War Without End

Alpha

Officials Clash on Roles at Prison
An Army general who investigated and a Pentagon intelligence undersecretary disagree over who was in charge when abuse occurred.

May 11, 2004

By Esther Schrader and Elizabeth Shogren,
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — The Army general who investigated abuse at a U.S. military prison in Iraq and a Pentagon official in charge of military intelligence disagreed sharply Tuesday over who controlled the prison when Iraqi war prisoners were stripped, humiliated and threatened with attack dogs.

Responding to questions for the first time since his secret report to Army officials became public, Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba told Congress that intelligence officials had taken authority from military police, whose job it was to guard prisoners. But Stephen A. Cambone, undersecretary of Defense for intelligence, said military police had remained in charge of handling detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

The hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee was seen as a key opportunity to clear up questions about the murky command structure over Abu Ghraib. Instead, lawmakers from both parties said they were left frustrated that the testimony did little to dispel the confusion surrounding the control over soldiers who committed the abuse.

"How do you expect the MPs to get it straight if we have a difference between the two of you?" asked Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).

Senior committee members said later that they would continue to investigate, holding additional hearings on whether officials higher up the chain of command — possibly at senior levels in the Pentagon — bear responsibility for the abuse, which has triggered an international scandal. Seven soldiers face criminal charges in connection with the abuse, and seven others have been reprimanded.

The scandal could widen this afternoon when hundreds of new photographs and some video images of the abuse and misconduct are shown to senators. Also today, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is scheduled to appear before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, where he is expected to face additional questions. Some members of Congress have called for his resignation over the abuse.

Taguba, a high-ranking Army official born in the Philippines who emerged from obscurity when the 6,000-page investigation report on the abuses at Abu Ghraib became public, also differed with Cambone over the overall import of the scandal. Taguba called the abuses outlined in his report "very grave." Cambone testified that he had not been convinced that the accusations against military intelligence personnel were very serious.

"I still don't know that there is a significant issue here," Cambone told the committee.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said after the hearing that the testimony raised questions about whether interrogation techniques approved by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who is in charge of U.S. ground forces in Iraq, complied with the Geneva Convention.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, deputy commander of the U.S. Central Command, testified that they complied, but he acknowledged in an interview after the hearing that Sanchez had permitted the use of muzzled dogs with prisoners in interrogation rooms and long-term isolation of some detainees at the prison.

In answer to a question from Levin, Taguba testified that coercive practices such as holding prisoners naked for long periods were systematic at Abu Ghraib.

"That doesn't square with the statements by the witnesses that the Geneva Convention provisions and principles were supposed to be followed ... since they don't allow for such practices," Levin said.

Also left unresolved were questions on the role of Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, who visited Iraqi prisons in September at Cambone's behest, shortly before the reported abuses took place. In the report from his visit, Miller suggested that military police become actively involved in "setting the conditions" to reap more intelligence from prisoner interrogations.

Cambone told the committee that Miller wanted to increase cooperation between interrogators and prison guards. He acknowledged that detainees at the detention facility at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, often referred to as "Gitmo," were not subject, according to U.S. government policy, to the norms of the Geneva Convention.

But Cambone said a suggestion in Miller's report that prison authorities "Gitmo-ize" Abu Ghraib referred only to Miller's desire to establish better order at the Iraq prison.

"With respect to the issue of Gitmo-izing, if I may return to that, Sen. Kennedy, let's go back to the conditions that were in Abu Ghraib," Cambone said. "They were disorderly, as the general just points out. And the notion, it seems to me, that Gen. Miller had was that order needed to be established in the processes and procedures."

Cambone said neither he nor his deputies authorized guards or interrogators to use extreme tactics, including sexual humiliation and intimidation.

Smith testified that Miller did not import the interrogation techniques employed at Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib without regard to international law. Miller made it clear, he said, that all prisoners were to be treated humanely.

"We were operating under the Geneva Conventions in Iraq," Smith said. "We clearly understood that."

Taguba told lawmakers that although he believed soldiers acted "of their own volition" in abusing prisoners, intelligence officers in charge of interrogations at the prison exerted influence over tactics adopted by the guards.

Involving military police in "setting the conditions" for interrogations violated Army regulations and could have created confusion among the MPs about their role, Taguba said.

"I think it was a matter of soldiers with their interaction with military intelligence personnel who they perceived or thought to be competent authority that were giving them or influencing their action to set the conditions for successful interrogations operations," Taguba said.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she was skeptical that the young guards would choose to inflict "bizarre sexual humiliations that were specifically designed to be particularly offensive to Muslim men." They would be more likely, she said, to beat them up. This made her suspicious that someone else directed them, she said.

"That really troubles me because it just doesn't — it implies too much knowledge of what would be particularly humiliating to these Muslim prisoners. And that is why even though I do not yet have the evidence, I cannot help but suspect that others were involved," Collins said.

In testimony to the committee, Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, the Army's deputy chief of staff, agreed with Collins' logic that the guards were told to abuse the prisoners in a certain way.

"That's really where we need to get to. Who told them to do this?" Alexander said. "And who was that individual? That is the key to all of this."

Taguba testified that his investigation did not turn up evidence that "top down" direction from Washington led to the abuses at the prison. But he said he was "puzzled" as to why knowledge of detainee abuse was not reported to senior-level commanders.

"It was apparent in our investigation that these things were happening, but we were puzzled also with the fact, sir, that none of this stuff was going above the battalion commander level," Taguba said. "And that's what we concluded, that none of this stuff was going above the battalion commander level."

Times staff writer Richard Simon contributed to this report.

Alpha

Looks like the Israeli association to the intelligence/torture is completely being white washed for Israel (read former Republican Congressman Paul Findley's 'They Dare to Speak Out' book to see why):

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=
3446

Israeli link possible in US torture techniques
By Ali Abunimah
Special to The Daily Star
Tuesday, May 11, 2004

In exchange for interrogation training, did Washington award security
contracts?

CHICAGO, Illinois: The head of the American defense contracting firm
implicated in the torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison has close ties to
Israel and visited an Israeli "anti-terror" training camp in the occupied
West Bank earlier this year.
Jack London, chairman, president and CEO of CACI International Incorporated,
traveled to Israel in January this year as part of a high-level delegation
of US Congressmen, defense contractors and pro-Israel lobbyists, sponsored
and paid for in part by the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah, a pro-Israel
lobbying and fundraising group, and Greenberg Traurig, LLP, a prominent
Washington law and lobby firm.

