?

RUMSFELD: I can. I'd be -- I thought the purpose of the question was to make sure we got an accurate presentation, and we have the expert here who was in the chain of command.

MCCAIN: I think these are fundamental questions to this issue.

RUMSFELD: Fine.

MCCAIN: Were the instructions to the guards...

RUMSFELD: There's two sets of responsibilities, as your question suggests. One set is the people who have the responsibility for managing the detention process; they are not interrogators. The military intelligence people, as General Smith has indicated, were the people who were in charge of the interrogation part of the process.

And the responsibility, as I have reviewed the matter, shifted over a period of time and the general is capable of telling you when that responsibility shifted.

MCCAIN: What were the instructions to the guards?

RUMSFELD: That is what the investigation that I have indicated has been undertaken...

MCCAIN: Mr. Secretary...

RUMSFELD: ... is determining...

MCCAIN: ... that's a very simple, straight-forward question.

RUMSFELD: Well, the -- as the chief of staff of the Army can tell you, the guards are trained to guard people. They're not trained to interrogate, they're not -- and their instructions are to, in the case of Iraq, adhere to the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Conventions apply to all of the individuals there in one way or another. They apply to the prisoners of war, and they are written out and they're instructed and the people in the Army train them to that and the people in the Central Command have the responsibility of seeing that, in fact, their conduct is consistent with the Geneva Conventions.

The criminals in the same detention facility are handled under a different provision of the Geneva Convention -- I believe it's the fourth and the prior one's the third.

MCCAIN: So the guards were instructed to treat the prisoners, under some kind of changing authority as I understand it, according to the Geneva Conventions?

RUMSFELD: Absolutely.

MCCAIN: I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(snip)

RUMSFELD: First, beyond abuse of prisoners, there are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence toward prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman. Second, there are many more photographs, and indeed some videos. Congress and the American people and the rest of the world need to know this.

In addition, the photos give these incidents a vividness, indeed a horror, in the eyes of the world.

(snip)

RUMSFELD: Well, let me answer a couple of pieces and let General Smith answer the last piece.

First, you say the first rule, if you're in a hole, is to stop digging. I've said today that there are a lot more photographs and videos that exist.

BEN NELSON: I didn't mean that. I mean is anything progressing on today, beyond what we already know and what we're going to find out from past performance?

RUMSFELD: If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse. That's just a fact. I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe. And so beyond notice. That's just a fact.

And if they're sent to some news organization, and taken out of the criminal prosecution channels that they're in, that's where we'll be. And it's not a pretty picture.

-----
Bio Rumsfeld: http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html

[pelastration]

In his weekly radio address, Bush called the abuse "a stain on our country's honor and reputation." So also this President has also a Stain-problem. A credibility problem about US values. The whole world looks. The focus is yet on the US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who said: ""I take full responsibility", without telling what that means. I have no idea what "responsibility" means to him, have you?

The problem for Rumsfeld is that he scores very low on the credibility-index.

How come? Here some points:

1. Rumsfeld is know to be a tough guy. He is a master in word-games. Some people like that for being smart, others don't. Rumsfeld is one of the founders of "The project for a New American Century" (PNAC), promoting world hegemony for USA. The document: Rebuilding Americas Defenses of the NewAmericanCentury.org (september 2000) clearly gave a number of long-term goals. On page 14 of the page numbers (page 26 of the pdf) http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf you can find the real reason why the Iraq War started: (quote): "In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semipermanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance.

Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." (end of quote)

This last sentence shows that for the newcons Saddam Hussein was not the real goal, but an alibi to have a "substantial overseas presence and a permanent role in a region of vital importance" of part of a worldwide supremacy of USA. So Richard Clarke was correct when he said that an invasion and occupation of Iraq was being planned by the Administration prior to September 11. You can read it for yourself: The Iraq blue-print.

When GW Bush came in power Rumsfeld was the guy to organize this PNAC long-term goal asap. The tragic events of 9/11 were an opportunity to call a "War on Terror" - al long term definition without a real enemy - and to go to Afghanistan and topple the Taliban. But remember Donald Rumsfeld urged President Bush to consider bombing Iraq almost immediately after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, and said also: "There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan but there are lots of good targets in Iraq." concerned about the business turnover of his PNAC related friends in the military industry.

2. The creation of "the immediate justification" to attack Iraq and get support for a International coalition.

Several "events" occurred like the fake Nigeria Yellow cake purchase by Saddam, but Only weeks after 9/11, the Bush administration (PNAC-ers Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Feith, Perle, Wurmser, ...) set up a secret Pentagon unit to create the 'official' case for invading Iraq.

Quote from http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/01/12_405.html:

In 1997, Wurmser wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal called "Iraq Needs a Revolution" and the next year co-signed a letter with Perle calling for all-out U.S. support of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile group led by Ahmad Chalabi, in promoting an insurgency in Iraq. At AEI, Wurmser wrote Tyranny's Ally: America's Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein, essentially a book-length version of "A Clean Break" that proposed an alliance between Jordan and the INC to redraw the map of the Middle East. Among the mentors cited by Wurmser in the book: Chalabi, Perle, and Feith.

The purpose of the unnamed intelligence unit, often described as a Pentagon "cell," was to scour reports from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and other agencies to find nuggets of information linking Iraq, Al Qaeda, terrorism, and the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
In a controversial press briefing in October 2002, a year after Wurmser's unit was established, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged that a primary purpose of the unit was to cull factoids, which were then used to disparage, undermine, and contradict the CIA's reporting, which was far more cautious and nuanced than Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith wanted.

Rumsfeld particularly enjoyed harassing the CIA staffer who briefed him every morning, using the type of data produced by the intelligence unit. "What I could do is say, 'Gee, what about this?'" Rumsfeld noted. "'Or what about that? Has somebody thought of this?'"

Last June, when Feith was questioned on the same topic at a briefing, he acknowledged that the secret unit in fact looked at the connection between Iraq and terrorism, saying, "You can't rely on deterrence to deal with the problem of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of state sponsors of terrorism because [of] the possibility that those state sponsors might employ chemical weapons or biological weapons by means of a terrorist organization proxy.
(snip)
Kwiatkowski, 43, a now-retired Air Force officer who served in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia (NESA) unit in the year before the invasion of Iraq, observed how the Pentagon's Iraq war-planning unit manufactured scare stories about Iraq's weapons and ties to terrorists.

"It wasn't intelligence‚ -- it was propaganda," she says. "They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together."

It was by turning such bogus intelligence into talking points for U.S. officials‚ -- including ominous lines in speeches by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell's testimony at the U.N. Security Council last February‚ -- that the administration pushed American public opinion into supporting an unnecessary war. (end of quote)

In the Herald Tribune on the Feith-Wurmser cell: http://www.iht.com/articles/517591.html: (snip) In public statements, Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld alluded to connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Bush also warned of the risks that Saddam would share his illicit weapons with terrorists.

Some intelligence experts charge that the Feith unit had a secret agenda to justify a war with Iraq and was staffed with people who were handpicked by conservative Pentagon policy makers to arrive at preordained conclusions about Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Feith defends his analysts. He said his group had not been set up as a rival to the CIA. "We were not bypassing, we were not being secretive, we were not cutting the intel community out of this," he said.

But the effort aroused suspicions at the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Feith and his analysts were closely linked to Richard Perle, then chairman of a Pentagon advisory group and a leading neoconservative who had long advocated toppling Saddam and was a vocal critic of the CIA.
... Despite their access to the Pentagon leadership, Maloof and Wurmser faced resistance from the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency.
They were initially denied access, for example, to the most highly classified documents in the Pentagon computer system. So Maloof returned regularly to his old office in another branch of the Department of Defense, where he still could get the material.

The team's conclusions were alarming: Old barriers that divided the major Islamic terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, were coming down, and these groups were forging ties with one another and with secular Arab governments in an emerging terrorist war against the West.
.....
By early 2002, the team had completed a 150-page briefing and slide presentation for Feith.
Soon after finishing the report, Wurmser moved to the State Department and then joined Cheney's staff.

(Now) the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is investigating whether the unit - named the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group by its creator, Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy - exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq to justify the war.
The CIA and other intelligence agencies found little evidence to support the Pentagon's view of an increasingly unified terrorist threat or links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden, and still largely dismiss those ideas.

(Then) Unable to reach a consensus on Iraq's terrorist ties because of the skepticism of the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Bush administration turned its focus to the peril posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, or WMD, as the central rationale for war.

In public statements, Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld alluded to connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Bush also warned of the risks that Saddam would share his illicit weapons with terrorists. (end of quote).

Since Rumsfeld is inside the PNAC circle he knew all this. Of course.

continue ...

[pelastration]

continue ...

3. Last Saturday, Vice President Dick Cheney stated Rumsfeld was "the best secretary of defence the U.S.has ever had" and that people should "get off his case." But is he the "best" ever?

Rumsfeld made a number of perceptional failures, such as his pre-war prediction of the coming short high-tech war with precision bombs, etc:

Feb. 7, 2003: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-31-then-and-now-usat_x.htm

Other newcons agreed:
• March 4, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. ... Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.

• March 11, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."

• March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. ... I think it will go relatively quickly, ... (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard ... are likely to step aside."

Today we know it took another direction.

Some ask:"Where is an exist plan? The answer is rather simple: The PNAC blue-print doesn't include an exit. Now Syria is the next door to open.

4. Was Rumsfeld informed about the problems in the Iraq prisons?

It is almost unbelievable that the Secretary of Defense wasn't aware of the last year reports from the International Red Cross and claims by Amnesty International. The International Red Cross and human-rights groups have repeatedly complained during the past year about the America military’s treatment of Iraqi prisoners, with little success. That the Army had been slow in transfering information because of built-in safeguards is a weak reasoning in view of the potential PR damage.

As the NewYorker writes: "The official chain of command flows from General Sanchez, in Iraq, to Abizaid, and on to Rumsfeld and President Bush. “You’ve got to match action, or nonaction, with interests,” the Pentagon official said. “What is the motive for not being forthcoming? They foresaw major diplomatic problems.”

Secrecy and wishful thinking, the Pentagon official said, are defining characteristics of Rumsfeld’s Pentagon, and shaped its response to the reports from Abu Ghraib. “They always want to delay the release of bad news—in the hope that something good will break,” he said. The habit of procrastination in the face of bad news led to disconnects between Rumsfeld and the Army staff officers who were assigned to planning for troop requirements in Iraq.http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040517fa_fact2

It would be more logic that Rumsfeld was NOT interested in such information, exactly like he only read Major General Antoni M. Tagub's report the night before going to Congress. Another quote of the NewYorker: "The Pentagon’s impatience with military protocol extended to questions about the treatment of prisoners caught in the course of its military operations. Soon after 9/11, as the war on terror got under way, Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly made public his disdain for the Geneva conventions. Complaints about America’s treatment of prisoners, Rumsfeld said in early 2002, amounted to “isolated pockets of international hyperventilation.”. Rumsfeld decided not to apply the Geneva Convention to detainees at Guantanamo Bay or other al-Qaeda prisoners.

