News The SM masters having fun in Iraqs prison

[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. 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]

Sue Rumsfeld for neglecting protection against STD/HIV?

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 that's 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 received 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]

CIA interrogations 'too brutal'

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 don't 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?