The purpose of the visit, according to a CACI press release, was "to promote
opportunities for strategic partnerships and joint ventures between US and
Israeli defense and homeland security companies."

As one of the highlights of the visit, London was presented with the Albert
Einstein Technology Award by Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz at a gala
dinner at Jerusalem city hall, for "achievements in the field of defense and
national security."

Delegates also spent several hours in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights with
Housing and Construction Minister Effie Eitam, a former Israeli general, who
is notorious for his view that Israel should "transfer" - that is, expel -
all the Palestinians.

According to the official itinerary for the Jan. 11-17 Defense Aerospace
Homeland Security Mission, obtained from the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah,
London's trip included a visit to Beit Horon, "the central training camp for
the anti-terrorist forces of the Israeli police and the border police," in
the occupied West Bank. The visitors were also "briefed by top experts," and
were able to "witness exercises related to anti-terror warfare."

Two CACI employees, Steven Stephanowicz and John Israel, were named in the
leaked report by US Major General Antonio M. Taguba on the abuses at Abu
Ghraib prison. Taguba wrote that Stephanowicz, a "contract US civilian
interrogator," "allowed and/or instructed MPs (military police), who were
not trained in interrogation techniques, to facilitate interrogations by
'setting conditions' which were neither authorized or in accordance with
applicable regulations/policy. He clearly knew his instructions equated to
physical abuse."

John Israel, an interpreter, did not have the appropriate security
clearance, according to Taguba.

Although Taguba recommended that Stephanowicz be terminated and his security
clearance revoked, a May 5 statement from CACI confirmed, "at present, all
CACI employees continue to work on site providing the contracted for
services to our clients in that location." It added: "We have not received
any information to stop any of our work, to terminate or suspend any of our
employees."

Although no evidence has emerged directly linking CACI's involvement in the
Abu Ghraib atrocities to Israel, it has long been known that the US military
has been interested in "learning" from Israel's experience attempting to
suppress the Palestinian uprising. In March 2003, for example, the AP
reported that the "the (US) military has been listening closely to Israeli
experts and picking up tips from years of Israeli Army operations in
Palestinian areas and Lebanese towns."

This cooperation has included briefings of US personnel by Israeli officers,
and, according to AP, "In January and February (2003), Israeli and American
troops trained together in southern Israel's Negev Desert ... Israel has
also hosted senior law enforcement officials from the United States for a
seminar on counterterrorism."

Meanwhile, more evidence has emerged undermining the US thesis that the
abuses at Abu Ghraib was the work of a "few bad apples." The Guardian
reported that the "sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib
prison was not an invention of maverick guards, but part of a system of
ill-treatment and degradation used by special forces soldiers that is now
being disseminated among ordinary troops and contractors."

This system, known to insiders as "R2I," short for resistance to
interrogation, also includes such methods as "hooding, sleep deprivation,
time disorientation and depriving prisoners not only of dignity, but of
fundamental human needs, such as warmth, water and food." These are all
techniques long employed by Israel.

The visit of the US delegation that included the CACI head exposes a
rarefied web of influence sharing in which US government officials and
congressmen, defense contractors and lobbyists parcel out huge contracts,
and siphon significant portions off to Israel.

As Batya Feldman of Israel's Globes financial news service put it, the visit
provided Israeli companies with "an excellent opportunity to encounter big
bucks in homeland security."

To help Israeli companies pry some of these "big bucks" loose, the visit
included seminars for Israeli companies given by US pro-Israel lobbyists
called "How to Approach the Homeland Security Department," and "How to Sell
to the US Defense Department."

Israeli participants would have had a chance to test the helpful tips, since
present on the trip were Assistant Secretary for Homeland SecurityRobert
Liscouski and many leading US legislators, including top members of the US
House and Senate Armed Services Committees, which jointly oversee tens of
billions of dollars in military spending.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israeli lessons for the US in Iraq

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C182D988-28E3-4D48-ADFC-F15D6509B0EC.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 10, 2004

The Israeli Torture Template
Rape, Feces and Urine-Dipped Cloth Sacks
By WAYNE MADSEN

With mounting evidence that a shadowy group of former Israeli Defense Force and General Security Service (Shin Bet) Arabic-speaking interrogators were hired by the Pentagon under a classified "carve out" sub-contract to brutally interrogate Iraqi prisoners at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, one only needs to examine the record of abuse of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners in Israel to understand what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld meant, when referring to new, yet to be released photos and videos, he said, "if these images are released to the public, obviously its going to make matters worse."

According to a political appointee within the Bush administration and U.S. intelligence sources, the interrogators at Abu Ghraib included a number of Arabic-speaking Israelis who also helped U.S. interrogators develop the "R2I" (Resistance to Interrogation) techniques. Many of the torture methods were developed by the Israelis over many years of interrogating Arab prisoners on the occupied West Bank and in Israel itself.

Clues about worse photos and videos of abuse may be found in Israeli files about similar abuse of Palestinian and other Arab prisoners. In March 2000, a lawyer for a Lebanese prisoner kidnapped in 1994 by the Israelis in Lebanon claimed that his client had been subjected to torture, including rape. The type of compensation offered by Rumsfeld in his testimony has its roots in cases of Israeli torture of Arabs. In the case of the Lebanese man, said to have been raped by his Israeli captors, his lawyer demanded compensation of $1.47 million. The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel documented the types of torture meted out on Arab prisoners. Many of the tactics coincide with those contained in the Taguba report: beatings and prolonged periods handcuffed to furniture. In an article in the December 1998 issue of The Progressive, Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb reported on the treatment given to a 23-year old Palestinian held on "administrative detention." The prisoner was "cuffed behind a chair 17 hours a day for 120 days . . . [he] had his head covered with a sack, which was often dipped in urine or feces. Guards played loud music right next to his ears and frequently taunted him with threats of physical and sexual violence." If additional photos and videos document such practices, the Bush administration and the American people have, indeed, "seen nothing yet."