When Rumsfeld was able to say about the "enemy combatants" of Guantanamo :"I do not feel the slightest concern at their treatment. They are being treated vastly better than they treated anybody else," why would Rumsfeld feel concerned or interested about those in other similar secret prisons like in Diego Garcia, or in Abu Ghraib.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1762529.stm

For Rumsfeld "It's my way or no way."
"When you come to him, you don't bring bad news." and Officers are supposed to be "can do," not naysayers. "You never heard bad news from the chain of command," said the crusty father of the nuclear Navy, Adm. Hyman Rickover. The ornery Rickover always went looking for trouble himself. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4934778

continue ...

[pelastration]

continue ...

5. The President had privately rebuked his Defense Secretary for not advising him of the extent of the problem. But is this correct? Or are semantics involved?

"The next day [January 14, 2004], Gen. John Abizaid, commander of all U.S. forces in the region, was on the phone to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. ‘General Abizaid informed the leadership within hours of the incident,' said a senior Pentagon official. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the military's spokesman in Iraq, also called the Pentagon, though with more alarming words. ‘He said, "We've got a really bad situation," recalled one official, who like others requested anonymity. ‘The evidence is damaging and horrific,' ‘We've got a really bad situation…'

"Abizaid talked daily with Rumsfeld about Iraq, and the prison investigation likely came up often, officials said. Top Pentagon leaders, such as Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, as well as President Bush were kept aware of the situation, said Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the CBS Early Show yesterday. http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch

Check these words and sentences. They give the impression that Bush was not informed about the abuse ... but it's only about 'the handling', 'the photo's', 'the details', the way he was informed 'about the pictures'.

It's NOT about the abuse itself:

A. "President Bush on Wednesday chastised his defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, for Mr. Rumsfeld's handling of a scandal over the American abuse ..."
B. "...the president had expressed his displeasure to Mr. Rumsfeld in an Oval Office meeting because of Mr. Rumsfeld's failure to tell Mr. Bush about photographs of the abuse ..."
C. "In his interviews on Wednesday with Arab television networks, Mr. Bush said that he learned the graphic details of the abuse case only when they were broadcast ...
D. "The president was not satisfied or happy about the way he was informed about the pictures ..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/politics/06CABI.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Can you read somewhere that Bush was not informed about 'the Abuse'? No. He was informed.

6. Credibility and international support for Iraq:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-troops9may09,1,5346761.story?coll=la-home-headlines
The Bush administration's hopes for a major NATO military presence in Iraq this year appear doomed, interviews with allied defense officials and diplomats show.
The Western military alliance had expected to announce at a June summit that it would accept a role in the country, perhaps by leading the international division now patrolling south-central Iraq. But amid continuing bloodshed and strong public opposition to the occupation in many nations, allies want to delay any major commitment until after the U.S. presidential election in November, officials say.
...
International outrage over disclosure of mistreatment of Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib prison have added to allied discomfort.

"The tide is still ebbing," said one European official, describing the regional enthusiasm for sending troops.
....
Even so, most NATO members take the view that "Afghanistan is where NATO's credibility is on the line," said a NATO official. "In Iraq, it's the U.S.' credibility that's on the line."

7. The Price of Arrogance http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4933882 give a good synthesis.

(quote)Since 9/11, a handful of officials at the top of the Defense Department and the vice president's office have commandeered American foreign and defense policy. In the name of fighting terror they have systematically weakened the traditional restraints that have made this country respected around the world. Alliances, international institutions, norms and ethical conventions have all been deemed expensive indulgences at a time of crisis.

Within weeks after September 11, senior officials at the Pentagon and the White House began the drive to maximize American freedom of action. They attacked specifically the Geneva Conventions, which govern behavior during wartime. Donald Rumsfeld explained that the conventions did not apply to today's "set of facts." He and his top aides have tried persistently to keep prisoners out of the reach of either American courts or international law, presumably so that they can be handled without those pettifogging rules as barriers. Rumsfeld initially fought both the uniformed military and Colin Powell, who urged that prisoners in Guantanamo be accorded rights under the conventions. Eventually he gave in on the matter but continued to suggest that the protocols were antiquated.

Last week he said again that the Geneva Conventions did not "precisely apply" and were simply basic rules.

The conventions are not exactly optional. They are the law of the land, signed by the president and ratified by Congress. Rumsfeld's concern—that Al Qaeda members do not wear uniforms and are thus "unlawful combatants"—is understandable, but that is a determination that a military court would have to make. In a war that could go on for decades, you cannot simply arrest and detain people indefinitely on the say-so of the secretary of Defense.

The basic attitude taken by Rumsfeld, Cheney and their top aides has been "We're at war; all these niceties will have to wait."

As a result, we have waged pre-emptive war unilaterally, spurned international cooperation, rejected United Nations participation, humiliated allies, discounted the need for local support in Iraq and incurred massive costs in blood and treasure. (end of quote).

8. For now I come back to the essence: USA got involved in this war because it was planned by a very selective group of people behind and involved PNAC. There was a PNAC Iraq blue-print (see point 1 - read the pdf).

USA will pay the price of this newcon megalomania:
1. Lost of international prestige and trust
2. Lost of life of troops and many injured for life.
3. Taxes: http://costofwar.com : The War in Iraq Cost the United States ...

A first rebuilding of trust to the international community is to fire Rumsfeld. He is considered to be one of the PNAC architects of this "agressive USA". He's a bad outside PR face for the USA.

[russ_watters]

By a straw man, do you intend to say you don't believe that? It's a valid question if it's stated positively; is torture a relative thing so that "painful hazing" might be more acceptable than bamboo slivers under the fingernails, and that in turn would be a little better than the rack? Or is there a low bar based on intent, so that if you MEAN to harm someone, even only slightly, and you do it, you have already crossed the line? Sorry I didn't respond sooner...

Zero's comment was flawed on at least two levels: The straw-man is the implicit assumption that Bystander was saying torture is ok.

The second flaw is the one several people are operating on: there is a big problem here with the very definition and use of the word "torture," and I think that's what Bystander meant to imply.

Torture is defined as severe mental or physical pain inflicted as a means of punishment. Regarding the pictures specifically, the definition doesn't fit. That isn't torture. Note to avoid the application of the same straw-man again: This doesn't mean I'm saying its ok.

Quite frankly, altering definitions in order to exploit the connotation of a choice word is a tactic I most often see in liberals for some reason. And it is particularly dishonest on a science BB, as science (as opposed to philosophy) is a field where words have very specific meanings.

[Adam]

Regarding the pictures specifically, the definition doesn't fit. That isn't torture.

Funny. Keep clinging to those delusions russ.

[hughes johnson]

...altering definitions in order to exploit the connotation of a choice word is a tactic I most often see in liberals for some reason. And it is particularly dishonest...
russ,
It is dishonest, but I don't believe that it's done on purpose. Most liberals are failures in life, and they spend a great deal of time trying to muck things up for anyone who is a success. If this seems annoying to you, don't be surprised, it is meant to be. These people invest a lot of their time annoying anyone who has been "lucky" in life. It never dawns on them that this behavior is the root of their own failure in the first place. They are the voluntary downtrodden. What really pisses them off is when "disadvantaged" minorities from the ghetto make successes of themselves, leaving their "saviors" in their dust. Look at the way they treat Condi, Clarence Thomas, and J.C. Watts. It's funny to watch; and a good lesson in life.

[kat]

hyperbole-hyperbole-hyperbole!
That's the applicable word Russ~!

[Robert Zaleski]

Much ado about nothing. I'm surprised these sob's aren't summarily executed in the field.

[Njorl]

russ,
It is dishonest, but I don't believe that it's done on purpose. Most liberals are failures in life, and they spend a great deal of time trying to muck things up for anyone who is a success. If this seems annoying to you, don't be surprised, it is meant to be. These people invest a lot of their time annoying anyone who has been "lucky" in life. It never dawns on them that this behavior is the root of their own failure in the first place. They are the voluntary downtrodden. What really pisses them off is when "disadvantaged" minorities from the ghetto make successes of themselves, leaving their "saviors" in their dust. Look at the way they treat Condi, Clarence Thomas, and J.C. Watts. It's funny to watch; and a good lesson in life.

It is no more dishonest than the howls of treason from conservatives.

Most conservatives are hateful in life, and they spend a great deal of money trying to muck things up for anyone who is thoughtful. If this seems annoying to you, don't be surprised, it is meant to be. These people invest a lot of their money annoying anyone who has been "un-American". It never dawns on them that this behavior is the root of their own hatefulness in the first place. They are the voluntarily embittered. What really pisses them off is when "multimillionaires" from the upper classes promote egalitarian views leaving their "brethren" to wallow in hatred. Look at the way they treat George Soros, James Hormel and Ted Kennedy.

Njorl

[russ_watters]

Funny. Keep clinging to those delusions russ. Be specific. Give me a specific example of torture and connect it to the definition with a specific argument. IE, 'here is a picture of a US soldier beating a prisoner. Beatings are torture because they are inflicting physical pain.'

A naked prisoner simulating sex is humiliating, but humiliation does not constitute torture. It is dishonest, but I don't believe that it's done on purpose. I go back and forth on this one. I think it varies from one to the next. There are several people here who have Orwell's "doublethink." Its the ability to hold two mutually exclusive ideas in your head at the same time and believe both are true. Its human nature to want to believe certain things, but what separates some is when they manufacture or manipulate evidence in order to show it. Could that be done unconsciously? Maybe, but I don't think so. In fact, I have heard in here peple say that its ok to lie if necessary to get your point across. Sooner or later though, I think these guys do think about the fact that they always have to lie/manipulate information to make their argument and realize that means there is a flaw in their argument. After that, either the intellectual honesty takes over or the desire to have the world match their perception takes over. hyperbole-hyperbole-hyperbole!
That's the applicable word Russ~! Yeah, that too, kat: if its not bad enough on its own, exaggerate it.

Question: which is THIS (http://www.usatoday.com/news/gallery/2004/05-10-brutal-images/flash.htm), hyperbole or straw-man? It is a photo gallery with a pic of a Iraqi prisoner in a leash mixed in with famous photos of things like the Holocaust, the Rodney King beating, and the charred bodies of murdered American civilians hanging from a bridge in Falluja. The implication being made is that there is something in common - even equal - about all these pictures. It sickens me that the media would play it that way. Maybe all they care is that shocking images sell newspapers, but what they are doing is generating and spreading anti-American propaganda.

[hughes johnson]

Njorl,
I don't hate you at all (not even a little). I don't think that you are "un-American" either. I must confess however that I'm not that fond of Ted Kennedy. His record on women is the same as O.J. Simpson's...
One...
so far.

[hughes johnson]

A naked prisoner simulating sex is humiliating, but humiliation does not constitute torture.
True enough. A female friend of mine does this for a living; she says torture costs extra.

[russ_watters]

It is no more dishonest than the howls of treason from conservatives. Who exactly was howling treason about what? I think I know the thread and person you are talking about (if that's all this is) - but take another look: he wasn't the first to use the word. Its a clever tactic, use a word that doesn't apply in order to get it into a conversation for others to use as ammo.

