| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2004 2:03 am Post subject: US torture in Iraq, Afghanistan: Authorized at the highest l |
| US torture in Iraq, Afghanistan: Authorized at the highest levels
By David Walsh
15 June 2004
Recent revelations about torture and abuse in Iraq have made several things clear: such horrific mistreatment was authorized at the highest levels of the US government and military, it was more widespread and pervasive than previously acknowledged and it was reported to military authorities months earlier than has been claimed.
A variety of reports point to the role of the military high command—including General Ricardo Sanchez, the senior US military official in Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and even White House staff—in approving and organizing torture of Iraqi detainees.
Documents obtained by the Washington Post make clear that in September 2003 Gen. Sanchez approved a series of techniques borrowed from the US detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and gave officials at Abu Ghraib prison carte blanche to use them whenever they wished. The 32 measures included sleep and sensory deprivation, the use of military dogs to terrify prisoners, temperature extremes and diets of bread and water.
After objections from officials at US Central Command in Florida, on October 12 Sanchez removed several items from the list of actions jail officials could use at their own discretion. To take away prisoners’ religious items, control their exposure to light, inflict “pride and ego down” or allow prisoners to believe that interrogators came from countries that deal brutally with detainees now required the general’s direct approval!
However, military officials on the spot could still take a prisoner to a less hospitable location for interrogation, manipulate his or her diet, use military dogs to provoke fear and require an individual to remain in a “stress position” for as long as 45 minutes.
Officials told the Post that Sanchez approved one of the more severe techniques, long-term isolation, 25 times after the modified October rules were put in place.
In any event, military personnel at Abu Ghraib told army investigators that they were not told about the changes in procedure. They reportedly said that for all intents and purposes there were no standard operating interrogation procedures at the prison.
The Post also describes an October 9 memorandum on “Interrogation Rules of Engagement,” which each military intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib was obliged to sign, as specifying methods “that were close to some of the behavior criticized this March by the Army’s own investigator, who said he found evidence of ‘sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuse’ at the prison.” In other words, Sanchez—who is stepping down at the end of June—and the US military high command specifically outlined and endorsed methods of torture that the Bush administration and Pentagon officials are now characterizing as the work of a few perverted individuals.
A spokeswoman for Human Rights Watch noted that “dietary manipulation” is “a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, which require daily food rations to have enough quantity, quality and variety to maintain good health, prevent weight loss and prevent nutritional deficiencies.” Frightening prisoners with attack dogs is also a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
The Daily Telegraph in Britain reported June 13 that four confidential Red Cross documents implicating senior Pentagon officials in the Abu Ghraib abuse have been handed to a US television network, which is preparing to air their contents shortly. The Telegraph wrote that according to lawyers familiar with the reports they will contradict claims by military spokesmen that the torture at Abu Ghraib was isolated.
One lawyer, Scott Horton, the former chairman of the New York Bar Association, told the newspaper, “There are some extremely damaging documents around, which link senior figures to the abuses. The biggest bombs in the case have yet to be dropped.”
Rumsfeld’s name has come up because he, along with other top Pentagon officials, is now known to have personally approved a menu of torture options developed for use at Guantanamo.
According to documents made public by the Wall Street Journal, in December 2002 Rumsfeld approved of a list of techniques for Guantanamo that included putting prisoners in “stress positions” for four hours, hooding them and subjecting them to 20-hour interrogations, “fear of dogs” and “mild, non-injurious physical contact.” The list was so severe that military officers complained and the defense secretary was obliged to order a high-level review of interrogation policy.
In April 2003 Rumsfeld approved a new list, which included the use of at least six techniques—including the use of dogs—also contained in the October 9 Abu Ghraib memorandum. According to the Bush administration’s twisted logic, detainees in Iraq were covered by the Geneva Conventions, while the prisoners at the Cuban concentration camp were not.
The immediate background to the importation of Guantanamo techniques to Baghdad in October 2003 was apparently a visit paid to Iraq by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller—then in charge of the Cuban camp—in early September, accompanied by at least 11 senior aides, including CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency officials.
One of the more intriguing news items in recent days appeared in the June 9 Washington Post. It reported that Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, the head of the interrogation center at the Abu Ghraib prison, told an army investigator in February that he understood some of the information being extracted from prisoners had been requested by “White House staff.”
In his statement, Jordan, an army reservist, explained that a superior military intelligence officer told him that the requested information concerned “any anti-coalition issues, foreign fighters, and terrorist issues.” The investigator, the now famous Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, asked Jordan whether the information concerned “sensitive issues,” and Jordan replied, “Very sensitive. Yes, sir.” Taguba did not pursue the matter.
An army summary in May revealed a widespread pattern of abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan involving more military units and locations than previously known or acknowledged.
The report, for example, documents the deaths of two prisoners in one week in December 2002 at what was known as the Bagram Collecting Point. Both deaths were ruled homicides within days, but no one involved has yet been charged or disciplined. Significantly, personnel from the unit in charge of interrogation at Bagram, the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion, were later assigned to Iraq and specifically to the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center at Abu Ghraib.