Although it is still largely undocumented if any of the contractor named in the report of General Antonio Taguba were associated with the Israeli military or intelligence services, it is noteworthy that one, John Israel, who was identified in the report as being employed by both CACI International of Arlington, Virginia, and Titan, Inc., of San Diego, may not have even been a U.S. citizen. The Taguba report states that Israel did not have a security clearance, a requirement for employment as an interrogator for CACI. According to CACI's web site, "a Top Secret Clearance (TS) that is current and US citizenship" are required for CACI interrogators working in Iraq. In addition, CACI requires that its interrogators "have at least two years experience as a military policeman or similar type of law enforcement/intelligence agency whereby the individual utilized interviewing techniques."

Speculation that "John Israel" may be an intelligence cover name has fueled speculation whether this individual could have been one of a number of Israeli interrogators hired under a classified contract. Because U.S. citizenship and documentation thereof are requirements for a U.S. security clearance, Israeli citizens would not be permitted to hold a Top Secret clearance. However, dual U.S.-Israeli citizens could have satisfied Pentagon requirements that interrogators hold U.S. citizenship and a Top Secret clearance. Although the Taguba report refers twice to Israel as an employee of Titan, the company claims he is one of their sub-contractors. CACI stated that one of the men listed in the report "is not and never has been a CACI employee" without providing more detail. A U.S. intelligence source revealed that in the world of intelligence "carve out" subcontracts such confusion is often the case with "plausible deniability" being a foremost concern.

In fact, the Taguba report does reference the presence of non-U.S. and non-Iraqi interrogators at Abu Ghraib. The report states, "In general, US civilian contract personnel (Titan Corporation, CACI, etc), third country nationals, and local contractors do not appear to be properly supervised within the detention facility at Abu Ghraib."

The Pentagon is clearly concerned about the outing of the Taguba report and its references to CACI, Titan, and third country nationals, which could permanently damage U.S. relations with Arab and Islamic nations. The Pentagon's angst may explain why the Taguba report is classified Secret No Foreign Dissemination.

The leak of the Taguba report was so radioactive, Daniel R. Dunn, the Information Assurance Officer for Douglas Feith's Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Policy (Policy Automation Services Security Team), sent a May 6, 2004, For Official Use Only Urgent E-mail to Pentagon staffers stating, "THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT IS CLASSIFIED; DO NOT GO TO FOX NEWS TO READ OR OBTAIN A COPY." Considering Feith's close ties to the Israelis, such a reaction by his top computer security officer, a Certified Information System Security Professional (CISSP), is understandable, although considering the fact that CISSPs are to act on behalf of the public good, it is also regrettable..

The reference to "third country nationals" in a report that restricts its dissemination to U.S. coalition partners (Great Britain, Poland, Italy, etc.) is another indication of the possible involvement of Israelis in the interrogation of Iraqi prisoners. Knowledge that the U.S. may have been using Israeli interrogators could have severely fractured the Bush administration's tenuous "coalition of the willing' in Iraq. General Taguba's findings were transmitted to the Coalition Forces Land Component Command on March 9, 2004, just six days before the Spanish general election, one that the opposition anti-Iraq war Socialists won. The Spanish ultimately withdrew their forces from Iraq.

During his testimony before the Senate Armed Service Committee, Rumsfeld was pressed upon by Senator John McCain about the role of the private contractors in the interrogations and abuse. McCain asked Rumsfeld four pertinent questions, ". . . 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?"

When Rumsfeld had problems answering McCain's question, Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, the Deputy Commander of the U.S. Central Command, said there were 37 contract interrogators used in Abu Ghraib. The two named contractors, CACI and Titan, have close ties to the Israeli military and technology communities. Last January 14, after Provost Marshal General of the Army, Major General Donald Ryder, had already uncovered abuse at Abu Ghraib, CACI's President and CEO, Dr. J.P. (Jack) London was receiving the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah's Albert Einstein Technology award at the Jerusalem City Hall, with right-wing Likud politician Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism party Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski in attendance. Oddly, CACI waited until February 2 to publicly announce the award in a press release. CACI has also received grants from U.S.-Israeli bi-national foundations.

Titan also has had close connections to Israeli interests. After his stint as CIA Director, James Woolsey served as a Titan director. Woolsey is an architect of America's Iraq policy and the chief proponent of and lobbyist for Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. An adviser to the neo-conservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs, Project for the New American Century, Center for Security Policy, Freedom House, and Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, Woolsey is close to Stephen Cambone, the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, a key person in the chain of command who would have not only known about the torture tactics used by U.S. and Israeli interrogators in Iraq but who would have also approved them. Cambone was associated with the Project for the New American Century and is viewed as a member of Rumsfeld's neo-conservative "cabal" within the Pentagon.

Another person considered by Pentagon insiders to have been knowledgeable about the treatment of Iraqi prisoners is U.S. Army Col. Steven Bucci, a Green Beret and Rumsfeld's military assistant and chief traffic cop for the information flow to the Defense Secretary. According to Pentagon insiders, Bucci was involved in the direction of a special covert operations unit composed of former U.S. special operations personnel who answered to the Pentagon rather than the CIA's Special Activities Division, the agency's own paramilitary group. The Pentagon group included Arabic linguists and former members of the Green Berets and Delta Force who operated covertly in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan. Titan also uses linguists trained in the languages (Arabic, Dari, Farsi, Pashto, Urdu, and Tajik) of those same countries. It is not known if a link exists between Rumsfeld's covert operations unit and Titan's covert operations linguists.

Another Titan employee named in the Taguba report is Adel L. Nakhla. Nakhla is a name common among Egypt's Coptic Christian community, however, it is not known if Adel Nakhla is either an Egyptian-American or a national of Egypt. A CACI employee identified in the report, Steven Stephanowicz, is referred to as "Stefanowicz" in a number of articles on the prison abuse. Stefanowicz is the spelling used by Joe Ryan, another CACI employee assigned with Stefanowicz to Abu Ghraib. Ryan is a radio personality on KSTP, a conservative radio station in Minneapolis, who maintained a daily log of his activities in Iraq on the radio's web site before it was taken down. Ryan indicated that Stefanowicz (or Stephanowicz) continued to hold his interrogation job in Iraq even though General Taguba recommended he lose his security clearance and be terminated for the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

In an even more bizarre twist, the Philadelphia Daily News identified a former expatriate public relations specialist for the government of South Australia in Adelaide named Steve Stefanowicz as possibly being the same person identified in the Taguba report. In 2000, Stefanowicz, who grew up in the Philadelphia and Allentown areas, left for Australia. On September 16, 2001, he was quoted by the Sunday Mail of Adelaide on the 911 attacks. He said of the attacks, "It was one of the most incredible and most devastating things I have ever seen. I have been in constant contact with my family and friends in the US and the mood was very solemn and quiet. But this is progressing into anger." Stefanowicz returned to the United States and volunteered for the Navy in a reserve status. His mother told the Allentown Morning Call in April 2002 that Stefanowicz was stationed somewhere in the Middle East but did not know where because of what Stefanowicz said was "security concerns." His mother told the Philadelphia Daily News that her son was in Iraq but she knew nothing about his current status.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and columnist. He served in the National Security Agency (NSA) during the Reagan administration and wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the co-author, with John Stanton, of "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II." His forthcoming book is titled: "Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops, and Brass Plates."