[Njorl]

Njorl,
I don't hate you at all (not even a little). I don't think that you are "un-American" either. I must confess however that I'm not that fond of Ted Kennedy. His record on women is the same as O.J. Simpson's...
One...
so far.
I don't actually believe what I posted. It was more an exercise to point out that what you posted was silly. Most of my friends are successful liberals. Many of the "failures" I've known have been bitter racists that I would never classify as liberal in a million years. It isn't liberals who complain about blacks and women getting jobs through affirmative action, illegal immigants undercutting their salary and mysterious Jewish conspiracies stealing all the money. Well, maybe we complain about the illegal immigrants, but only because they're being exploited :wink: .

Njorl

[hughes johnson]

what you posted was silly.

Njorl,
Please forgive me for quoting you out of context (I hope it doesn't piss you off again).

My post was not directed at you. I didn't realize that you were a liberal; I thought that you were middle of the road like me.

Psychology is one of my hobbies, forgive me for experimenting on you for my own amusement.

Since I am a nice man (and since I'm not bitter), I'm going to ignore your personal attack. Besides, if all of the silly posts were deleted, there wouldn't be much left to read.

-hughes

[hughes johnson]

Most of my friends are successful liberals.

Oh my god, what a terrible plight! If they're successful, what do they have to whine about? They must bore the other liberals to death!

[Nereid]

Can we get back OT please?

Dubya said the behaviour was unacceptable. But the behaviour was known about for months; both internal and external sources had provided ample evidence. To what extent was the torture (or whatever other term Russ, hughes, et al wish to use) condoned? There're reports coming out that there was at least some kind of tacit approval. To what extent were reports kept from reaching Myers etc by deliberate policy (a form of 'plausible deniability')? We don't know yet; but Rummy's tears sure seem like those of a crocodile.

If the prisoners had been US citizens, so treated in the US, by cops, what would have happened? In wars, terrible things happen; true. But this is the only global superpower, the most vocal its protestations of the inalienable rights of human beings to equal respect and due process (etc), clearly engaged in a deliberate policy - as occupying power (not even 'at war') - that the leader says is 'unacceptable' (note that, unless I missed it, there were no apologies offered).

[selfAdjoint]

If the prisoners had been US citizens, so treated in the US, by cops, what would have happened?

Maybe the same thing, according to a lot of reports that say the methhods used in Iraq were just clumsily implemented versions of things that are routinely practiced in US prisons. And did you see that the guy in charge of the contracter interrogators was indicted in Utah for tormenting a prisoner until he died?

[pelastration]

The second flaw is the one several people are operating on: there is a big problem here with the very definition and use of the word "torture," and I think that's what Bystander meant to imply.

Torture is defined as severe mental or physical pain inflicted as a means of punishment. Regarding the pictures specifically, the definition doesn't fit. That isn't torture. Note to avoid the application of the same straw-man again: This doesn't mean I'm saying its ok.


1. Russ, for clarification:

Main Entry: 1 tor·ture
Etymology: French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING

2. Punishment you said? These prisoners are 'prepared' for interrogation. So it's even not sure that they are not "the wrong guy on the wrong place", innocent on default. But they got the treatment .

Is it like: If I don't know why I beat him, he knows very well for himself!

3. When I look to the photo on http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2004/mayo/lun10/20nuevas.html I judge that torture. For sure there is: severe mental or physical pain, and violence used against a naked man. It seems more photos exist of the same scene, but showing the prisoner on the floor with a bleeding wound.

4. Good News: It will change! In late March, before the Abu Ghraib scandal became publicly known, Gen. Geoffrey Miller was transferred from Guantánamo and named head of prison operations in Iraq. “We have changed this , trust us,” Miller told reporters in early May. “There were errors made. We have corrected those. We will make sure that they do not happen again.”

Probably, he confiscated all digital camera's.

5. On http://www.amnestyusa.org/askamnesty/torture200112.html some interesting questions are asked.

Torture is illegal

The use of torture would violate countless international agreements the United States has signed and ratified, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention against Torture. The pre-eminent human rights document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that "no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." There are no exceptions. Fundamental to the very idea of human rights is that they are universal, rights for all that are not to be abridged or waived, not in war or during any other crisis..

I think Russ that's the essence.

5. I don't find such respect in the report.

From Maj Gen. Tagabu's report:
Point 6. (S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by
military police personnel included the following acts:

a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees;
jumping on their naked feet;
b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and
female detainees;
c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various
sexually explicit positions for photographing;
d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and
keeping them naked for several days at a time;
e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's
underwear;
f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate
themselves while being photographed and videotaped;
g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and
then jumping on them;
h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box,
with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his
fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;
i. (S) Writing "I am a Rapest" (sic) on the leg of a
detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old
fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;
j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked
detainee's neck and having a female Soldier pose for a
picture;
k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female
detainee;
l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles)
to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least
one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;
m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.
(ANNEXES 25 and 26)

But I think also that we should tackle the 'technically question' Rumsfeld referred to: The difference between "Abuse" and "Torture". My idea is that torture is an extended version of abuse.

[pelastration]

Be specific. Give me a specific example of torture and connect it to the definition with a specific argument. IE, 'here is a picture of a US soldier beating a prisoner. Beatings are torture because they are inflicting physical pain.'

A naked prisoner simulating sex is humiliating, but humiliation does not constitute torture.

1. I gave you the photo in previous post. The dogs. That must have been a terrible situation for that prisoner. That's unhuman treatment.

2. A naked prisoner simulating sex is humiliating? Maybe that's your interpretation of the photo. What do you think is happening? Serious. Who says - or is absolutely sure - it was not extreme painful?

And Russ, ever had the idea that AIDS is transferable by oral contact? Who would be responsible?

(Added: This AIDS-risk is also for all those prisoners forced to have sex, rape. To put it in a cynic way: Did the blue rubber gloves MI's, MP's or the private contractors provided condoms? )

3. BTW, thanks for the link to the US-today photo's.

[Nereid]

If the prisoners had been US citizens, so treated in the US, by cops, what would have happened?

Maybe the same thing, according to a lot of reports that say the methods used in Iraq were just clumsily implemented versions of things that are routinely practiced in US prisons. And did you see that the guy in charge of the contracter interrogators was indicted in Utah for tormenting a prisoner until he died?Wasn't there also a case in New York a few years ago, involving four (?) policemen mistreating a civilian*, in a manner not dissimilar to that described in some of the reports? IIRC, at least one cop was convicted and jailed for x years.

*they mistook him for someone else, he was completely innocent - just like how many of the Iraqi civvies imprisoned by US forces?

[russ_watters]

But I think also that we should tackle the 'technically question' Rumsfeld referred to: The difference between "Abuse" and "Torture". My idea is that torture is an extended version of abuse. I'm fine with that: based on that, none of the items in the list you quoted qualify as torture, with the possible exception of a and k. But there isn't enough information to substantiate a claim of torture. Again, the word 'torture' is used because of its connotation: murder and rape (they have apparently happened) are crimes but are not necessarily part of torture. 1. I gave you the photo in previous post. The dogs. That must have been a terrible situation for that prisoner. That's unhuman treatment. Scaring someone is not torture.2. A naked prisoner simulating sex is humiliating? Maybe that's your interpretation of the photo. What do you think is happening? Serious. Who says - or is absolutely sure - it was not extreme painful? You can't make assumptions like that. That's not the way this works. If you want to make an accusation, it has to be substantiated. Remember the usual example of burden of proof shifting: 'I claim you are an axe murderer. Prove me wrong.' That's what you are doing here: 'lets assume its torture since we don't know.' And Russ, ever had the idea that AIDS is transferable by oral contact? You are misinformed.

[russ_watters]

Can we get back OT please?

Dubya said the behaviour was unacceptable. But the behaviour was known about for months; both internal and external sources had provided ample evidence. To what extent was the torture (or whatever other term Russ, hughes, et al wish to use) condoned? There're reports coming out that there was at least some kind of tacit approval. To what extent were reports kept from reaching Myers etc by deliberate policy (a form of 'plausible deniability')? We don't know yet; but Rummy's tears sure seem like those of a crocodile. A good question - and one that ironically gets pushed aside by all the hyperbole.

[pelastration]

You are misinformed.
As a PF mentor you should check before you post disinformation. :grumpy:Yes Russ, Yes ... you can get AIDS through oral sex.

At the 4th International Oral AIDS Conference held in South Africa, the risk of transmission through oral sex was estimated to be approximately 0.04 per cent per contact.

Can you get AIDS through oral sex?

Yes, you can become infected with the HIV virus through oral sex. Anytime blood is able to transfer from an infected person to another person, the likelihood of spreading the decease increases. The mouth has many blood vessels and pores, and it bleeds regularly. Sometimes it is caused from flossing or even biting into an apple. Because of the mouth's sporadic bleeding tendencies, the sexual risks involved are similar, but not nearly as risky, to those of the vagina. There is a higher likelihood of a blood temperature variation from the mouth compared to the vagina, since the vagina is designed to maintain a constant temperature in order to allow sperm to survive. The mouth by comparison, usually has a continuous flow of fresh air, which will help to prevent the transfer of the HIV virus. However there is still a risk, and oral sex or even heavy french kissing can transfer the HIV viruses.

http://www.discreettest.com/hiv-aids.htm

more:

http://www.avert.org/faq1.htm

How safe is oral sex?

Although it is possible to become infected with HIV through oral sex, the risk of becoming infected in this way is much lower than the risk of infection via unprotected sexual intercourse with a man or woman.

When giving oral sex to a man (sucking or licking a man's penis) a person could become infected with HIV if infected semen got into any cuts, sores or receding gums a person might have in their mouth.

Giving oral sex to a woman (licking a woman's clitoris or vagina) is also considered relatively low risk. Transmission could take place if infected sexual fluids from a woman got into the mouth of her partner. The likelihood of infection occurring might be increased if there is menstrual blood involved or the woman is infected with another STD.

The likelihood of either a man or a woman becoming infected with HIV as a consequence of receiving oral sex is extremely low.

Oral Sex Is Not Considered Safe Sex
A number of studies have demonstrated that oral sex can result in the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)

---

There has been one published case of HIV transmission associated with oral-anal sexual contact.

Other STDs Can Also Be Transmitted Through Oral Sex

Scientists have documented a number of other sexually transmitted diseases that have also been transmitted through oral sex. Herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, genital warts (HPV), intestinal parasites (amebiasis), and hepatitis A are examples of STDs which can be transmitted during oral sex with an infected partner.

[pelastration]

I'm fine with that: based on that, none of the items in the list you quoted qualify as torture, with the possible exception of a and k. But there isn't enough information to substantiate a claim of torture. Again, the word 'torture' is used because of its connotation: murder and rape (they have apparently happened) are crimes but are not necessarily part of torture..

... with the possible exception of a and k?

Although the Tagabu report mentions torture, you can say from your desk: " there isn't enough information to substantiate a claim of torture.". Interesting.

h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box,
with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his
fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

It seems to me that you read selective. The simulation is also considered a crime against human rights and a form of mental torture.