The cases in Iraq date from the immediate aftermath of the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime to April 2004, when a detainee in the hands of Navy commandos died from “blunt force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia.”
In the face of the outcry prompted by the Abu Ghraib scandal, the military has increased the scope and scale of the whitewash of the crimes its forces have carried out. The army has announced that it is investigating the deaths of 127 prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan and that a four-star general may be put in charge of the investigation. A subordinate is not permitted to question an officer of greater rank. A four-star general, for example, could examine Sanchez.
How many Iraqis and Afghans have died in US hands remains an open question. The failure of US officials to comply with the Geneva Convention requirement that detainees be allowed to notify family members, within a week of their arrest, of their location and state of health has resulted, in the words of the Red Cross, in the “de facto ‘disappearance’” of many prisoners.
Hannah Allam of Knight-Ridder reported recently, for example, that “American administrators have lost track of dozens of detainees inside Abu Ghraib in the past year, according to human-rights workers, former inmates, a former prison investigator, attorneys, detainees’ families and prisoner-rights groups.” Many of the 3,200 prisoners at Abu Ghraib cannot be traced by anxious relatives because of sloppy bookkeeping and official indifference, or perhaps for more sinister reasons.
Abuses reported earlier
It has also come to light that the systemic torture and abuse were reported to military officials months before whistle blower Spc. Joseph Darby reported the goings-on to army investigators in January 2004.
The Associated Press reports that at least five soldiers objected to what they saw at Abu Ghraib last autumn. One in particular, Spc. Matthew C. Wisdom, demanded to be reassigned, telling superiors that the behavior he witnessed “made me sick to my stomach.” Wisdom reported that he had seen some of the abuses November 8, the night prisoners were forced to masturbate and arrange themselves in a pyramid of naked bodies.
The New York Times reported June 14 that “Beginning in November [2003], a small unit of interrogators at Abu Ghraib prison began reporting allegations of prisoner abuse, including the beatings of five blindfolded Iraqi generals, in internal documents sent to senior officers.
“‘We were reporting it long before this mess came out,’ said one of several military intelligence soldiers interviewed in Germany and the United States who asked not to be identified for fear they would jeopardize their careers. At least 20 accounts of mistreatment were included in the documents, according to those interviewed.”
Military higher-ups ignored the numerous reports for one simple reason: torture and abuse were US government and military policy, instigated and approved at the top of the famous “chain of command.”
Lawyers for several of the low-level soldiers charged with abusing prisoners have threatened to force Rumsfeld, Sanchez and others to testify at their clients’ trials. The defense attorney for Spc. Charles Graner, Guy Womack, told the press that he wants military leaders to testify as to the orders given on the treatment of prisoners. “We’re going to prove the chain of command knew [the abuse] was going on and did nothing to countermand it,” the lawyer said.
Womack continued, “The government is trying to make it seem like nobody approved of this or knew of this, and that it was seven rogue military policemen suddenly went crazy and flipped out. I’ll be able to prove that’s a lie.” Womack says he is considering calling Rumsfeld as a witness and will definitely subpoena Stephen Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence. He also plans to call three generals to testify: Sanchez, Miller and Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was in charge of Abu Ghraib at the time of the abuse.
The civilian lawyer for Sgt. Javal Davis of Roselle, New Jersey, Paul Bergrin, hopes to question present and former detainees to prove his client’s contention that senior military officers approved the mistreatment. “I’m going to go into Abu Ghraib and interview the detainees, determine the extent of the abuse, whether military intelligence officers were present and gave the orders,” Bergrin told the Associated Press. Bergrin has filed a motion seeking to have the case dismissed, citing “improper command influence” that extended all the way to George W. Bush.
Two 19-year-old Marines were convicted in courts-martial May 14 of subjecting an Iraqi prisoner to electrical shocks. Annoyed by the detainee’s talking loudly and throwing trash out of his cell, the two Marines attached wires to a power converter and pressed the wires against the man when he returned from a trip to the bathroom, “jolting him with 110 volts of electricity,” according to the Marine Corps Times. Two other Marines are facing trial in connection with abuse of prisoners at a temporary holding facility south of Baghdad in early April.
British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith announced June 14 that four British soldiers will face courts-martial in connection with assault and indecent assault on prisoners. Goldsmith said there was photographic evidence of the episode.
More details of the US military savagery in Iraq have emerged in recent weeks. The New York Times ran an extensive piece June 8 on the “pervasive” use of “forced nudity” against Iraqi prisoners. Such practices were so widespread “in the military intelligence unit of Abu Ghraib ... that soldiers later said they had not seen ‘the whole nudity thing,’ as one captain called it, as abusive or out of the ordinary.”
The Times cited these examples: “Detainees were paraded naked past other prisoners and guards; some were ordered to do jumping jacks and sing ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ in the nude, according to a several witnesses. Also, a father and his grown son were stripped, then forced to stand and stare at each other. The International Committee of the Red Cross, visiting in October, found prisoners left naked in their cells for days, modestly trying to shield themselves behind cardboard from meals-ready-to-eat boxes.”