Madsen can be reached at: WMadsen777@aol.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen05102004.html

Is Israel behind the orders for the tortures in Iraq?:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/05/09/is-israel-behind-the-orders-for-the-tortures-in-iraq.php

See the 'War Conceived in Israel' article which is linked under the map of 'greater Israel' after scrolling down to it on the left at the following URL:

http://www.nowarforisrael.com

http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html

Alpha

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/12/politics/12ABUS.html?ex=1084939200&en=468109a6a8d8a69b&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Rumsfeld Aide and a General Clash on Abuse

By ERIC SCHMITT

Published: May 12, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 11 — The Army general who first investigated abuses at
Abu Ghraib prison stood by his inquiry's finding that military police
officers should not have been involved in conditioning Iraqi detainees
for interrogation, even as a senior Pentagon civilian sitting next to
him at a Senate hearing on Tuesday disputed that conclusion.

The officer, Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, told the Senate Armed
Services Committee that it had been against the Army's doctrine for
another Army general to recommend last summer that military guards
"set the conditions" to help Army intelligence officers extract
information from prisoners. He also said an order last November from
the top American officer in Iraq effectively put the prison guards
under the command of the intelligence unit there.

But the civilian official, Stephen A. Cambone, the under secretary of
defense for intelligence, contradicted the general. He said that the
military police and the military intelligence unit at the prison
needed to work closely to gain as much intelligence as possible from
Iraqi prisoners to prevent attacks against American soldiers. Mr.
Cambone also said that General Taguba misinterpreted the November
order, which he said only put the intelligence unit in charge of the
prison facility, not of the military police guards.

While General Taguba depicted the abuses at the prison as the acts of
a few soldiers under a fragmented and inept command, he also said that
"they were probably influenced by others, if not necessarily directed
specifically by others." His report called for an inquiry into the
culpability of intelligence officers, which is still under way.

The unusual public sparring between a two-star Army general and one of
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's most trusted aides cast a
spotlight on the confusing conditions at the prison last fall when the
worst abuses occurred, as well as the sensitive issue of whether the
Pentagon's thirst for better intelligence to combat Iraqi insurgents
contributed to the climate there.

"How do you expect the M.P.'s to get it straight if we have a
difference between the two of you?" said Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
Democrat of Massachusetts.

Alpha

General Asserts She Was Overruled on Prison Moves

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19081-2004May11?language=printer

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Josh White

Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 12, 2004; Page A01 The U.S. general 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.

Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski, head of the 800th Military Police Brigade, 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.

Karpinski 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.

Each man contests portions of her account, which appears in the classified annex to the Army's internal probe into the abuse and torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. Her account was described by a U.S. government official to The Washington Post and confirmed by her attorney.

Karpinski's account surfaced on the same day another officer accused by the Army of wrongdoing in the scandal, Lt. Col. Jerry L. Phillabaum, released an official rebuttal stating that Abu Ghraib perpetually lacked key resources and personnel, and that the leadership above him was almost entirely unresponsive to his requests for help.

Phillabaum wrote that military police assigned to the prison were not properly trained in the Geneva Conventions or detention operations, but that training alone would not have prevented the abuses, which he said were committed by a few soldiers.

He also said that in one instance, a female guard under his command took "vigilante justice" -- using physical force against a male prisoner who she believed had assaulted Jessica Lynch, an Army private captured by Iraqi soldiers and later rescued by U.S. troops during the war.

Karpinski said the decision about transferring control of the prison to military intelligence officials was broached at a September 2003 meeting with Miller, who was then in charge of the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, known colloquially as "Gitmo." Miller had come to Iraq at the insistence of top political officials in the Pentagon, who were frustrated by the meager intelligence coming from prisoners. Two weeks ago, he was appointed to reform the U.S.-run prisons in Iraq.

Karpinski, the first female general officer to lead U.S. soldiers in combat, was a beleaguered field commander trying to cope with what she and others have described as constantly shifting assignments, poor living conditions and near-daily mortar attacks on Abu Ghraib.

Karpinski recalled that Miller told her he wanted to "Gitmo-ize" the prison -- a concept that critics have said opened the door to the use of aggressive interrogation techniques suited to loosening the tongues of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo, not Iraqis in a common jail. Miller said through a military spokesman yesterday that he does not recall using the word "Gitmo-ize."

Undersecretary of Defense Stephen A. Cambone said yesterday at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that the concept has been misunderstood, and that all the Pentagon had in mind was "a cooperative attitude, team-building, call it what you will, between" intelligence interrogators and military police to produce more and better information.

According to Karpinski's account, the surrender of authority to military intelligence did not go over easily. "This prison is not mine to give you," she said she told Miller. He responded, according to Karpinski's account: "You own the MP's [military police] and you supply them." Karpinski replied that "it belongs to the CPA," or Coalition Provisional Authority.

Then, she told investigators, Miller said to her, "We will do this my way or the hard way," and asked that the room be cleared so the two were alone.

He then said, according to Karpinski's account: "I have permission to take any facility I want from General Sanchez. We are going to get Military Intelligence procedures in place in that facility because the Military Intelligence isn't getting the information from these detainees that they should. . . . We are going to send MP's in here who know how to handle interrogation."

Miller said through a military spokesman that he never made those comments, but he did not provide his own account of the meeting.

Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who conducted the Army's internal probe of the abuses from mid-January to the end of February, said in his report that the shift of responsibility, which was formalized on Nov. 19, 2003, produced "clear friction and a lack of effective communication" between commanders.