[pelastration]

We can assume that various forms of sexual abuse and torture exist also in other prisons or interrogations camps run by US forces. For sure this happens also in prisons of other countries.

Now I want to point a quiet important element that is even not mentioned in the report of Major General Antonio M. Taguba.

That report speaks - among other - also about a number of sexual ACTS.

But next to the various forms of sexual acts themselves (i.e. forced oral contact, rape, sodomy, ...) there is the DANGER of being CONTAMINATED by Sexual Transferable Diseases (STD) and HIV/AIDS when prisoners are forced to such acts.

In my opinion this is a new type of infringement of Human Rights, which can indeed give:

(1) a real physical contamination that - in the long run - may end in the death of the victim;
(2) an immense CONSTANT psychological stress on the victim to be contaminated, ever if there is no real contamination.

One of the photo's showed an oral sexual contact between two naked male prisoners in Abu Ghraib. At the 4th International Oral AIDS Conference held in South Africa, the risk of transmission through oral sex was estimated to be approximately 0.04 per cent per contact. Other sexual contacts have an higher risk-level of transmission.

I don't know the average percentage of the STD/HIV population in Iraq but there must be for sure a substantial number of them in a jail with 6,000 prisoners, nor am I aware of the percentage of STD/HIV carrying US soldiers.

Thus by using, allowing, tolerating or organizing practices or methods of sexual abuse - be it between prisoners or guards/interrogators abusing prisoners - the responsibles of the prisons or facilities bring the lives of the prisoners in an additional - potential life-dangerous - situation, and infringe their human rights.

So will the rapist(s) and the people ordering these acts also be prosecuted for this type of infringement of the human rights of their victims?
Who is accountable? Who shows to be neglecting the rights of these prisoners to be safeguard against high-risk infections? Can such an Iraq prisoner sue "someone", i.e. the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld? These can be interesting questions for lawyers, Human Rights Watchers and people from ICC, UN etc.

[amp]

Russ has the double think mentality. Raping a woman IS torture to HER by the definition Pel provided as it involves the elements stated. Causing MENTAL anguish IS torture. If you were forced to stay awake for several days would you be comfortable and relaxed? Your dismissiveness of obvious inhumanity and villany is disheartening.

[Adam]

Some people will gladly say black does not meet the definitions of black, and white doesn't meet the definitions of white, as long as they can maintain a death-grip on their delusions. Those people were tortured. Some were murdered.

[hughes johnson]

Causing MENTAL anguish IS torture. If you were forced to stay awake for several days would you be comfortable and relaxed? Your dismissiveness of obvious inhumanity and villany is disheartening.

During U.S. military basic training, advanced infantry schools, and combat operations, troops are routinely subjected to mental anguish and sleep deprivation. Have I been tortured? Am I entitled to a monetary settlement for this torture? If the Iraqis kept me up all night with their annoying attacks (obviously done on purpose) can I sue the Iraqi Government?

If I work on electrical power lines for three days during an emergency power outage, and I have to stand in an extremely uncomfortable position for hours on end while risking electrocution, can I sue? Will the UN help me? How about the red cross? Will they ignore this "obvious inhumanity and villany" leaving me "disheartened"?

[Adam]

During U.S. military basic training, advanced infantry schools, and combat operations, troops are routinely subjected to mental anguish and sleep deprivation... If I work on electrical power lines for three days during an emergency power outage, and I have to stand in an extremely uncomfortable position for hours on end while risking electrocution, can I sue?
It's voluntary.

[hughes johnson]

Some people will gladly say black does not meet the definitions of black, and white doesn't meet the definitions of white, as long as they can maintain a death-grip on their delusions.
You didn't have to actually put this in black and white, we've been reading your posts for a long time.

[hughes johnson]

It's voluntary.

So is taking up arms against the coalition.

[Adam]

It's voluntary to take up arms against the people who bombed your capital city and killed 8,000+ people, yes. How does this in any way make it voluntary for those POWs to be tortured? Really, try harder next time. Your argument preceding this post is completely lame, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion.

[amp]

During U.S. military basic training, advanced infantry schools, and combat operations, troops are routinely subjected to mental anguish and sleep deprivation. Have I been tortured? Am I entitled to a monetary settlement for this torture? If the Iraqis kept me up all night with their annoying attacks (obviously done on purpose) can I sue the Iraqi Government?

If I work on electrical power lines for three days during an emergency power outage, and I have to stand in an extremely uncomfortable position for hours on end while risking electrocution, can I sue? Will the UN help me? How about the red cross? Will they ignore this "obvious inhumanity and villany" leaving me "disheartened"?

A word I used 'forced' comes to mind. In military school, basic training, ect., you suffer those inconviences because your goal is to finish, to get thru it, you do because you must in order to progress to the next level. The prisoners don't have that same option/goal, its not voluntary with them, they can't say "I can't take it." and quit. When you have a dangerous job under the conditions you described, you again have put yourself in the position thru your own volition and if you don't like it again you can quit not so with the prisoners. The difference is comparable to corn and potatoes, apples and oranges, solid and liquid, IOW, there is no comparison.

[russ_watters]

Russ has the double think mentality. Raping a woman IS torture to HER by the definition Pel provided as it involves the elements stated. Causing MENTAL anguish IS torture. If you were forced to stay awake for several days would you be comfortable and relaxed? Your dismissiveness of obvious inhumanity and villany is disheartening. I must remind you, amp, that I never said it was right or ok. But your extension of the definition of "torture" makes it cover virtually every physical crime there is. No, rape is not necessarily torture. Rape is rape - and thats bad enough.

Nereid had it right: hyperbole. As a PF mentor you should check before you post disinformation. Yes Russ, Yes ... you can get AIDS through oral sex. I'm standing by that one: the info you provided says that aids can be contracted by fluid transfer in open wounds - and that is unrelated to the sex act. You could similarly say it is possible to get AIDS by shaking hands with someone who has AIDS. You can call that factually accurate if you want, but its extremely misleading.

Also, if you notice, every single scenario listed in that faq has a yes answer. That's scientists not wanting to rule anything out entirely even if its never happened before.

Regarding choices: the choice 'should I or should I not become a terrorist?' seems pretty relevant to me.

Every criminal in jail will tell you they are there against their will, but every one of them made a choice and is now paying the consequences.

Even John McCain, who spent 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton made choices that put/kept him there. He chose to be in the Navy and even chose not to be released (most prisoners did) when offered - the rule was first in, first out. Choice or not, John McCain was tortured.

The reason I'm fighting this so hard is that flippant use of words makes them meaningless. You belittle those who actually were tortured to use the word on anyone who has ever recieved physical or mental pain.

Amp, what do you call publically beheading an American civilian? Burning several to death and dismembering them? Is that torture too?

[hughes johnson]

Amp, what do you call publically beheading an American civilian? Burning several to death and dismembering them?
Yes amp, I must have missed the thread, or even the post, that expresses your outrage at this.

[hughes johnson]

How does this in any way make it voluntary for those POWs to be tortured?
This is called a straw man. Nice try though.

[Adam]

Actually, it's not a straw man at all. Follow the bouncing ball:

1) You said US troops are tortured, and they don't sue for it.
2) I pointed out that it was voluntary.
3) You said it was voluntary for people to take up arms against the "coalition".
4) I pointed out that taking up arms does not constitute consent to be tortured.

There is no straw man from me. Read the definition of a straw man. Then try to come up with a rational response.

[Nereid]

Every criminal in jail will tell you they are there against their will, but every one of them made a choice and is now paying the consequences.Unless I missed it, not even the US military claims that all those held in the prison were criminals; they were taken there for the primary purpose of gathering intel ... apparently by means that included what most folk would call 'torture', and which Dubya has declared unacceptable. No doubt many of those subject to ill-treatment were 'guilty' of nothing but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unless it is claimed that the US forces are infallible, or that all Iraqis are 'fair game' ... I doubt that Russ, hughes, phat, etc would make either such claim.

[Njorl]

Unless I missed it, not even the US military claims that all those held in the prison were criminals; they were taken there for the primary purpose of gathering intel ... apparently by means that included what most folk would call 'torture', and which Dubya has declared unacceptable. No doubt many of those subject to ill-treatment were 'guilty' of nothing but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unless it is claimed that the US forces are infallible, or that all Iraqis are 'fair game' ... I doubt that Russ, hughes, phat, etc would make either such claim.


The statement I heard was that 70%-90% were eventually released and considered innocent. This may be misleading. Many prisoners were considerd criminals, not security problems. Those who were abused were the ones considered security risks. I have not heard if the high release rate was applicable to both groups.

I would think that the common criminals would not be as high a priority, so they would not bother detaining them without good evidence. This leads me to believe that well over 70% of those detained for security reasons were eventually considered innocent. It may seem moot to some - is it worse to torture the innocent than the guilty? I'd say yes, others would say no.

Njorl

[pelastration]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3709793.stm

CIA interrogations 'too brutal'

FBI chief Mueller was reportedly advised against using CIA methods

US officials have said the CIA's methods of interrogating suspected al-Qaeda leaders are too brutal, the New York Times reports.

Unnamed counter-terrorism officials told the paper that CIA methods were so severe, the FBI had directed its agents to stay out of many of the interviews.

The techniques are said to have been authorised by the Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks on the US.

None of the detainees, held in secret locations, are thought to be in Iraq.

The paper cites one case of a detainee who was subjected to a technique known as water boarding, in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe that he might drown.

Some have been hooded, soaked with water, roughed up and deprived of food, light and medication.

At least one CIA employee was disciplined for threatening a detainee with a gun during an interrogation.

Secret rules

The paper says FBI officials have advised their director, Robert Mueller, that the techniques would be prohibited in criminal cases.

Defenders of the secret interrogation rules say the methods stop short of torture and serious injury.

Current CIA officers are said to be worried that public outrage at the treatment of detainees in Iraq might lead to a closer examination of their treatment of al-Qaeda prisoners.

"Some people involved in this have been concerned for quite a while that eventually there would be a new president, or the mood in the country would change, and they would be held accountable," one was quoted as saying.

"Now that's happening faster than anybody expected."

The whereabouts of high-level al-Qaeda detainees is a closely guarded secret, and human rights groups have been denied access to the prisoners.

Officials say some have been send abroad.

"There was a debate after 9/11 about how to make people disappear," a former intelligence official told the paper.

The government was advised that if the CIA was considering procedures which violated the Geneva Convention or US laws prohibiting torture and degrading treatment, it would not be held responsible if it could be argued that the detainees were in the custody of another country.

[studentx]

Half those pics look fake
Especially the ones where several troops rape a woman, you would expect them to be tanned, but some are ridiculously pale. I dont think its possible to be pale in Iraq.

The photos of british troops abusing prisoners were faked.

[pelastration]

The photos of british troops abusing prisoners were faked.
Yes these were in my opinion of too good quality. Disinformation (both political sides + some journalists) is often used. Wasn't this a controversion about Rumsfeld making a disinformation cell, not that one with Feith/Wurmser but another one?

I believe a famous journalist of USA Today ran for 10 years fake stories, and some years ago also a German journalist was catched.

But the photo's on the US CD's were not faked.