The article notes, almost in passing, that “Soldiers in Nazi Germany paraded naked prisoners in daylight, and human rights groups have documented the use of nudity during conflicts in Egypt, Chile and Turkey, and in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation.”
Dog handlers at Abu Ghraib have described in some detail the uses to which their animals were put, according to the Washington Post. Sergeants Michael Smith and Santos Cardona told army investigators that in December 2002 and January 2003 military intelligence personnel requested several times that they bring their dogs—trained to hunt for weapons, explosives and contraband—to assist in interrogating detainees. The high-ranking intelligence officers allegedly ordered guards to use unmuzzled dogs to frighten prisoners. Several photos of such treatment have been made public, with terrified detainees recoiling from snarling dogs whose muzzles are only inches away.
The two handlers apparently had a contest to see who could use their dogs to frighten more Iraqis into urinating on themselves.
Another dog handler, Master-at-Arms 1st Class William Kimbro, reported that military interrogators threatened prisoners with allowing Kimbro’s barking dog to be set on them. The navy dog handler walked out. “I was leaving because this is not what my dog is trained for. We do not use our dogs for interrogation purposes,” Kimbro said in a statement.
The US military has announced that after the restoration of “full sovereignty” to the interim Iraqi government it will continue to operate Abu Ghraib and hold between 4,000 and 5,000 Iraqi prisoners.
The Red Cross pointed out that the transition to the new Iraqi government should mean the release of all Iraqi prisoners of war and interned civilians. “If we consider that the occupation ends June 30, that would mean it’s the end of the international armed conflict,” pointed out Nadra Doumani, a Red Cross spokeswoman. She acknowledged, however, that “the situation on the ground determines the facts.”
David Walsh also wrote the following excellent article on the USS Liberty attack:
http://www.usni.org/proceedings/Articles03/PROwalsh06.htm | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 2:16 pm Post subject: Janes: Israeli interrogators in Iraq - An exclusive report |
| http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr040707_1_n.shtml
Israeli interrogators in Iraq - An exclusive report
At least one aspect of the occupation of Iraq was well planned by Washington. The USA needed help conducting mass interrogations of Arabic-speaking detainees. Foreign Report can now reveal that, to make up for this shortfall, the USA employed Israeli security service (Shin Bet) experts to help their US counterparts 'break' their captives.
The USA could have approached other friendly regimes in the Middle East, such as Egypt or Jordan, which have vast experience interrogating Muslim fundamentalists. The Israelis may be brilliant linguists, but they cannot match Arabs speaking their own language. But there is a significant difference between the Egyptian and Jordanian interrogation techniques and those of the Israelis. For the Egyptian and Jordanian secret services, physical torture is an essential part of interrogation and a key element in breaking the prisoner's will and making them co-operative.
In the past, Shin Bet would use torture when it interrogated prisoners. But 20 years ago, an Israeli government committee investigated the security service's practices and the use of torture was subsequently banned, forcing Shin Bet to adopt a variety of techniques that did not cause physical damage. These new methods are much more palatable to US sensibilities. They also brought faster and more convincing results.
Foreign Report has learnt that top Shin Bet interrogation experts were sent to Iraq to help with the most difficult interrogations, such as the captured heads of the Iraqi intelligence - and perhaps with former president Saddam Hussein. US sources say that in spite of the incidences of abuse in Abu Ghraib prison, such events are not representative of the sophisticated methods that Shin Bet used in Iraq.
Most of the Shin Bet interrogators are of Ashkenazim (European) origin who study the Arabic language only when they are in their twenties after joining the security service. Before each interrogation a psychologist who has studied in depth the mental profile of the prisoner is consulted. The interrogator will also read intelligence reports about their charge.
328 of 779 words
[End of non-subscriber extract.]
The full version of this article is accessible through our subscription services. Please refer to the box below for details. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:54 am Post subject: General faces Abu Ghraib scrutiny |
| Check out the latest article on the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal (involving Barbara Fast) from the Baltimore Sun newspaper which is included at the end of the following...
Why didn't 'Hardball' cover the story about General Karpinski mentioning that she met an Israeli interrogator in Iraq (you can listen to the segment via the link for General Karpinski under the broadcast for July 3rd, 2004 in the archive at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/listenagain_archive.shtml ) as AP and Reuters both then went with the story internnationally. Recently, Jane's (in a recent article dated July 9th, 2004) confirmed that Israeli Shin Bet operatives are indeed doing interrogations in Iraq for the USA, but 'Hardball' hasn't covered that either.. The Jane's article is included below...
http://scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/sg071304.htm
Karpinski Interview Sparks New Call for Rumsfeld Testimony
By Leon Worden
Signal City Editor
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
*MEDIA—MANDATORY CREDIT: The Signal newspaper of Santa Clarita, Calif.
A
former Abu Ghraib prison guard will use a recently published Signal interview in an effort to elicit Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's testimony, his attorney said Monday.
Sgt. Javal Davis, 26, of New Jersey, has claimed since charges were filed against him in April that he was acting on orders to "soften up" detainees for interrogation sessions last fall.
Leaked portions of an Army report said four military intelligence officers and contractors, including John B. Israel of Canyon Country, were responsible for the prisoner abuse, but no explanation of the accusation has been released to the public.