As a result, he said, "coordination occurred at the lowest possible levels with little oversight by commanders." Taguba also concluded that having a military intelligence officer in command of military police units in charge of running a prison was "not doctrinally sound due to the different missions and agenda assigned to each of these respective specialties."

With regard to the use of lethal force to keep order at Abu Ghraib, the International Committee of the Red Cross, in a private February 2004 report given to Sanchez, said that military police had repeatedly engaged in "excessive and disproportionate use of force against persons deprived of their liberty, resulting in death or injury."

The ICRC said this was a violation of the Geneva Conventions, making it a war crime.

According to Karpinski's account, it was Sanchez who decided in November 2003 to loosen the military's rules of engagement so that the guards would be freer to use lethal force at the outset of any disturbance. His decision came in a meeting with Karpinski that both officers recall, but Sanchez -- who was asked to comment by The Post -- yesterday gave a different account.

The backdrop for their discussion was a riot at Abu Ghraib on the afternoon of Nov. 24, organized by prisoners distressed at the lack of proper food and clothing, their isolation from any family contact and their indeterminate detentions. In the melee, nine U.S. soldiers were injured, three detainees were killed by military police and nine other detainees were wounded.

"It was raining rocks and boulders," said Sgt. William Savage Jr., 41, who was assigned to a guard tower. "It was unreal," he said in an interview with The Post. "I had never seen anything like that before. It was so out of control that we had to use regular rounds" and not just rubber bullets.

On the same day, a military police officer was inadvertently shot when guards learned that a detainee had a pistol in his cell and an "ad-hoc extraction team" of military police and intelligence officials searched for it, according to Taguba's report. He ruled that inadequate procedures, ineffective rules of engagement, poor training and an unclear relationship between the two types of personnel contributed to the incident.

Karpinski told Taguba that Sanchez expressed disappointment to her that the guard force had not used lethal firepower from the outset to put down the riot. She said yesterday through her lawyer that Sanchez said, "I'm tired of this MP mentality; I want them to shoot first and use nonlethal force later."

Karpinski told Taguba that she had objected, saying that it would violate the rules of engagement for military police, which require using lethal force only after trying other methods and obtaining command approval. She also said it would be dangerous for police to carry weapons with lethal ammunition among inmates, according to her account.

She said Sanchez told her in the presence of a military lawyer that "I don't care about the rules of engagement," and went on say, "If the rules of engagement are a problem, then change them." According to her account, a Sanchez deputy attending the meeting told her: "There isn't any difference if they are throwing rocks or MRE's [Meals Ready to Eat]. They are armed. Use lethal force."

Sanchez, through a spokesman at U.S. military headquarters in Baghdad yesterday, denied saying he did not care about the rules of engagement, and said the point of the conversation was to correct Karpinski's misunderstanding that the rule of "graduated response" required military police to put rubber bullets in their weapons and use those first. Sanchez advised her that the police could put deadly ammunition in their weapons and use it from the outset, the spokesman said.

"They changed their rules of engagement, I believe four times, to use lethal, and then, to nonlethal, [and] to lethal force based on the level of the events," Taguba testified yesterday, referring to the U.S. military command in Iraq. "I believe the last time they changed that rules of engagement . . . was in November of last year. That's contained in one of the annexes that we have."

Col. Marc Warren, a senior legal adviser to Sanchez, said the shift in question "was a clarification to ensure that soldiers knew that when threatened with serious bodily harm or loss of life, that you could immediately use deadly force" instead of following "the general policy that we use graduated force and use deadly force only as a last resort."

In its February report, the Red Cross said 23 detainees had been shot during disturbances or attempted escapes at Abu Ghraib and two other U.S.-run prisons in Iraq between May and November 2003. It said that "non-lethal measures could have been used to obtain the same results and quell the demonstrations or neutralize persons. . . . Since the beginning of the conflict, the ICRC has regularly brought its concerns to the attention" of the U.S. force in Iraq.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Alpha

Here is the Uncensored copy of General Taguba's report:

May 5, 2004
US Army Report on Iraqi Prisoner Abuse

HEARING

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2479

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOSSAD AGENTS INVOLVED IN IRAQ PRISON ABUSE

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/the-americas/2004/05/06/mossad-agents-involved-in-iraq-prison-abuse.php

Alpha · Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 12:16 pm Post subject: Not Just Following Orders

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19189-2004May11?language=printer

washingtonpost.com

Not Just Following Orders
I'm ashamed of the unit I once commanded. By James D. Villa

Wednesday, May 12, 2004; Page A23 From 1989 to 1992 I commanded the 372nd MP Company, the Army Reserve unit from Cumberland, Md., that is at the center of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. In the years since then, I've had an enduring affection for the unit and those who serve in it. Today what I feel is a sort of sickness, and shame at having been affiliated with the 372nd.

With congressional, military and independent investigations in the offing, there are many things about the incidents at Abu Ghraib that we do not know. Given the involvement of military intelligence issues, there are many critical things that we may never know. But there are a few conclusions we can certainly draw.

These actions were the result of huge command failures. The senior person charged thus far is Ivan L. Frederick, a staff sergeant. In an MP company, a person of his rank is normally placed in charge of a squad of 11 soldiers. I refuse to believe that no leader above Frederick was aware of or complicit in the abuses that were apparently widespread throughout the prison. While certain officers were relieved of their commands and other leaders were given letters of reprimand, the failure of unit leaders, from company to brigade, is stunning.

The 372nd has approximately 150 soldiers and is divided into five platoons, four of which consist of MPs. The company commander is directly responsible for all actions taken by his soldiers, or those that they fail to take. The 372nd's commander and the relevant platoon leader either knew or should have known of the actions of their subordinates, as should have their noncommissioned officers. All these leaders failed in their most basic responsibilities of supervising their soldiers in the performance of their duties.

Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski, commander of the 800th MP Brigade, which ran the prison, has spent most of the past week on television telling the same story: that she never knew about this, that her MPs were working for military intelligence people, that she was not to blame. Had she spent as much time leading her troops as she apparently has preparing for appearances on MSNBC (with her lawyer in tow), the Army might have stemmed these incidents early on. I was taught in ROTC that a leader is responsible for what his or her unit does or fails to do. I was also taught that a leader takes responsibility for his or her soldiers. Either by commission or omission, Karpinski and her chain of command have failed those soldiers in her brigade and, ultimately, this country.