[pelastration]

Two important events:

1. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller and Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, were at the heart of decision-making on to hand over control of the prisons to military intelligence officials and to authorize the use of lethal force as a first step in keeping order

2. The U.S. military has prohibited several interrogation methods

more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24845-2004May13.html
Prison Abuse Scandal - Abu Ghraib

Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski, commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade who was in charge of running prisons in Iraq, told Army investigators earlier this year that she had resisted decisions by superior officers to hand over control of the prisons to military intelligence officials and to authorize the use of lethal force as a first step in keeping order -- command decisions that have come in for heavy criticism in the Iraq prison abuse scandal.

Karpinski spoke of her resistance to the decisions in a detailed account of her tenure furnished to Army investigators. It places two of the highest-ranking Army officers now in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller and Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, at the heart of decision-making on both matters. She has been formally admonished by the Army for her actions in Iraq. She said both men overruled her concerns about the military intelligence takeover and the use of deadly force.
...
------
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5152222

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military, facing a scandal over the abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib jail, has prohibited several interrogation methods from being used in Iraq, including sleep and sensory deprivation and body "stress positions," defense officials said on Friday.

The officials, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, said these techniques previously required high-level approval from the U.S. military leadership in Iraq, but now will be banned completely.

The officials said the decision was made on Thursday by the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, on the same day that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld met with him on a surprise trip to the country and visited the Abu Ghraib facility on the outskirts of Baghdad.

A senior Central Command official said the U.S. military leadership in Iraq never actually approved a request from personnel at any prison to use any of the techniques that now are being prohibited, although these methods had been listed as among those for which approval could be requested.

Officials refused to say the methods were barred because they were onerous or violated the Geneva Convention governing the treatment of prisoners of war.
....

Of course this change in attitude of the Military doesn't include or just partly the Intelligence people. Maybe MI but the other agencies? And what about the other known and unknown prisons?

[pelastration]

1. If USA changed it's interrogation approach in Iraq but not in Afghanistan and in secret/hidden prisons like Guantanamo, Diego Garcia, then that means that the reason is not concerns about human rights but political motives.

Info on Camp Justice (Diego Garcia) http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...a-imagery-2.htm

----

2. http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/05/d3a8345a-b19f-4b6f-94b0-6f427fd83e8a.html
The human rights group Human Rights Watch (HRW) has accused U.S. military personnel of "systemic" mistreatment of prisoners in Afghanistan, describing the practices as similar to those used in Iraq.

In a statement released in London, HRW said it has warned U.S. officials repeatedly about such problems since last year.

It said the U.S. should publicize the results of its internal investigations of abuse, prosecute those responsible, and provide access to independent monitors.

HRW says it has information that prisoners have been subjected to extreme sleep deprivation, exposure to freezing temperatures, and severe beatings at various locations in the country.

----
3. http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=510011&section=news

Rights groups says Afghan prisoner abuse systemic
Thu 13 May, 2004 13:26

KABUL (Reuters) - Mistreatment of prisoners by American forces in Afghanistan is systemic and not limited to a few cases, Human Rights Watch has said, a day after the U.S. military in Kabul launched an investigation into abuse.

The rights body demanded the immediate release of information about two Afghans killed in U.S. custody 18 months ago. The U.S. military says the investigations are continuing.

The military said on Wednesday it had opened an inquiry into complaints by a former police officer that he was beaten, kicked, taunted, sexually abused and photographed naked during roughly 40 days in American custody in Afghanistan last summer.

The U.S.-led force of 20,000 troops hunting militants from al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan is keen to contain the damage from the latest allegations, after facing a backlash across the Arab world for abusing prisoners in Iraq.

----
4. Human Rights Watch report: “Enduring Freedom:”
Abuses by U.S. Forces in Afghanistan
http://hrw.org/reports/2004/afghanistan0304.
Can be downloaded in pdf. at: http://hrw.org/reports/2004/afghanistan0304/afghanistan0304.pdf

[pelastration]

THE GRAY ZONE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib.

http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

(snip)

According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon’s operation, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.

Rumsfeld, during appearances last week before Congress to testify about Abu Ghraib, was precluded by law from explicitly mentioning highly secret matters in an unclassified session. But he conveyed the message that he was telling the public all that he knew about the story. He said, “Any suggestion that there is not a full, deep awareness of what has happened, and the damage it has done, I think, would be a misunderstanding.” The senior C.I.A. official, asked about Rumsfeld’s testimony and that of Stephen Cambone, his Under-Secretary for Intelligence, said, “Some people think you can bull**** anyone.”

...

Rumsfeld reacted in his usual direct fashion: he authorized the establishment of a highly secret program that was given blanket advance approval to kill or capture and, if possible, interrogate “high value” targets in the Bush Administration’s war on terror. A special-access program, or sap—subject to the Defense Department’s most stringent level of security—was set up, with an office in a secure area of the Pentagon. The program would recruit operatives and acquire the necessary equipment, including aircraft, and would keep its activities under wraps. America’s most successful intelligence operations during the Cold War had been saps, including the Navy’s submarine penetration of underwater cables used by the Soviet high command and construction of the Air Force’s stealth bomber. All the so-called “black” programs had one element in common: the Secretary of Defense, or his deputy, had to conclude that the normal military classification restraints did not provide enough security.

“Rumsfeld’s goal was to get a capability in place to take on a high-value target—a standup group to hit quickly,” a former high-level intelligence official told me. “He got all the agencies together—the C.I.A. and the N.S.A.—to get pre-approval in place. Just say the code word and go.” The operation had across-the-board approval from Rumsfeld and from Condoleezza Rice, the national-security adviser. President Bush was informed of the existence of the program, the former intelligence official said.

...
and more.

[kat]

A Ghost In The Iraqi Prison (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13394) And so once again Sy Hersh is making news with his investigations “Torture at Abu Ghraib: American Soldiers Brutalized Iraqis. How Far Up Does the Responsibility Go?” in the May 10 New Yorker magazine and “Chain of Command: How the Department of Defense Mishandled the Disaster at Abu Ghraib” in its May 17 issue.



These articles, like much of his writing over three and a half decades, feature Hersh’s favorite villains – wrong-doing American soldiers, wicked American leaders and evil agents of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA.



Before you swallow these stories whole, as if they were accurate and true, you ought to know more about this aging enfant terrible of American journalism.





In going after the CIA regarding Chile, Hersh did more than ignore evidence that the Castro-supported Marxist Allende (who had been elected under odd circumstances with only about a third of votes cast for President) was moving to prevent honest future elections that would depose him. Hersh also accused the then-American Ambassador to Chile of being part of a plot to overthrow Allende, an error for which Hersh and the New York Times issued a rare apology on that newspaper’s front page.



“I don’t read him anymore because I don’t trust him,” Max Holland, a Contributing Editor of the ultra-Leftist The Nation magazine, told the Columbia Journalism Review’s Sherman.



“I read what he writes with some skepticism or doubt or uncertainty,” said Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas (who, incidentally, comes by his own Leftist politics as grandson of longtime Socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas).


And Hersh has reported false information in other stories. His 1991 book The Sampson Option (about Israel’s nuclear weapons program) relied largely on a source widely recognized as a notorious liar. Another of Hersh’s sources for this book later admitted to telling the author what he wanted to hear, although false, in exchange for money.



When Hersh published his 1983 book The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House, the editor-in-chief of the liberal The New Republic magazine Martin Peretz wrote: “There is hardly anything [in this book] that shouldn’t be suspect.”

[pelastration]

A Ghost In The Iraqi Prison (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13394)
Yes, Kat, and ... ?

(quote)"Hersh, of course, would tell you that the world needs to know the information his methods obtain. He may be right. But that is also what U.S. Military Intelligence believed about getting information by hook or crook out of the criminals and terrorists confined at Abu Ghraib that could save American lives."(end quote)

This article focusses on Hersh as a person, and not on his actual findings about 'copper green' etc. It's not that some inaccurate information in the past of Hersh 35 years of news gathering means that this actual information is not correct. The nature of this new information is that's it's about 'hidden' operations and instructions. What is true and what's not will become clear within some time.
It seems to me that at this moment the knives are sharpened and put in position between all type of different civilian, military and intelligence parties involved. Now the name-calling starts to happen. Then you get people start to talk about more.

Added: And Hersh information on the photo's was correct, isn't it?

[ptex]

The U.S. should send all terrorist to Sadi Arabia or some other Islamic based country for interrogation they know how to get answers.

[Andy]

How do we know that the US pictures havent been faked aswell? I have thought since this all kicked off that the pictures had been faked by anti war demonstrators or some other group that has something to gain from from undermining the US's power. Why would the troops take pictures of themselves torturing and abusing the prisoners? thats stupid, too stupid.

[pelastration]

The U.S. should send all terrorist to Sadi Arabia or some other Islamic based country for interrogation they know how to get answers.
It is already one of the actual pratices.

[pelastration]

How do we know that the US pictures havent been faked aswell? I have thought since this all kicked off that the pictures had been faked by anti war demonstrators or some other group that has something to gain from from undermining the US's power. Why would the troops take pictures of themselves torturing and abusing the prisoners? thats stupid, too stupid.

Sure ... the other side of conspiracy theories. :rolleyes:

Andy, 7 soldiers face military charges related to the abuse and humiliation of prisoners captured by the photo's at the prison.
Do they deny the photo's on which they are?
No.
Instead of telling the photo's are fake (which would be one of the possible defense strageties) they tell that military intelligence officials told military police to "prepare" the prisoners to make interrogations easier.

[Andy]

Alrite then, but why the hell did they take pictures of it all? Isnt that just incredibly stupid.

And that 'conspiracie theory' has occured in the UK.

[jimmy p]

Yeah, the photos were analysed and basically called complete phoneys. For example, the rifles in the photos were SA80 Mk1's and the British army uses the Mk 2's now. The Bedford truck Mk1 where the photo's were taken is also not in service in Iraq, the Mk 2's are used. In fact the QM in the Army base recognised the truck just from the pictures. Another photo of a soldier urinating on a captive was proved false as the "urine" stream was too strong flowing and didnt turn enough times.

[Njorl]

Who cares what Lowell Ponte thinks? In his article, the fool refers to The Nation as "ultra-leftist", and conservative Evan Thomas as a "leftist". His comments on Hersh's credibility are actually quite sparse. Some are referenced to believable sources, others are referenced to more fringe sources. Most of his piece is just character assassination. He should take his own advice:

"Obsession and hate are dangerous traits in any journalist. It destroys a reporter’s perspective and ability to see all sides of a story. And it tempts a journalist, consciously and unconsciously, to ignore or bend facts in order to paint a black hat on those he has decided in advance are villains. This, say his critics, is Hersh’s great failing."

Njorl

[pelastration]

US troops 'abused Iraq reporters'

Fresh allegations have emerged in Iraq regarding the alleged mistreatment of Iraqi detainees by US troops.

The Reuters news agency says three of its local staff were subjected to sexually degrading treatment after being detained in January.

....

'Rape' threats

Reuters said it was unveiling the ordeal of its employees because the US military had concluded there was no evidence they had been abused - and in the wake of the scandal involving the mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison.