On June 21, Davis' attorneys convinced a military judge to order testimony from Davis' superior officers, all the way up to four-star Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, to determine what, if any, instructions he received.
But the judge, Col. James Pohl, didn't see sufficient cause to order testimony from Rumsfeld or Stephen A. Cambone, Rumsfeld's undersecretary for intelligence.
Although allegations have swirled at lower echelons, no general officer had publicly intimated that Rumsfeld had anything to do with the approval of interrogation methods at the Iraqi prison.
That changed June 29, a week after Davis' hearing in Baghdad, when Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski told The Signal that she saw memos where Rumsfeld "signed and agreed to" the use of particular interrogation tactics.
Karpinski, commander of detention operations throughout Iraq last fall, said she didn't see the approvals from Rumsfeld at the time, "but since all of this has come out, I've not only seen, but I've been asked about some of those documents."
The memos were "about using the same techniques that were successful in Guantanamo Bay, at Abu Ghraib," she said in the interview, published July 4.
On June 22, the Pentagon released memos showing Rumsfeld approved a list of interrogation tactics in late 2002 for use at Guantanamo Bay, including stripping, hooding and sensory deprivation.
The Pentagon flatly denied Karpinski's claim that Rumsfeld approved similar tactics for Iraq.
"The secretary of defense was not involved in the process in Iraq or the Central Command theater," a Pentagon spokesman said July 2. "He wasn't asked to approve anything."
But Paul Bergrin, Davis' civilian attorney, wants to hear it directly from the source.
Bergrin said Monday he is renewing his call "for demanding Secretary Rumsfeld to testify under oath, based on the direct link as stated by Brig. Gen. Karpinski" in the Signal interview.
Bergrin said he'll file a motion by Friday asking Pohl to reconsider.
A Pentagon official said Monday that the Defense Department "will cooperate with any due process," and said it doesn't get involved in the calling of witnesses.
Contesting or consenting to Bergrin's motion would be up to the Central Command prosecutor, whose spokeswoman in Baghdad could not be reached by press time.
Karpinski said Monday she believes it is important for all pertinent information to come out.
"Whatever it takes to ensure the soldiers are given the best opportunities to gather all necessary information and evidence, is what they need to allow," she told The Signal.
You can find the General Karpinski interview at the following URL:
http://scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/index.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr040707_1_n.shtml
Israeli interrogators in Iraq - An exclusive report
At least one aspect of the occupation of Iraq was well planned by Washington. The USA needed help conducting mass interrogations of Arabic-speaking detainees. Foreign Report can now reveal that, to make up for this shortfall, the USA employed Israeli security service (Shin Bet) experts to help their US counterparts 'break' their captives.
The USA could have approached other friendly regimes in the Middle East, such as Egypt or Jordan, which have vast experience interrogating Muslim fundamentalists. The Israelis may be brilliant linguists, but they cannot match Arabs speaking their own language. But there is a significant difference between the Egyptian and Jordanian interrogation techniques and those of the Israelis. For the Egyptian and Jordanian secret services, physical torture is an essential part of interrogation and a key element in breaking the prisoner's will and making them co-operative.
In the past, Shin Bet would use torture when it interrogated prisoners. But 20 years ago, an Israeli government committee investigated the security service's practices and the use of torture was subsequently banned, forcing Shin Bet to adopt a variety of techniques that did not cause physical damage. These new methods are much more palatable to US sensibilities. They also brought faster and more convincing results.
Foreign Report has learnt that top Shin Bet interrogation experts were sent to Iraq to help with the most difficult interrogations, such as the captured heads of the Iraqi intelligence - and perhaps with former president Saddam Hussein. US sources say that in spite of the incidences of abuse in Abu Ghraib prison, such events are not representative of the sophisticated methods that Shin Bet used in Iraq.
Most of the Shin Bet interrogators are of Ashkenazim (European) origin who study the Arabic language only when they are in their twenties after joining the security service. Before each interrogation a psychologist who has studied in depth the mental profile of the prisoner is consulted. The interrogator will also read intelligence reports about their charge.
328 of 779 words
[End of non-subscriber extract.]
The full version of this article is accessible through our subscription services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General faces Abu Ghraib scrutiny
Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast among most important officers in investigation
By Tom Bowman
Sun National Staff
July 15, 2004
WASHINGTON - Among the handful of Army officers facing scrutiny in the investigation of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast is perhaps the least known, but among the most important.
Fast, 50, the senior intelligence officer in Iraq, was the key conduit for orders and information that related to Abu Ghraib, which she visited frequently, including the infamous cellblocks 1A and 1B, where abuses took place.
A civilian interrogator at the prison wrote that she was involved in CIA access, and Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was the overall commander of military police at the facility, said Fast was aware of a Red Cross report revealing wrongdoing at the prison three months before the scandal broke.
Fast approved the order putting Col. Thomas M. Pappas, commander of a military intelligence brigade at Abu Ghraib in overall command of the prison. She prodded him for fresh information from detainees so insistently that he remarked, "It's worse than a root canal," Karpinski said.