The soldiers in question are nonetheless culpable for their own actions. The 372nd is a combat support company. That is to say, it is a unit designed to provide area security, law enforcement and battlefield circulation control operations. It is highly mobile and has a significant amount of indigenous firepower. Like all MPs, the soldiers in the 372nd have received basic instruction on handling enemy prisoners of war. The most essential instruction regarding prisoners is the "Five S's": search, segregate, silence, safeguard and speed to the rear. These simple directions clearly state that an MP must ensure that a prisoner is disarmed and, once rendered harmless, protected as a noncombatant and moved back for processing. While serving in Kuwait in the 1991 Gulf War, my soldiers took Iraqi prisoners, and our responsibility was to safely transport them to camps in Saudi Arabia and protect them from vengeful Kuwaitis. This is a basic function of an MP unit on the battlefield.

Various people, including the families of some of the soldiers in question, have said that the soldiers were not given appropriate training to run a detention facility and had inadequate support to do their jobs. While these statements may be true, in what Army field manual can one locate the section about stacking naked prisoners like cordwood, or affixing collars to their necks? Is special training needed to show a soldier that this sort of thing is contemptible and contrary to any standards of decency?

Further, it is no defense for MPs to claim that they were only following orders, that they were instructed to "soften up" prisoners to enhance subsequent interrogations. While battlefield intelligence gleaned from interrogations may prove invaluable and can save American lives, no officer, no sergeant, has the authority to direct a soldier to commit an atrocity or to violate the Geneva Conventions. While soldiers in a combat environment may face split-second decisions involving difficult moral choices, such was not the case here. We are confronted with picture after picture, story upon story, detailing systematic abuse and degradation by American MPs. We have a right to expect more from our military.

Those serving in Iraq, including the many reservists and National Guardsmen, deserve our respect and admiration. The men and women of our military who are serving in Iraq do so under terrible circumstances. They live each day with fear and danger, far from their families, deprived of the basic comforts of life. Their families suffer for their absence every day and each milestone missed -- a child's graduation, an anniversary, a loved one's birthday -- can never be reclaimed.

To minimize the egregious conduct of some members of the 372nd (and their superiors) dishonors those men and women who honorably serve their country. We must not, as some commentators have said, deem this to be soldiers "blowing off steam" and equate it to a fraternity initiation. To me, that sort of response dishonors those who strive each day to serve their fellow soldiers and complete their missions -- and who risk their lives to do so. A failure to condemn what is wrong is also a failure to recognize what is right -- and what our committed military men and women do around the world each day. Further, minimizing the conduct of these MPs by comparing it to the reckless and violent acts of the Iraqi insurgents is wholly beside the point. We must compare our actions to those of the men and women who have honorably served this country as soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen. We must look to them, and to our own standards of conduct, and not to people who would wantonly kill and terrorize innocents. If our claim is merely that we are better than the terrorists, we leave a tenuous legacy for a budding democracy in Iraq.

The 372nd has a distinguished record, having been in both the Gulf War and in Bosnia. The soldiers with whom I served were some of the most dedicated and talented military people I know. Though they came from various backgrounds, they shared the common values of service to their country, community and fellow soldiers. I have always been proud to have served with them. The acts committed at Abu Ghraib have disgraced all of us. I hope that corrective action by the Army and appropriate punishment for those guilty will help restore the pride that the 372nd and the MP Corps have earned.

The writer is an attorney with the federal government in Washington.

foppe37 · Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 2:20 pm Post subject: scapegoat

As usual, after nasty facts emerge, nobody is responsible.

But one fact remains, the USA is responsible.

The USA oversight of digital camera's and internet is one of the USA's colossal blunders. The girl interviewed right now on BBCW, she's the one with a naked Iraqi on a leash, in my opinion should employed in a supermarket.
I suppose this girl reflects the fact that the USA's brave soldiers are paid so badly that their wives at home now must apply for charity, and also for the fact (I assume it's true) that from the 138.000 USA soldiers in Iraq nearly 38.000 do not have the USA nationality.

As a Dutch commentator stated, the first Dutch soldier in Iraq was killed, 'now that emerges how the USA treats Iraqi prisoners more and more Dutch feel uncomfortable about our military presence in Iraq'.

According to a poll yesterday 58% of the Dutch want our troops witdrawn.

The USA is great in making enemies, and losing allies.

And after all this, when an American is killed, after the USA refused to swap him for Iraqi prisoners, a USA senator has the audacity to talk about 'barbarians'.

Alpha

http://www.antiwar.com/justin

Who is John Israel?
He could be one of the secret masterminds behind the Abu Ghraib outrage