The Reuters employees were allegedly abused at two US military bases, after being detained for covering the shooting down of a US helicopter near the flashpoint city of Falluja.

Baghdad-based cameraman Salem Ureibi, Falluja-based freelance TV journalist Ahmad Mohammad Hussein al-Badrani and driver Sattar Jabar al-Badrani were held for three days before being released without charge.

They said they were forced to make demeaning gestures as soldiers laughed, taunted them and took photographs.

Among other things, they were allegedly deprived of sleep, had bags placed over their heads, were kicked and hit and forced to remain in stress positions for long periods.

"When I saw the Abu Ghraib photographs, I wept," Mr Ureibi said on Tuesday. "I saw they had suffered like we had."

He said soldiers told him they wanted to have sex with him, and he was afraid he would be raped.
....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3726675.stm

[pelastration]

1.Officers Say U.S. Colonel at Abu Ghraib Prison Felt Intense Pressure to Get Inmates to Talk
By DOUGLAS JEHL Published: May 19, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 18 — As he took charge of interrogations at Abu Ghraib prison last September, Col. Thomas M. Pappas was under enormous pressure from his superiors to extract more information from prisoners there, according to senior Army officers.

"He likened it to a root canal without novocaine," a senior officer who knows Colonel Pappas said of his meetings with his superiors in Baghdad. Often, the officer said, Colonel Pappas would emerge from discussions with two of them, Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast and Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, without a word, but "clutching his face as if in pain."

Colonel Pappas, commander of the 205th Intelligence Brigade, relocated his headquarters from Camp Victory, near the Baghdad airport, to Abu Ghraib just days after a visit to Iraq last fall by another high-ranking Army officer, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller. General Miller encouraged the Army colonel to have his unit work more closely with military police to set the conditions for interrogations.

By the end of September, Colonel Pappas had asserted control of Tier 1 of the prison's "hard site," used for interrogation of Iraqi prisoners, which he maintained until February, when he and his brigade were transferred to Germany at the end of their yearlong tour. After Nov. 19, by order of General Sanchez, Colonel Pappas and his brigade took command of all of Abu Ghraib prison, taking over authority from the 800th Military Police Brigade.

Now Colonel Pappas, who in sworn testimony to a senior Army investigator acknowledged that his subordinates directed military police officers to strip Iraqi prisoners naked and to shackle them, is the highest-ranking officer on active duty known to be under investigation for the abuses committed at Abu Ghraib prison.
....
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/politics/19PAPP.html?ex=1085544000&en=a141199a5f9cb73c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

---
2. I wanted to know more about this Col. Thomas M. Pappas.

This simple google search http://www.google.com/search?q=Col.+Thomas+M.+Pappas&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 brings you to some interesting information, some classified that may bring your computer in 'warned' monitoring mode by MI. If you click "OK" on the warning window you are entered automatically. There is not button to cancel!
Can opening such page make you a potential "illegal combatant"? Sure. It's part of the War against terrorism, and the Cyber War is part of that "war". By looking to such a page you can be jailed without lawyer and civil right for an unlimited period.

Don't forget: The Patriot Act is to protect your freedom!

[kat]

---
2. I wanted to know more about this Col. Thomas M. Pappas.

This simple google search http://www.google.com/search?q=Col.+Thomas+M.+Pappas&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 brings you to some interesting information, some classified that may bring your computer in 'warned' monitoring mode by MI. If you click "OK" on the warning window you are entered automatically. There is not button to cancel!
Can opening such page make you a potential "illegal combatant"? Sure. It's part of the War against terrorism, and the Cyber War is part of that "war". By looking to such a page you can be jailed without lawyer and civil right for an unlimited period.

Don't forget: The Patriot Act is to protect your freedom!

Huh? Do you have a link to this "classified" informaiton you googled?...lol, I feel like humming the doo doo do doo's of the old "twighlight zone" shows.

BTW-I thought the Patriot Act was to protect MY freedoms as an American..not YOURS as a hostile Euro! :surprise: :redface: :cry: :wink:

[Njorl]

Huh? Do you have a link to this "classified" informaiton you googled?...lol, I feel like humming the doo doo do doo's of the old "twighlight zone" shows.

BTW-I thought the Patriot Act was to protect MY freedoms as an American..not YOURS as a hostile Euro! :surprise: :redface: :cry: :wink:

There was a rather tragically comical incident regarding a report of the prisoner abuse. The report was classified, but it was posted on the web, at FOX, I believe. The DoD asked FOX to remove it. They refused of course. They did, however, put up a warning that the report was classified, and that government employess would be violating the law to read it. High ranking people at the DoD did not see the humiliating nature of this warning, and it stayed up for a while. They thought it was a good thing. Since then the warning itself has become a popular joke, and has appeared on other web sites.

Njorl

[pelastration]

Huh? Do you have a link to this "classified" informaiton you googled?...lol, I feel like humming the doo doo do doo's of the old "twighlight zone" shows.

BTW-I thought the Patriot Act was to protect MY freedoms as an American..not YOURS as a hostile Euro! :surprise: :redface: :cry: :wink:
1. The link (at your own risk!): :biggrin:http://images.google.com/images?q=Col.%20Thomas%20M.%20Pappas&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi. Click on the image. :eek:

2. :biggrin: . That's was I said: "... your freedom".

[revelator]

Why would the troops take pictures of themselves torturing and abusing the prisoners? thats stupid, too stupid.

PsyOps. Psychological Operations. Interrogations go a lot easier if you break a person's will. One of the involved soldiers has been reported as saying, that they were to take the pictures, and tell the Iraqi prisoners that these pictures were being shown to their famliles.

[pelastration]

new pictures of abuse:
(1) Charles Graner posing over the body of a dead Iraqi detainee
(2) Sabrina Harman strikes a similar pose. A patch of blood can be seen on the dead man's right temple

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3689167.stm

[Simon666]

new pictures of abuse:
(1) Charles Graner posing over the body of a dead Iraqi detainee
(2) Sabrina Harman strikes a similar pose. A patch of blood can be seen on the dead man's right temple
I'm waiting what the excuse of the apologists for this will be this time, a rehersal for a new Disney on Ice show based on "Weekend at Bernie's"?


A naked prisoner simulating sex is humiliating, but humiliation does not constitute torture.
Oh yes it does, and even if it doesn't, how about a broomstick up your arse? Want one?

[Adam]

Humiliation: see Geneva Convention.

[pelastration]

Report Links U.S. General to Iraq Prison Abuse Case

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A lawyer for a soldier charged in the Abu Ghraib abuse case said a captain at the Iraqi prison has charged that Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez was present during some unspecified "interrogations and/or allegations of the prisoner abuse," The Washington Post reported on Sunday.

Citing a recording of a military hearing obtained by the newspaper, The Post said the military lawyer, Capt. Robert Shuck, was told that Sanchez, the highest-ranking U.S. military officer in Iraq, and other senior officials were aware of what was taking place at Abu Ghraib.

Shuck is assigned to defend Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick, one of the seven U.S. soldiers, four men and three women, accused of abuses at the prison. One pleaded guilty on Wednesday and was imprisoned.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=OHREX2OKZAEXMCRBAEOCF FA?type=topNews&storyID=5226827

[pelastration]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-23-abuse-usat_x.htm

General questions how abuse case handled
By Blake Morrison and John Diamond, USA TODAY

The general who was in charge of U.S. detention facilities in Iraq said Sunday that repeated visits to the Abu Ghraib prison by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez — and his initial response to the misconduct there — raise questions about whether Sanchez, the senior U.S. military officer in Iraq, knew more about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners than he has acknowledged.

(snip)

Sanchez told members of the Senate panel that he had his own procedures for interrogating prisoners, from the standard Army field manual. That document outlines far milder techniques, such as offering prisoners small incentives — cigarettes or a shower — or larger ones, such as political asylum or protection for relatives.

But the controversial interrogation rules that Sanchez said he did not know about were posted on the wall of the interrogation room at Abu Ghraib, an Army colonel testified at the Senate hearing. Sanchez toured the prison several times; Karpinski says he visited Abu Ghraib more often after the 205th Military Intelligence brigade took over the prison in November.

"It was surprising that he visited as often as he did when it went under the MI brigade," she says. "I remember that thought passing through my head."

...
---
In the article was not mentioned if Lt. General Sanchez had blue rubber gloves to keep his hands clean of all the dust.

[pelastration]

http://www.iht.com/articles/521367.html

... (third page)

Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas and chairman of the Select Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that he was waiting to learn more but would be ‘‘stunned’’ if it were proved that Sanchez had had advance knowledge ‘‘because, you know, General Sanchez is a straight shooter.
.
But a Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, said that if Sanchez had learned belatedly of the abuses, that was a problem as well.
.
The senators were also asked about a Time magazine report that as many as 2,000 pages of supporting material might have been omitted from a copy provided to senators of the Abu Ghraib investigative report by Major General Antonio Taguba.
.
‘‘We’ll sure as hell find out’’ about the possible omission, Roberts said.
.
Time quoted the Pentagon spokesman, Lawrence DiRita, as saying, ‘‘If there is some shortfall in what was provided, it was [B]an oversight.[/URL]’’

---
An oversight. Sure. :rolleyes:

---
BTW I tried to find the official press release. "WASHINGTON: US military command has denied a report that one of its top generals in Iraq was present during some interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison and witnessed abuse of Iraqi inmates.
"There was a news report published on May 23, 2004, which suggests that Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez, commander of Multinational Forces-Iraq was aware of, and in some instances, present at Abu Ghraib while detainee abuse was occurring," the US military said in a statement.
"This report is false."

[pelastration]

Asphyxiations practices.

U.S. Army Survey Cites Wider Prisoner Abuse - NYT
Wednesday, May 26, 2004; 3:02 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56301-2004May26.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Army synopsis of deaths and mistreatment involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan shows a pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

The summary, dated May 5, was prepared by the Criminal Investigation Command at the request of Army officials, according to the newspaper.

It outlines the status of investigations into 36 cases, including the continuing probe into the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison on the outskirts of Baghdad, the paper said.

The Iraq cases date back to April 2003, the Times reported. In an incident reported to have taken place last month, a prisoner detained by Navy commandos died in a suspected case of homicide blamed on "blunt force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia," the paper said.
...

One of the oldest cases listed in the May 5 document involves the death of a prisoner in Afghanistan in December 2002, the paper said.

The document said enlisted personnel from a military intelligence unit at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and an Army Reserve military-police unit from Ohio are thought to have been "involved at various times in assaulting and mistreating the detainee," according to the Times.

Members of the 223rd Military Intelligence Battalion, which is part of the California National Guard, were accused of abusing Iraqi detainees last spring in Samarra, north of Baghdad, the Times reported.

The Army summary said the unidentified enlisted personnel "forced into asphyxiations numerous detainees in an attempt to obtain information" over a 10-week period, according to the paper.

[pelastration]

Inquiry into interrogation firm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3754683.stm

A private firm hired by the Pentagon to interrogate prisoners in Iraq's prisons has had its contract frozen as federal officials investigate its involvement.