Fast also installed Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, an aggressive interrogator who said that he "only reported to her," said Army officers and soldiers who served with Fast in Iraq.
Pappas, Jordan and some of the civilian interrogators have since been singled out in an Army report by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba for being "either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib."
The two officers have been reprimanded. Fast, whose career has ascended rapidly, has been given a plum assignment when she leaves Iraq next month: commander of the Army's intelligence center and school at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., where she served a brief tour as assistant commandant.
"Major General Fast is not doing interviews related to Abu Ghraib while the [Army intelligence] investigation is ongoing," said Maj. Carolyn Dysart, a spokesman for U.S. forces in Iraq. "It would be inappropriate for her to comment."
A clearer picture of Fast, one of the highest-ranking women in the Army, is likely to emerge in coming weeks through the report by Army intelligence investigators that Dysart referred to, Senate hearings and questions by attorneys representing the military police facing courts-martial.
All seven who have been charged are low-level reservists attached to the 372nd Military Police Unit based in Cresaptown, Md.
Their attorneys argue that military intelligence officers ordered the MPs to commit the abuses to gain information.
Sen. John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican who chairs the Armed Services Committee, has listed Fast among those he wants the committee to question about Abu Ghraib.
"It would seem that her new command is certainly premature, if not inappropriate," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat. "There are still so many unanswered questions."
"It's very strange. [Fast] was never suspended. And she [will take] command of Fort Huachuca," said Karpinski, who was commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade until she received a letter of admonishment for her alleged leadership failures and was suspended from command. She is trying to get reinstated to her post.
Fast was aware of at least some of the Abu Ghraib activities of CIA personnel, a number of whom are being questioned about the abuses and at least one death, according to the writings of a civilian interrogator at Abu Ghraib, Joe Ryan, who worked for the Virginia-based contractor CACI International.
In a Web diary that is part of a court exhibit filed by Iraqis who claim they were abused at the prison, Ryan wrote: "The CIA has proven once again they are incompetent boobs. ... They have General Fast's ire. They cannot set foot on Abu Ghurayb without her expressed permission."
Fast arrived in Baghdad late last summer to become intelligence chief for the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. How she ran intelligence operations is among the questions of an Army investigation led by Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Jones, whose equivalent rank allows him to question Sanchez.
Karpinski said Fast spoke of the difficulties of gathering intelligence in Iraq. "She said, 'It's like herding cats. I can't get my arms around it,'" Karpinski said.
As the insurgency increased throughout the summer, Fast repeatedly pressed her staff for more information from the detainees, according to fellow officers. One intelligence officer who worked with Pappas said he seemed beaten down.
"There was a lot of pressure for [intelligence]. Anything that could affect the safety of our soldiers," he said.
After meetings with Fast, Karpinski said, Pappas would "hold his head and say, 'It's worse than a root canal.'" Pappas pressed his soldiers to conduct more interrogations and produce more reports.
Harsher techniques were also being approved. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, commander of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, visited Abu Ghraib in September and said MPs should "set the conditions" for interrogations, a phrase that has been interpreted by some as meaning softening up the prisoners for questioning.
Miller later told Congress he meant only that the MPs should monitor detainees, watch whom they talked with, study their demeanor and report such details to military interrogators.
Karpinski said Pappas "got beat up pretty badly by General Miller, I mean in terms of his criticism," according to an appendix to the Taguba report posted yesterday on the Web site of U.S. News and World Report.
Sanchez soon authorized as many as 30 interrogation tactics for detainees at Abu Ghraib, including sleep deprivation and crouching positions. Some were later rescinded.
More interrogators were sent to Abu Ghraib in the fall. Fast told visiting Lt. Gen. William Boykin, the top Pentagon intelligence official that "they were going to be picking up the pace with some of the procedures that General Miller had recommended to them," said Karpinski, who said she was present at the meeting.
Some of the intelligence officers and civilian contractors at the prison said they were on special assignments for Fast or worked directly for her.
"They would play the 'General Fast card,' saying they only reported to her," said a military intelligence soldier who served at Abu Ghraib.
Karpinski told Taguba that she complained that a former Iraqi prisoner had been put to work as a translator with "no background check," according to the appendix.
"I talked to General Fast about it several times," she said. "Nobody seemed to care that this guy was out there and had full access to everywhere on the compound."
Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, the Army's senior intelligence officer, told Congress in May that Army intelligence in Iraq had oversight of the civilian contractors and that Fast was responsible for making sure they understood the interrogation rules.
Jordan, who was selected by Fast to run the interrogation center at the prison, also told Karpinski that he reported directly to Fast, Karpinski said.
In October, investigators from the International Committee of the Red Cross made one of their periodic visits to Abu Ghraib and were troubled by what they saw.
The investigators reported seeing detainees kept "completely naked in totally empty concrete cells and in total darkness." They complained to U.S. officials, and "the military intelligence officer in charge of the interrogation explained that this practice was 'part of the process,'" the report said.
Karpinski said she was given earlier Red Cross reports but not the one from that October visit. The next month she learned of the report during a meeting attended by Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, Sanchez's deputy, Col. Marc Warren, Sanchez's legal officer and Pappas. The officers helped Karpinski prepare an official response.