The blithering, the blathering, the pontification, and the grandstanding – that about describes the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on the Abu Ghraib filth-fest. The Democrats were so hot to link Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld directly to the scandal, and the Republicans were so busy defending their man (and the war) that neither bothered much to mention the key culprits, as identified in the Taguba report:
"I find that there is sufficient credible information to warrant an Inquiry UP Procedure 15, AR 381-10, U.S. Army Intelligence Activities, be conducted to determine the extent of culpability of M[ilitary] I[intelligence] personnel, assigned to the 205th MI Brigade and the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) at Abu Ghraib (BCCF). Specifically, I suspect that COL Thomas M. Pappas, LTC Steve L. Jordan, Mr. Steven Stephanowicz [sic], and Mr. John Israel were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib (BCCF) and strongly recommend immediate disciplinary action as described in the preceding paragraphs as well as the initiation of a Procedure 15 Inquiry to determine the full extent of their culpability."
Even when General Taguba went up to Capitol Hill and testified, along with the shifty-eyed undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Stephen A. Cambone, the senators spent so much time listening to the sound of their own voices, and scoring brownie points off one another, that the subject of the "private" contractors and the intelligence community's involvement in all this only came up briefly, like lightning illuminating a cloud-clogged sky.
It came up at the start of the hearing, but Senator John Warner, who even looks like a hawk – the beakish nose, the hooded eyes, the predatory glint in his eye – approached the subject gingerly:
SEN. WARNER: "I ask the same question to you. In simple laymen's language, so it can be understood, what do you think went wrong, in terms of the failure of discipline and the failure of this interrogation process to be consistent with known regulations, national and international? And also, to what extent do you have knowledge of any participation by other than U.S. military, namely Central Intelligence Agency and/or contractors, in the performance of the interrogations?"
GEN. TAGUBA: "Sir, as far as your last question, I'll answer that first. The comments about participation of other government agencies or contractors were related to us through interviews that we conducted. It was related to our examination of written statements and, of course, some other records. With regards to your first question, sir, there was a failure of leadership..."
The media has focused on this last phrase, probably because it not only seems to indict Rumsfeld but also because it's a made-to-order headline. But the first part of Taguba's answer is the most pertinent. Warner, obviously not eager to have the general go into detail in public, then answered his own question, referring to the over 1,000 pages of documentation submitted to the committee. In short, the answer to the senator's question was clearly yes, and the details were to be found in the classified documents that only members of the committee and other privileged characters would read.
So they blithered, and they blathered, and struck poses, and not until it came Senator Daniel K. Akaka's turn was any further light shed on the dark corners of this investigation. The Hawaii Democrat looked affable enough, and he was smiling, but his questions, when they came, cut straight to the heart of the matter:
SENATOR AKAKA: "General Taguba, in your report you reference the lack of supervision over U.S. civilian contractor personnel, third country nationals and local contractors within the detention facility at Abu Ghraib. During your investigation, did you determine how many civilian contract personnel were working there? Who supervised these individuals? And can you describe what you observed in terms of type of access these individuals had to the detainee areas?"
GEN. TAGUBA: "Sir, we did not make a determination of how many civilian contractors were assigned to the 205th MI Brigade and operating at Abu Ghraib. I personally interviewed a translator and I also personally interviewed an interrogator, both civilians, contractors. There was also a statement, and substantiated by the witnesses that we interviewed, of another translator, a third-country national in fact, that was involved. And there was another third- country national who was acting as a translator for the interrogators that was involved in one of the interrogation incidents where dogs were used. Their supervision, sir, from the best that we could determine or discern from the information that we gathered, was they were under the supervision of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center, the JIDC, who is then under the supervision of one, a lieutenant colonel, who was also supervised by the brigade commander, the MI brigade commander. That was the chain, sir."
Third country nationals, eh? So what third country are we talking about? Britain? Canada, perhaps? I guess we can probably rule out Monaco.
The only translator identified in the Taguba report is John Israel, supposedly a "contract translator" employed by the Titan Corp. Mr. Israel is furthermore described as not having a security clearance, an unusual condition for someone in his position – unless, of course, he's not an American, in which case it would be perfectly understandable.
So far, very interesting. But then it got even more interesting:
SEN. AKAKA: "General Taguba, your report finds that two contractors were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Were either of these contracted personnel supervising soldiers or in a position to direct soldiers to take specific actions?"
GEN. TAGUBA: "Sir, they were not in any way supervising any soldiers, MP or otherwise. However, the guards, those who were involved, looked at them as competent authority as in the manner by which they described them, as the MI or by name or by function."
A reasonable interpretation of Taguba's somewhat garbled answer is that, yes, the MPs and soldiers who committed sadistic outrages against detainees acted under the influence and at the instigation of those they believed to be intelligence officers, some of whom were "third country nationals."
Senator Akaka follows up with a question for Secretary Cambone: "What kind of training," he wanted to know, "did the U.S. civilian contractors have prior to going to Iraq?"
The look on Cambone's face made the whole dreary procedure worth it, I thought his eyebrows were going to fly right off.
It is no secret that the Israelis have been "advising" the Americans on how to run the occupation: after all, they have so much experience in the matter, and are more than eager to impart their hard-won expertise. The methods employed by Israeli security forces are quite different from those utilized by the U.S. military: the use of "limited" torture is okay by them, and the Palestinians are no strangers to the sort of treatment meted out to the inmates at Abu Ghraib. So when Senator Akaka asked Cambone what kind of training the contractors had received, my first thought was: The very best!
The Mossad is rightly feared throughout the Middle East, and the world, as the most ruthless (and daring) intelligence agency of them all. Only the KGB ever rivaled its reputation. That they would not hesitate to employ the sort of interrogation methods used to "soften up" the prisoners of Abu Ghraib is beyond dispute: just ask the Palestinians – and Human Rights Watch. That we have imported them, along with their methods, into Iraq seems altogether likely.
But, hey, wait a minute, how is it that American soldiers were taking orders from civilian contractors, never mind "third country nationals"? Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) cleared that up when he put the question to Taguba pointblank:
SEN. GRAHAM: "Part of the defense that we're going to be hearing about in these court martials is that the people that we're charging are going to say this system that we see photographic evidence of, was at least encouraged if not directed by others. Do you think that's an accurate statement?"
GEN. TAGUBA: "Sir, I would say that they were probably influenced by others –"
SEN. GRAHAM: "Okay –"
GEN. TAGUBA: " – if not necessarily directed specifically by others."
As U.S. and, in all likelihood, Israeli intelligence officers looked on approvingly, Trailer-Park Lynndie and her ex-prison guard boyfriend, with the active collaboration of the other MPs, systematically abused and degraded the inmates. So much of this nightmare scenario – the hooded prisoners forced to engage in behavior looked on with utter horror in Muslim society – seems like such a gift to Osama bin Laden that the revelation of Israeli involvement gives the whole affair a surreal quality.