The probe could cost defence contractor Caci Corporation its right to bid for government work.

Investigators are looking into an army report's accusations that a Caci staffer took part in the abuse of prisoners at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib jail.

The news sent Caci's shares down as much as 13% on Wall Street.


'Satisfactory' service

The firm says it is presently subject to five separate government investigations.

The firm insists customers had said say its work has been "very satisfactory" and "continue to request [its] services".

But among the five inquiries is one by the General Services Administration, which Caci acknowledged would investigate whether it should remain eligible for government contracts.

And another is looking into the fact that the interrogation services appear to have been provided not under a Defense Department contract, but under an otherwise innocuous deal to supply computer services to the Interior Department.
...
---
Seems these computer services were not related to software but to hardware.

[phoenixy]

BTW-I thought the Patriot Act was to protect MY freedoms

haha, good one :rofl:

[russ_watters]

Every criminal in jail will tell you they are there against their will, but every one of them made a choice and is now paying the consequences. Unless I missed it, not even the US military claims that all those held in the prison were criminals; they were taken there for the primary purpose of gathering intel ... apparently by means that included what most folk would call 'torture', and which Dubya has declared unacceptable. No doubt many of those subject to ill-treatment were 'guilty' of nothing but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unless it is claimed that the US forces are infallible, or that all Iraqis are 'fair game' ... I doubt that Russ, hughes, phat, etc would make either such claim. I have been away from this thread for a while and missed this one. It needs a clarification.

I was making a comparison to Americans in American prisons - I was not implying that we know anything about the guilt or innocence of anyone in those prison camps in Iraq. Indeed, mistakes happen both in the US criminal justice system and in the military one during wartime.

[pelastration]

Guantanamo Interrogators Were Sent to Iraq - NY Times
Sat May 29, 2004 02:50 AM ET
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5292501

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Interrogation experts from the Guantanamo Bay naval base were sent to Iraq last fall and played a major role in training U.S. intelligence teams at the Abu Ghraib prison, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

Citing senior military intelligence officials, the Times reported the teams from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, operated there with broad latitude in questioning "enemy combatants" from the U.S. war on terror and then played a central role at Abu Ghraib through December, when the worst abuses of prisoners were occurring there.

...

The Times said the teams were sent to Iraq for 90-day tours at the urging of Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, then head of detention operations at Guantanamo. According to a defense official, Miller, the newly appointed head of Abu Ghraib, was sent to Iraq last summer to recommend improvements in intelligence gathering and detention operations there.

The Times said the involvement of the Guantanamo teams had not previously been disclosed and, according to U.S. military officials, would be included in a major report on suspected abuses by military intelligence specialists that is being completed by Maj. Gen. George Fay.

The newspaper reported that military officials said Fay would determine whether tactics used by interrogators at Guantanamo and in Afghanistan were wrongly applied in Iraq, including at Abu Ghraib, which was covered by the Geneva Convention.

Fay and his 29-member team conducted scores of interviews in Iraq, Europe and the United States over the past month, the Times said, and he was expected to brief Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, on his findings in the next week, a senior Army official told the paper.

The Times quoted a senior military official in Iraq as saying five interrogation teams, or about 15 interrogators, analysts and other specialists, were sent in October from Guantanamo to the U.S. command in Iraq "for use in the interrogation effort" at Abu Ghraib. A Washington defense official said only three teams were sent, the paper added

[pelastration]

Prison abuse 'widespread in Iraq'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3759923.stm
29 May, 2004

An American news agency says it has seen official papers suggesting that prisoner abuse in Iraq took place at four sites other than Abu Ghraib.

Evidence of abuse has emerged from a marine camp at Nasiriya and army camps at Baghdad International Airport, Qaim and Samarra, the Associated Press says.

Detainees were allegedly beaten or forced to stand for long periods of time in scorching desert heat.

AP examined court transcripts and investigator interviews.

The abuses allegedly committed at Abu Ghraib, the feared Saddam-era prison now run by coalition forces, outraged the world after a stream of photos apparently taken by guards emerged.

According to the military documents seen by AP, at least two detainees held at other sites died of their injuries.

The allegations concerning military intelligence troops include the following:


At Camp Whitehorse near Nasiriya, guards were allegedly told to prepare prisoners for interrogation by keeping them in hoods in temperatures of up to 49C degrees (120F) for 50 minutes at a time over periods of 10 hours. One Iraqi detainee choked to death.

At a camp near Qaim, interrogators allegedly stuffed an Iraqi general into a sleeping bag, sat on his chest and covered his mouth. Maj Gen Abed Hamed Mowhoush, who had also been questioned by CIA operatives, eventually died.

At a camp near Samarra, prisoners were reportedly choked and beaten and had their hair pulled.

At Camp Cropper, at Baghdad International Airport, prisoners were allegedly beaten and forced to adopt painful positions for hours at a time.

[pelastration]

AP: Army noted Geneva Conventions violations in Iraq prisons last fall

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-06-01-prison-abuse_x.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) — An Army general who visited Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq last fall complained that the military was violating international war standards by incarcerating common criminals along with insurgents captured in attacks against U.S.-led forces.

It was one among dozens of observations in a still-classified report, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, portraying an overcrowded, dysfunctional prison system lacking basic sanitation and medical supplies.

"Due to operational limitations, facility limitations and force protection issues, there are criminal detainees collocated with other types of detainees, including security detainees," wrote Maj. Gen. Donald Ryder, the Army's provost martial general. "However, the Geneva Convention does not allow this."

Ryder warned that mixing such prisoners "invites confusion about handling, processing and treatment."

Article 84 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits housing prisoners of war and "persons deprived of liberty for any other reason" with general criminal populations. The rules also require that enemy prisoners be kept in facilities "affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness."

... and more

[Simon666]

Article 84 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits housing prisoners of war and "persons deprived of liberty for any other reason" with general criminal populations. The rules also require that enemy prisoners be kept in facilities "affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness."
You mean dipping their food in the toilet and covering them with feces is illegal? How else should we extract confessions from these dangerous random rounded up civilia...errrr...terrorists?

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Rapist Chain Of Command

I’ve sat out of this one long enough.

Your MI “Cronie”, Colonel Papas, ORDERED physical assaults, mental barrages and SEXUAL HUMILIATION (upon Islamic Males).
Further to this, your MPs took GREAT PLEASURE inflicting these sadistic/perverted acts upon helpless prisoners, over a period of MONTHS.

Now, the Iraqis are prisoners IN THEIR OWN NATION. The USA are cowardly aggressors in Iraq.

The USA’s MI/CIA/MPs are a bunch of sick, evil cowards.
It takes a “special breed” to become such Perverted, rapist scum.

Note, that the USA censored many Red Cross reports on the infamous Iraqi torture prison.

Read the Transcript from last night’s Four Corners special, entitled “Chain Of Command”. Read what YOUR OWN Citizens have to say about it…;
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2003/transcripts/s1126969.htm

[phatmonky]

Rapist Chain Of Command

I’ve sat out of this one long enough.

Your MI “Cronie”, Colonel Papas, ORDERED physical assaults, mental barrages and SEXUAL HUMILIATION (upon Islamic Males).
Further to this, your MPs took GREAT PLEASURE inflicting these sadistic/perverted acts upon helpless prisoners, over a period of MONTHS.

Now, the Iraqis are prisoners IN THEIR OWN NATION. The USA are cowardly aggressors in Iraq.

The USA’s MI/CIA/MPs are a bunch of sick, evil cowards.
It takes a “special breed” to become such Perverted, rapist scum.

Note, that the USA censored many Red Cross reports on the infamous Iraqi torture prison.

Read the Transcript from last night’s Four Corners special, entitled “Chain Of Command”. Read what YOUR OWN Citizens have to say about it…;
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2003/transcripts/s1126969.htm

All australian service men are rapist because of the rapes that inflicted in WWII :)

Why don't you quote what 'my' citizens say about it. I'm not going to waste my time reading through your link.

I love the "us and them" attitude you have - Just like your favorite person, GW Bush :cool:

[selfAdjoint]

Have you seen the latest revelations, how the government lawyers in 2002 and 2003 developed a theory that the right to disobey the US and treaty laws against torture is "inherent in the presidency", just as if he were Josef Stalin!

Here's what Philip Carter, a military law blogger, has to say about it. http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/archive_2004_06_07.shtml#1086610719

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Sorry, I placed a post I meant for the Reagan thread here. I have since removed it.
(LARGE EDIT)

[pelastration]

Have you seen the latest revelations, how the government lawyers in 2002 and 2003 developed a theory that the right to disobey the US and treaty laws against torture is "inherent in the presidency", just as if he were Josef Stalin!

Here's what Philip Carter, a military law blogger, has to say about it. http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/archive_2004_06_07.shtml#1086610719
Thanks for the link selfAdjoint.
The red line is the negative attitude and intentions these doc's show. That explains also why USA opposed against any involvement of the ICC.
(quote): But this DoD memo appears to be quite the opposite. It is, quite literally, a cookbook approach for illegal government conduct. This memorandum lays out the substantive law on torture and how to avoid it. It then goes on to discuss the procedural mechanisms with which torture is normally prosecuted, and techniques for avoiding those traps. I have not seen the text of the memo, but from this report, it does not appear that it advises American personnel to comply with international or domestic law. It merely tells them how to avoid it. That is dangerous legal advice.(end of quote).
That's why some people admire Rumsfeld because that's 'smart'.
:grumpy:

[Adam]

1) Phatmonky has confessed that he does not read information provided.

2) The Red Cross generally does not release reports to the public about their findings in places such as the USA prisons here and there, as that would result in them having reduced access. They released a report into recent US activities specifically because they were so bad.

3) The soldiers are there at the command of the government, who (at least in theory) are enacting the will of the people. Thus, all rapes, murders, beatings, abuses of human rights, et cetera, are the responsibility of the US public. And yes, this means the Australian leaders from WW2 should pay for any crimes committed by our soldiers back then, and Australia should pay reparations to the victims. However, for the record, there is only ONE known incident of Australian interrogators going over the line.

[kat]

From your link
I have not seen the text of the memo, but from this report, it does not appear that it advises American personnel to comply with international or domestic law. It merely tells them how to avoid it. That is dangerous legal advice.

Have you a link to the actual memo? otherwise this is all speculation. Which makes for interesting conversation, but speculation none the less.

[kat]

oops, scratch that. I missed the top link. No time to read it now though.

[phatmonky]

1) Phatmonky has confessed that he does not read information provided.
.

I have refused to read 20 page links, on a site built around debate and discussion. Especially when someone refers to something that is SOMEWHERE in said link.
Add your own thoghts, and once again, GET OFF MY BALLS.

[studentx]

However, for the record, there is only ONE known incident of Australian interrogators going over the line.

Only one? One is far too many. Its despicable to hear this poor excuse.

[kat]

Have you seen the latest revelations, how the government lawyers in 2002 and 2003 developed a theory that the right to disobey the US and treaty laws against torture is "inherent in the presidency", just as if he were Josef Stalin!