"I said, 'What does General Fast say about this? She saw the report. She's aware of it,'" Warren said.
Copyright © 2004, The Baltimore Sun | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:19 pm Post subject: Hersh: Children sodomized at Abu Ghraib, on tape |
| Subject: Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse ...
> >
> >Salon.com - War 'o4
> >http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html
> >
> >Hersh: Children sodomized at Abu Ghraib, on tape
> >
> >After Donald Rumsfeld testified on the Hill about Abu Ghraib in May,
there
> >was talk of more photos and video in the Pentagon's custody more
horrific
> >than
> >anything made public so far. "If these are released to the public,
obviously
> >it's going to make matters worse," Rumsfeld said. Since then, the
Washington
> >Post has disclosed some new details and images of abuse at the
prison.
But if
> >Seymour Hersh is right, it all gets much worse.
> >
> >Hersh gave a speech last week to the ACLU making the charge that
children
> >were sodomized in front of women in the prison, and the Pentagon has
tape
> >of it.
> >The speech was first reported in a New York Sun story last week,
which
was in
> >turn posted on Jim Romenesko's media blog, and now EdCone.com and
other
blogs
> >are linking to the video. We transcribed the critical section here
(it
starts
> >at about 1:31:00 into the ACLU video.) At the start of the
transcript
here,
> >you can see how Hersh was struggling over what he should say:
> >
> >"Debating about it, ummm ... Some of the worst things that happened
you
don't
> >know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may
have
> >read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their
men.
> >This is
> >at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please
come
and
> >kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is
that
> >those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases
that
have
> >been
> >recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the
worst
> >above
> >all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your
government
has.
> >They are in total terror. It's going to come out."
> >
> >"It's impossible to say to yourself how did we get there? Who are
we? Who
are
> >these people that sent us there? When I did My Lai I was very
troubled
like
> >anybody in his right mind would be about what happened. I ended up
in
> >something
> >I wrote saying in the end I said that the people who did the killing
were
as
> >much victims as the people they killed because of the scars they
had, I
can
> >tell you some of the personal stories by some of the people who were
in
these
> >units witnessed this. I can also tell you written complaints were
made to
the
> >highest officers and so we're dealing with a enormous massive amount
of
> >criminal
> >wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there and
higher,
> >and we have to get to it and we will. We will. You know there's
enough
out
> >there, they can't (Applause). .... So it's going to be an
interesting
> >election
> >year."
> >
> >Notes from a similar speech Hersh gave in Chicago in June were
posted on
Brad
> >DeLong's blog. Rick Pearlstein, who watched the speech, wrote:
"[Hersh]
said
> >that after he broke Abu Ghraib people are coming out of the woodwork
to
tell
> >him this stuff. He said he had seen all the Abu Ghraib pictures. He
said,
> >'You
> >haven't begun to see evil...' then trailed off. He said, 'horrible
things
> >done
> >to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run.' He looked
frightened."
> >
> >So, there are several questions here: Has Hersh actually seen the
video
he
> >described to the ACLU, and why hasn't he written about it yet? Will
he be
> >forced
> >to elaborate in more public venues now that these two speeches are
getting so
> >much attention, at least in the blogosphere? And who else has seen
the
video,
> >if it exists -- will journalists see and report on it? did senators
see
these
> >images when they had their closed-door sessions with the Abu Ghraib
evidence?
> >-- and what is being done about it? | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2004 10:02 pm Post subject: Rumsfeld to Take Blame for Abu Ghraib Torture |
| A Battle Over Blame
By Michael Hirsh and John Barry
Newsweek
09 August 2004 Issue
Rumsfeld may be rebuked by his own commission investigating prison abuse.
James Schlesinger has always been a hawk. But in four decades of public life, the square-jawed former professor has also been known as mulishly independent, whether as Defense and Energy secretary or CIA director. (President Gerald Ford, annoyed by Schlesinger's arrogance, fired him.) All of which could add up to an unpleasant surprise for another old Washington lion who is not renowned for his humility: Donald Rumsfeld. In mid-August, the commission that Schlesinger chairs - handpicked by Rumsfeld from members of his own Defense Policy Board - is expected to issue its final report on abuses by U.S. interrogators stemming from the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal. NEWSWEEK has learned the Schlesinger panel is leaning toward the view that failures of command and control at the Pentagon helped create the climate in which the abuses occurred.
The four-member commission's report is still being drafted and its final conclusions are not yet definite. But there is strong sentiment to assign some responsibility up the line to senior civilian officials at the Pentagon, including Rumsfeld, several sources close to the discussions say. The Defense secretary is expected to be criticized, either explicitly or implicitly, for failing to provide adequate numbers of properly trained troops for detaining and interrogating captives in Afghanistan and Iraq. His office may also be rebuked for not setting clear interrogation rules and for neglecting to see that guidelines were followed. The commissioners "are taking an unvarnished look at the issue as a whole," said a source close to the commission. "A more extensive look than some people had initially thought they might take."