For the role of CIA overseer, I nominate Steven Stefanowicz, the 34-year-old ex-Navy reservist, now a civilian interrogator supposedly employed by CACI International, who emigrated to Australia, before 9/11, and worked in "information technology" in the city of Adelaide, where – he says – he became engaged to be married. As detailed in my last column, Stefanowicz alleges he underwent a transformation after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and returned to the U.S. determined to get in on the fight, though in what capacity was never quite clear. Now it turns out he had bragged to his friends that he had joined the CIA, according to a piece in the Philadelphia Daily News:
"The Philadelphia-area native at the center of the Iraq torture scandal has reportedly told friends he wants to get out of there right away and return to Australia, where he claimed three years ago he was joining the CIA. 'It's safe to say I've seen enough for a lifetime here in Iraq, and it's definitely time to come home,' Steve Stefanowicz reportedly said in an e-mail to a friend in the southern Australian city of Adelaide. He apparently meant Adelaide and not Telford, the Montgomery County, Pa., suburb where he was reared.
"Meanwhile, another Australian friend told the Daily News in an e-mail that in fall 2001 'Steve announced to all of his friends that he was leaving Adelaide to return to America to work for the Central Intelligence Agency.'"
Alas, the Australians don't seem all that eager to have him. Justice Minister Chris Ellison said Stefanowicz "would not be welcome in Australia," according to the Herald Sun newspaper:
"'We do not hold Australia out as a haven for anyone who has broken the law and is trying to evade it,' Senator Ellison said. He said he was not aware of the details of the case but Australia would be prepared to help the U.S. in any investigation into Mr. Stefanowicz. 'We would receive any request for assistance sympathetically,' he said."
Yeah, well if I were Senator Ellison I wouldn't hold my breath. This is one refugee from the law that many in Washington would just as soon see the back of. The same goes for the mysterious John Israel, about whom next to nothing is known – except that, according to the London Telegraph,
"Mr. Israel has left Iraq while Mr. Stefanowicz is 'on leave' pending inquiries that could lead to criminal charges being brought against them."
Mr. Israel has skipped town for parts unknown, and Stefanowicz is trying to get to Australia, where he supposedly is going to marry a woman he describes as his fiancée. Except that she isn't. This news story describes Joanna Buttfield as an "former girlfriend" coming to Stefanowicz's defense. Another Australian account also refers to their relationship in the past tense, and cites this very interesting tidbit from Ms. Buttfield:
"Mr. Stefanowicz had refused to discuss details of his life as a U.S. Army reservist, she said. 'We both made a conscious decision not to talk about it because there was so much he couldn't talk about,' she said. 'It was the source of some frustration. He'd say, 'I can't talk about that'."
For a CIA guy, however, he sure sounds like a bit of a loser, and not exactly low-profile. His Australian friends are coming out of the woodwork, and talking to the newspapers:
"'The events of 9/11 had nothing to do with his motivation to return to the U.S. ,' South Philadelphia native Sam Krupsky, now an executive with the Australian Rail Track Corp., wrote [to the Philadelphia Daily News]. "He was out of work and out of luck, and left because he had no prospects here.'
"…Krupsky, the Australian rail-track worker who was born in Philadelphia and who moved to Adelaide in the mid-1970s to play semi-pro basketball, cast doubt on Stefanowicz's skills. 'Steve tried hard for a couple of months to find a job here, but was always unsuccessful because he kept freaking out all of his potential employers,' Krupsky wrote. He said Stefanowicz had boasted to friends on his arrival in Australia that he'd turned down a job offer from the CIA."
After 9/11, did he take them up on their offer – and proceed to "freak out" his new employers to a degree that not even the catty Krupsky could have imagined?
If Stefanowicz is employed by the CIA, then he certainly didn't try to keep it very secret. He was very visible, even prior to his notoriety, due to the efforts of his mother who founded a chapter of the Blue Star Mothers in their home town, and was featured on the DoD's "Defend America" website, invoking her son as a kind of patriotic model. In the wake of the scandal, a number of accounts have been published of his early history and the course of his career, both here and in Australia. We know he graduated from Souderton Area High School in 1988, and that, in 1998, he joined a Naval Reserve program. We also know that, for whatever reason, after 9/11 he quit his job in Australia as an "information technology recruiter" and went back to the U.S., where he volunteered for active duty. The Washington Post reports that "he served in Muscat, Oman, for most of 2002, and his rank is listed as intelligence specialist 3rd class. Stefanowicz, who received a number of military awards, including a medal for meritorious service, left his last post, at Willow Grove, Pa., last September." Friends of the family say he became a civilian to take a job with CACI. Of the key role Stefanowicz played in the torture chambers of Abu Ghraib, the Taguba report is unequivocal. According to General Taguba, Stefanowicz:
"Allowed and/or instructed MPs, who were not trained in interrogation techniques, to facilitate interrogations by 'setting conditions' which were neither authorized and in accordance with applicable regulations/policy. He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse."
However, the General gets a bit murky when it comes to detailing the specifics against John Israel, who, in addition to not having a security clearance, is found to have
"Denied ever having seen interrogation processes in violation of the IROE, which is contrary to several witness statements."
And that is it.
While we know plenty about Stefanowicz, what's extremely odd is that nothing comparable has come out about the other civilian contractor named by General Taguba as having "direct or indirect" responsibility for the Abu Ghraib house of horrors. We don't know how old "John Israel" is, where he lives, where he was born, or what he looks like – nothing.
We don't even know where he is. All we know is that, according to the Telegraph, he's flown the coop. Gee, I'll bet Army Specialist Jeremy Sivits, who faces court martial, a stiff jail sentence, and worldwide calumny as the "torturer of Abu Ghraib," wishes he could do the same.
If the Israelis are involved in this maelstrom of evil to some extent, then the U.S. is taking the fall for them. Just as Sivits and the others are taking the fall for the intelligence officers who directed the Abu Ghraib horror show – and are so far getting away with reprimands, and relative anonymity.
– Justin Raimondo

NEOCON PENTAGON OFFICIAL CLASHES WITH GENERAL TAGUBA:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/05/12/officials-clash-on-roles-at-iraq-prison.php

Alpha · Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 7:29 pm Post subject: Re: scapegoat

foppe37 · Posted: Thu May 13, 2004 5:09 am Post subject: tribal mentality

After seeing and hearing USA senators just now declare that 'they expected the worst, when seeing new evidence of torture, but what they saw was many times worse', my idea is, if it's true that Israeli's instructed the USA soldiers, that Israel forgot that most USA soldiers are not Jews.

Jews, in any case (some ?) of the Asjkenazi Jews, are used to secrecy on tribal criminality.
I must add what in a tribe notions like 'crime', 'guilt', 'truth', have a different meaning.
Truth in a tribe is what the chief says is true.
'Crimes' to outsiders are not crimes, in the tribe itself.
If one tribe member is accused of wrongdoing, the whole tribe feels attacked.

They forgot that Americans have been indoctrinated by other values.
So the simple USA soldiers sent the pictures of their jobs home, proud on what they did, orders.

As Jewish USA citizen answered me, when I asked him why USA citizens accept all the nonsense their government tells them: 'because they never learned to think for themselves'.

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

Officials Clash on Roles at Iraq Prison