Here's what Philip Carter, a military law blogger, has to say about it. http://www.intel-dump.com/archives/archive_2004_06_07.shtml#1086610719


This is a draft of a working group report. This is nothing but a group researching and reporting on a multitude of legal scenerios and the prospective legal application. Friggin ridiculous. It's very similar to the environment report that was passsed around a few months ago, that in then end created by a group of grad student who were procured to develop different scenerios. They admitted that they purposely pushed the envelope in order to explore extreme situations.
Give me a break. There's enough crap to put forth that is factual without passing off this stuff as some incredible revelation...ooOOOooohhh OOOOOOOOH Aaawwwww
A working group explored extreme situations and the legal ramifications...OOoOOOOHHHHhh. Hello reality?

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Australian soldiers and MPs DO NOT have the sick sexual fetishes that the Americans do.
An Australian soldier requested to do this SEXUAL HUMILIATION would not. If he did, he would be summarily bashed...

Oh, and before anybody says its not a "fetish".
What was it, then?
(a) "Interrogation"
(b) "Torture"
(c) "Rape"
(d) "Sexual Perversion"
(e) "fun"
(f) "stupidity"

Also, were they ordered to produce this sickness?
Or, did the MPs (just happen to be concentrated into a SINGLE UNIT of sick bastards from a Tarrantino movie?)

Non of the above options look too attractive to me...

[kat]

Australian soldiers and MPs DO NOT have the sick sexual fetishes that the Americans do.
Painting with a broad brush...

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

I haven't seen any photographs (or RED CROSS Reports) which clarly show NUMEROUS Australian soldiers involved in this evil. Have you?

I've only seen what everybody else has (Americans).

[kat]

I haven't seen any photographs (or RED CROSS Reports) which clarly show NUMEROUS Australian soldiers involved in this evil. Have you?

I've only seen what everybody else has (Americans).

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
There were recent reports on serious abuses in prisons at the hands of ...the french.

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Oh I see.
If there is NO evidence, it's possible.

But when there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence, its not good enough.

You're a walking contradiction...

[Adam]

I have refused to read 20 page links, on a site built around debate and discussion. Especially when someone refers to something that is SOMEWHERE in said link.
Add your own thoghts, and once again, GET OFF MY BALLS.

Your homosexual innuendos do not interest me. Try someone else.

Apart from that, you can either: 1) read the information provided; or 2) admit you continually whine and complain from ignorance, so we can simply ignore your further posts.

[Adam]

Only one? One is far too many. Its despicable to hear this poor excuse.

For once you have said something vaguely rational. Congratulations. Keep it up.

PS: I was not making any excuses for the poor behaviour of my country's military. I was merely stating a fact.

[Adam]

I haven't seen any photographs (or RED CROSS Reports) which clarly show NUMEROUS Australian soldiers involved in this evil. Have you?

I've only seen what everybody else has (Americans).

Unfortunately it emerged last week that Australian intelligence officers were present in Abu Ghraib and other such places as observers, and our defence force knew all about it for quite some time. John Howard is claiming "Heck, nobody told me!" once again, just as with the "children overboard" thing. However, as you say, there has been no suggestion of them actually participating. But to me, that is not enough. They should have made their own records, and forwarded the records to the PM, and he should have forwarded them to the UN.

[jimmy p]

Unfortunately it emerged last week that Australian intelligence officers were present in Abu Ghraib and other such places as observers, and our defence force knew all about it for quite some time. John Howard is claiming "Heck, nobody told me!" once again, just as with the "children overboard" thing. However, as you say, there has been no suggestion of them actually participating. But to me, that is not enough. They should have made their own records, and forwarded the records to the PM, and he should have forwarded them to the UN.


Which surely makes those military personnel as bent as the abusive soldiers.

[Adam]

It certainly doesn't make them saints.

[pelastration]

General Granted Latitude At Prison
Abu Ghraib Used Aggressive Tactics
Saturday, June 12, 2004; Page A01

Quotes from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35612-2004Jun11.html

Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior U.S. military officer in Iraq, borrowed heavily from a list of high-pressure interrogation tactics used at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and approved letting senior officials at a Baghdad jail use military dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns, sensory deprivation, and diets of bread and water on detainees whenever they wished, according to newly obtained documents.

The U.S. policy, details of which have not been previously disclosed, was approved in early September, shortly after an Army general sent from Washington completed his inspection of the Abu Ghraib jail and then returned to brief Pentagon officials on his ideas for using military police there to help implement the new high-pressure methods.

The documents obtained by The Washington Post spell out in greater detail than previously known the interrogation tactics Sanchez authorized, and make clear for the first time that, before last October, they could be imposed without first seeking the approval of anyone outside the prison. That gave officers at Abu Ghraib wide latitude in handling detainees.

Unnamed officials at the Florida headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, which has overall military responsibility for Iraq, objected to some of the 32 interrogation tactics approved by Sanchez in September, including the more severe methods that he had said could be used at any time in Abu Ghraib with the consent of the interrogation officer in charge.

[pelastration]

Abu Ghraib General Says Told Prisoners 'Like Dogs'
Tue Jun 15, 2004 05:56 AM ET

Quotes from: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5424274

LONDON (Reuters) - The U.S. general in charge of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was told by a military intelligence commander that detainees should be treated like dogs, she said in an interview broadcast on Tuesday.

Janis Karpinski, the one-star general responsible for the military police who ran prisons in Iraq when pictures were taken showing prisoners being abused, said she and her soldiers were being made scapegoats for abuse ordered by others.

In the interview with Britain's BBC radio, Karpinski said Geoffrey Miller, a two-star general sent to Iraq from the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, had ordered new procedures in cell blocs where Iraqis were interrogated.

"He said, at Guantanamo Bay we've learned that the prisoners have to earn every single thing they have," Karpinski said.

"He said they are like dogs, and if you allow them to believe at any point they are more than a dog then you've lost control of them."

and more ...

----
Mr. Geoffrey Miller - a General - with profound insight in human rights - is actually the man in charge for all prisons in Iraq. Probably he call a prison a Zoo.

Added: Link to BBC Audio interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/40273000/rm/_40273233_karpinski07_notari.ram

[pelastration]

Here is a Washington Post link with several White House, Pentagon and Justice Department documents about interrogation policies and about the motivation on the (lack of) rights of some prisoners.

Some quotes of http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62516-2004Jun22.html


Feb. 1, 2002: Letter to President Bush From the Attorney General (49KB; from FindLaw)
The memo by Attorney General John D. Ashcroft summarized the Justice Department's position on why the Geneva Convention did not apply to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees. The memo was Ashcroft's personal response to the State Department position that, as a matter of law, the Geneva Conventions protected Taliban soldiers. Ashcroft warned that if the president sided with the State Department, American officials might wind up going to jail for violating U.S. and international laws.


Feb. 7, 2002: Justice Department Memo to the White House Counsel (49KB; from FindLaw)
A memo written by Jay S. Bybee, then head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, advised White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales that the president had "reasonable factual grounds" to determine that Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan were not entitled to prisoner of war status.

[pelastration]

Why?

Ever asked why we don't see anymore photo's about the prison abuse. There are still many photo's out there never published. Senators said they were more violent. So?
Has the administration put some ban on it, pressed or warned newspapers and publishers?

[studentx]

Might it be that innocent people are being killed because of it?
I dont think there is any benefit to showing them. Perhaps to get the truth out there, but there are already dozens of innocent lifes taken because of anger over these photos. There are also countries who ban the Alqueda beheading videos. Most people dont even want to see those, but strangely enough do want to see Americans abusing others. Perhaps they only want to have their opinion of America confirmed?

[automaton]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=neurobiofeedback

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=+brainwashing+

given the brainwashabilty clearly available through malevolent use of this tek

what are the idiots doing :yuck:

induced on hypnotic with a psychedelic drip iv
the highly trained victim is able to manipulate the neuro/biofeedback toys
ie pet/cat /eeg emg etc..

Till the reprogramming started

conciously the tech manipulated the feedback
as Shadern the threat began to feel the lsd21

a psychotomimetic state with now ingrained neurophysiologic psycho/neuroelectronic routines going awry :shy:
should this be common knowledge :blush:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=+brainwashing+electroconvulsive+therapy&btnG=Search

duh :cry:

[pelastration]

Might it be that innocent people are being killed because of it?
I dont think there is any benefit to showing them. Perhaps to get the truth out there, but there are already dozens of innocent lifes taken because of anger over these photos.
Yes that may be correct.

[Njorl]

Why?

Ever asked why we don't see anymore photo's about the prison abuse. There are still many photo's out there never published. Senators said they were more violent. So?
Has the administration put some ban on it, pressed or warned newspapers and publishers?

When it stops being news it starts being pornography. Shortly thereafter, the news stops showing it.

Njorl

[revelator]

We don't really need to see more. It's fuelling more violence, and moreover we already know there are more pictures and video of evidence, which are apprently all the more disgusting. This has been freely admitted by the admin and is not under debate. The goal now, is to determine who's responsible, and see that they pay.

[automaton]

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/vosper/index.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=neurobiofeedback+psychoneurolinguistics&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=+brainwashing+

exposed cult secrets and the best they could inhumanely do was
a poopy s&m #
literally

neurobiofeedback psychoneurolinguistics=wash and wax

[Adam]

The goal now, is to determine who's responsible, and see that they pay.

That would be George Bush, Dick Cheney, and their coterie.

[revelator]

I can't imagine they'll see any sort of punishment for this.

[phoenixy]

http://www.starkeith.net/coredump/2004/06/ashcroft-torture.html

See it, laught at it, and believe it!

[automaton]

stop vetching as though something is fair in aberrant war minds
realize the cyber-neuro tech available
fortunately they are not in fast track

understand prisoners everywhere face the banality of s&m
kindly not
caredeprivers

people pay to be mutilated captives
read beneath and between the supposed news and media glitz

talk about a mind assault

[automaton]

stop vetching as though something is fair in aberrant war minds :yuck:
realize the cyber-neuro tech available
fortunately they are not in fast track :tongue2:

understand prisoners everywhere face the banality of s&m
kindly not
caredeprivers :surprise:

people pay to be mutilated captives

read beneath and between the supposed news and media glitz :bugeye:

talk about a total mind assault

[revelator]

I'm sorry, I'm not following.

[pelastration]

It seems there is more to come.

Quotes from: http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10156212%255E663,00.html + a nice photo of nature-born killer Rummy.

Allies reel as abuse row grows

17jul04

WASHINGTON - New cases of alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers have been uncovered.

The news comes three months after US media broadcast photos of detainees being sexually humiliated at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison.

"We're still uncovering, as late as this morning, other incidents, other cases that will be promptly investigated by the Department of Defence," Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner said.

Senator Warner, a Republican, said there were possible violations of the Geneva Convention and Defence Department rules and regulations.

However, a Republican congressional source said the Pentagon was "dragging its feet and intends to postpone any hearing until after" the November 2 presidential election.

"There's a lot of frustration over here," he said.

Senator Warner said Pentagon officials also showed senators 24 confidential documents from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

[JohnDubYa]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,634638,00.html

But the story looks pretty dubious to me.