"Some people" includes Rumsfeld himself. The Defense secretary's original charter for the commission asked only for the Schlesinger team's "professional advice" and obliquely urged them to steer clear of "issues of personal accountability," which Rumsfeld said "will be resolved through established military justice and administrative procedures." (After Schlesinger argued about the charter language, Rumsfeld allowed that "any information you may develop will be welcome.") Rumsfeld also indicated that he expected members to spend most of their 45-day inquiry reviewing the findings of the other "procedures." These include five ongoing inquiries into abuses, none of which is designed to probe responsibility beyond the uniformed ranks.
But the commission quickly struck out on its own, recruiting 20 investigators and sending them as far afield as Afghanistan and Iraq. They also re-interviewed most of the principal players in the abuse scandal - including the commanders at Abu Ghraib, senior Pentagon civilians and Rumsfeld - and obtained classified material that even the Senate Armed Services Committee hasn't yet seen. Pentagon spokesman Joseph Yoswa said he had no comment on the forthcoming report.
As Schlesinger and his team rush to complete their draft report by Friday - the final version is expected Aug. 18 - participants say there's been a good amount of contention over how high to go and how tough to be. The central "philosophical debate," sources say, turns on whether Al Qaeda poses such a new challenge that the old rules of detention and interrogation are no longer adequate, or whether America should stick to its traditions and treaty obligations, even against an adversary that respects neither. Despite Schlesinger's willingness to criticize, to go "where the facts and information take them," as one source said, he tends to take the hawkish, this-is-a-new-war side. Arrayed with him is said to be commission director James Blackwell, a civilian contractor. On the traditionalist, Geneva side of the debate are former Defense secretary Harold Brown, a Democrat, and retired Air Force Gen. Charles Horner. At one point, Schlesinger argued that Geneva Conventions did not apply to Afghanistan because the Taliban were not "reciprocating." He backed off when Brown countered that U.S. legal and moral standards conform to Geneva in any case.
Rumsfeld has been widely criticized for paring down the occupation force for Iraq. Until now, however, that criticism has rarely extended to the prison-abuse issue. But some commissioners believe that the 800th Military Police Brigade, which ran the Iraqi prison system, was badly overstretched and not trained well for detention duty. Previously, the brigade's 372nd MP Company - the main culprit in the Abu Ghraib abuses - had served as traffic cops.
Some on the commission also believe that Rumsfeld and senior officials failed early on to set up clear, baseline rules for interrogations - an ethical "stop" sign, in a sense. This opened the way to abuse in an atmosphere in which President George W. Bush and senior officials were demanding that interrogators obtain better intel and were openly questioning the Geneva Conventions. The lack of direction from the top created confusion at Abu Ghraib and other prisons, according to testimony heard by the Schlesinger commission. Documents indicate that interrogation officials often undercut or ignored Army Field Manual 34-52, the standard doctrine setting interrogation guidelines in conformance with Geneva. One example is a classified assessment of Army detention operations in Iraq done in the late summer of 2003 - a copy of which was obtained by NEWSWEEK. While the author, the then Gitmo commander Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, refers at one point to "providing a humane environment," he does not mention Geneva protections or the field manual when he recommends that MPs "set conditions" for "successful exploitation of the internees."
The Schlesinger commission report is one of several slated for completion in the doldrums of mid-August, when few people are paying attention. But the report won't be the final word on abuse. The Senate Armed Services Committee will likely hold hearings in the fall, despite administration pressure on the chairman, Sen. John Warner, to wrap his investigation up quickly. And those hearings - with help from the Schlesinger team - could well determine how history will view Rumsfeld's tenure.
-------
Jump to TO Features for Monday August 2, 2004 | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2004 10:09 pm Post subject: Shocking prisoner abuses are revealed |
| http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=547708
Shocking prisoner abuses are revealed
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington and Nigel Morris
04 August 2004
Private England called to explain her 'bit of fun' on the Abu Ghraib night shift
Police seize 13 men in terror raids across UK
Leading article: The terrorist threat must never be politicised - even in a close presidential race
Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were subjected to Abu Ghraib-style torture and sexual humiliation in which they were stripped naked, forced to sodomise one another and taunted by naked female American soldiers, according to a new report.
Some of the abuse has been captured on videotape.
Based on the testimony of three former British prisoners who spoke with other detainees, the report details a brutal yet carefully choreographed regime at the US prison camp in which abuse was meted out in a manner judged to have the "maximum impact". Those prisoners with the most conservative Muslim backgrounds were the most likely to be subjected to sexual humiliation and abuse while those from westernised backgrounds were more likely to suffer solitary confinement and physical mistreatment.
In addition to the sexual and physical humiliation, the report based on testimony provided by Rhuhel Ahmed, Asif Iqbal and Safiq Rasul the so-called Tipton Three also details how prisoners had their religion mocked. "There was a clear policy to try to force people to abandon their religious faith," says one extract of the report, obtained by The Independent. The report also details how prisoners were injected with unknown drugs during interrogation sessions and were told they would only receive medicine if they co-operated with interrogators.
It was also reported that elsewhere in the report, Mr Ahmed claims he was questioned for three hours by a British interrogator claiming to be from the SAS while an American colleague held a gun to his head.
Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said last night: "These allegations make profoundly unpleasant reading. If they are true, they demonstrate a level of behaviour far short of what is acceptable. The American authorities said that the Geneva Conventions did not apply in Guantanamo Bay, but nevertheless they abide by their terms. It seems they have signally failed to do so and one can't help drawing a parallel with what happened at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad."
Five British prisoners were released without charge from Guantanamo Bay, on a US naval base on the south-east coast of Cuba, last March and freed within a day by the British authorities. Another four remain: Feroz Abbasi, Moazzam Begg, Martin Mubanga and Richard Belmar. Three UK residents, Bisher al-Rawi, Jamil al-Banna and Jamal Abdullah, are also there. It is understood that Mr Begg and Mr Abbasi, have been held in total isolation for more than a year.
The abuse detailed in the report, compiled by British and American lawyers and being released today in New York by the Centre for Constitutional Rights, is likely to trigger fresh outrage about the way the US military treats prisoners. Investigators are examining allegations of widespread abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prisoner west of Baghdad. Male prisoners were abused, tortured and sexually humiliated by their US guards. They are also investigating the deaths of several prisoners in US military custody.
One factor which links Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib is Gen Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of the Cuban prison who left to take charge of Abu Ghraib in August last year. Mr Miller reportedly told his staff in Iraq that his intention was to turn the prison into an intelligence hub and "Gitmoize" the operation (Guantanamo is known in the US as Gitmo).
The allegations in the report match those made by other released prisoners. This week the French newspaper Libération detailed claims by two French men who said they had been physically and sexually abused, urinated on and refused medical treatment. And in a sworn statement yesterday, Tarek Dergoul, another Briton, said he had been beaten, tied up "like a beast", sprayed with pepper gun and had his head forced down the toilet. He claimed the brutality was recorded on video. The Foreign Office said yesterday no allegations of ill-treatment had been passed to British officials when they visited inmates.
'I was tied up like a beast and beaten'
A British prisoner at Guantanamo Bay said yesterday that he was interrogated for up to 10 hours at a time while chained like a dog to a metal ring in the floor.
During his incarceration, Tareq Dergoul said that he had endured similar abuse and humiliation to that meted out to the Iraqi inmates of Baghdad's Abu Ghraib jail.
In a sworn statement, he said he had been beaten, tied up "like a beast", sprayed with a pepper gun and had his head forced down the lavatory. He said the brutality was recorded on video camera.
Mr Dergoul, from Mile End, east London, was picked up by US forces in Afghanistan where he says he had travelled to buy property. He was held in Guantanamo Bay for 22 months - including more than a year in the isolation block - before being released without charge.
He also said that he was stripped, subjected to a full body search and photographed while naked, given forcible injections, forced to lie on a metal bunk without bedding in freezing conditions, and refused medical treatment when suffering frostbite. He later had to have a big toe amputated. Mr Dergoul, 26, said he was put in solitary confinement for translating from English for other prisoners and that soldiers mocked the Koran, played loud music and forced him to look at pornographic magazines during interrogation. "If I refused a cell search, military police would call the extreme reaction force, who came in riot gear with plastic shields and pepper spray. The ERF entered the cell, ran in and pinned me down after spraying me and attacked me."
He said he had been told to sign a form admitting he was a member of al-Qa'ida, but had refused. His lawyer, Louise Christian, said he had been a victim of a systematic regime of abuse "directed and ordered by the top command".
BRITONS HELD AT CAMP DELTA
DETAINED
Feroz Abbasi, 23: Moved to Britain from Uganda aged eight. May have attended Finsbury Park mosque. Arrested in Afghanistan.
Moazzam Begg, 36: Ran a religious bookshop in Birmingham. Was arrested in Islamabad in February 2002, then moved to Cuba in February 2003.
Richard Belmar, 23: Held in Pakistan before being moved to Cuba. Worshipped at Regent's Park mosque, close to his home in Maida Vale, north London.
Martin Mubanga, 29: Has joint Zambian and British nationality. Lived in London. Was arrested in Zambia after reportedly arriving there from Afghanistan.
RELEASED
Asif Iqbal, 22: Parcel depot worker from Tipton. Picked up in Afghanistan. Family had suggested he go to Pakistan to meet a bride.
Shafiq Rasul, 24: Captured in Afghanistan. From Tipton. Travelled to Pakistan in 2001 for a computer course.
Rhuhel Ahmed, 21: Left for Pakistan in 2001 with Rasul and Iqbal to attend wedding. Held in Kandahar before being sent to Cuba.
Jamal al-Harith or Jamal Udeen 37: Web designer. Believed to have been captured in a Kandahar jail.
Tarek Dergoul, 24: Former east London care worker. Believed to have been sent to Cuba in May 2002.
Also in Politics
Terror laws used unfairly on Muslims, warn MPs
Ministers fund medical students with low grades
No-blame approach to bullies comes under attack
'Scrap unfair terror laws' parliamentarians tell Blunkett
Tories promise to remove 'failing' speed cameras | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
