| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 12:25 am Post subject: FW: JDL Terrorists Threaten La Voz de Aztlan |
| Subj: FW: JDL Terrorists Threaten La Voz de Aztlan
Date: 5/31/04 4:25:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Interesting reference to the Mossad agents at Abu Graib.
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
-----Original Message-----
JDL Terrorists Threaten La Voz de Aztlan
by LA VOZ DE AZTLAN
We received yet another from the outlawed terrorist Jewish gang by the
name of Jewish Defense League - Southern California District. The below
threat had the following return e-mail address JDL SD/CA HYPERLINK
"mailto:jdlsdca@msn.com"jdlsdca@msn.com
Our readership, who have been with us since our premier issue was
published on January 1, 2000, are well aware of the numerous threats and
extensive efforts by Jewish organizations in the USA and in the Zionist
state of Israel to silence our news publication.
This threat may be a consequence of others that we received from the
Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles and from
Tamar Galatzan of the ADL of B'nai B'rith when she wrote , "We're going
to keep an eye on him" that referred to our publisher. The threat was
made soon after our Editor-in-Chief , Ernesto Cienfuegos wrote, "How
journalists are censored!" that is published at HYPERLINK
"http://aztlan.net/censored.htm"http://aztlan.net/censored.htm
We believe that the below threat is to keep us from writing and
publishing information we have that implicates Jewish involvement in the
Abu Ghraib prison sexual scandals.
We have reliable information that three of the individuals identified by
General Antonio M. Taguba in the Abu Ghraib prison sexual abuses are
Mossad agents working under cover of Pentagon "interrogation"
contractors.
These characters have a lot of practice with the Palestinians and they
were in Iraq to teach the US Military Police. The Mossad agents had such
influence that they even ordered Brigadier General Janis Karpinski to
"stay out" of the Abu Ghraib prison cell where the torture of the Iraqi
POW's took place.
The threat received by our news service follows --
Cienfuegos,
I will re-state what I e-mailed you last week. Your site’s blatant
anti-Semitism, it will not be tolerated! If your words cause negative
action and you scream fire in a crowded theater, a response will be in
order. .We at the Southern California District of the Jewish Defense
League just drew the line. Dare not cross it!
Jimbo…
Shalom
Never Again !!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
La Voz de Aztlan
HYPERLINK
"http://www.aztlan.net/new_threat.htm"http://www.aztlan.net/new_threat.h
tm
<> LA VOZ DE AZTLAN NEWS BULLETIN <>
<>.<>.<> Los Angeles, Alta California -- May 7, 2004
Jewish Terrorists Threaten La Voz de Aztlan Again
____________________________________________________
HYPERLINK "http://www.incredimail.com/redir.asp?ad_id=309&lang=9"
IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - HYPERLINK
"http://www.incredimail.com/redir.asp?ad_id=309&lang=9"Click Here
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/2004
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
Click Here!
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Houston Coalition for Justice Not War meets every first and third Monday of the month at 7:00 pm. at the HPJC, in Ecclesia, 2115 Taft. See our website for latest details: www.houstonjusticenotwar.org
Progressive Workers' Organizing Committee meets in Dickinson, TX s every other Wednesday (info: (832) 498-5795 /(281) 534-7638
NION-Houston meets every second and fourth Thursday night at 7:30 p at the Olive Branch room behind the Maryknoll House.
For info on Houston Global Awareness Collective browse to: www.h-gac.org
------------------
To unsubscribe send a blank email message to notinourname-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/notinourname/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
notinourname-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 7:51 pm Post subject: MP's Lawyer: Translator Gave Orders |
| 6/2/2004
Leon Worden City Editor
http://www.the-signal.com/News/ViewStory.asp?storyID=4769
MP's Lawyer: Translator Gave Orders
Attorneys for guards charged with abuse at Abu Ghraib prison last fall would like to talk to Canyon Country resident John B. Israel.
They tried in April, but he had left Iraq.
?It is very frustrating,? said Paul Bergrin, the stateside attorney for Sgt. Javal ?Sean? Davis of Roselle, N.J.
Davis, 26, is one of seven Army reserve guards to face criminal charges for their roles at Abu Ghraib. Several, including Davis, are pointing fingers at superiors, claiming they were instructed or encouraged by military and civilian intelligence personnel to ?soften up? prisoners for questioning.
Davis and two other guards believe Israel, a civilian translator under contract with Army intelligence, was one of them, Bergrin said.
?He (Israel) is one of the intelligence individuals identified by three of the accused,? Bergrin told The Signal on Tuesday. ?He fits the characteristics and physical profile of one of the individuals ... who came in and gave the orders to ?soften them up? for the interrogations.?
While Bergrin wouldn?t identify the other accusers, Israel is one of four people implicated in an Army report as having been ?directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses? and of making false statements about interrogations he witnessed.
No charges are known to have been filed against Israel. His attorney, Christopher Darden, told The Signal on Saturday that he is making no statements.
Arriving at Abu Ghraib on Oct. 14, two days after a Military Intelligence brigade took operational control there, Israel was part of the buildup of intelligence personnel who were needed to question swelling ranks of prisoners as Iraqi insurgents stepped up their attacks on U.S. ground forces.
Israel would have been assigned to a three-member interrogation team, known as a ?tiger team,? that included one interrogator, one translator and one U.S. government agent, Bergrin said.
He said Davis? defense team wanted Israel and two other civilian contractors to testify at his client?s Article 32 (pretrial) hearing in Baghdad on April 9, but Israel was nowhere to be found.
?They were asked (to appear), but they were taken immediately (out of Iraq),? Bergrin said. ?The exact responses of the (Army) investigators were that they were ?unavailable, whereabouts unknown.??
A Canyon Country neighbor said Israel returned home the first week of April.
Bergrin said no civilian interrogators or translators testified at three Article 32 hearings held in April ? those of Davis, Spec. Charles A. Graner, and Staff Sgt. Ivan L. ?Chip? Frederick II. Only one Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) officer appeared and gave second-hand testimony based on interviews he conducted.
?My client remembers the Titan and CACI (contractors) and OGA, whether they were FBI or CIA,? Bergrin said.
OGA is shorthand for ?other government agencies,? and the prison guards assumed they were ?CIA or FBI or some other intelligence (agency),? Bergrin said. ?It was impossible to identify them.?
Titan Corp. and CACI International Corp. are two intelligence firms that provided interrogators and translators to the prison under umbrella contracts with the Interior Department.
?You can see, if these individuals are not being made available? to testify at the Article 32 hearings, ?there has got to be a cover-up somewhere,? Bergrin said.
?There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, based upon the partial investigation that has been done in this case, that these young soldiers were acting based upon orders of intelligence agents whose sole purpose and function was to get as much information as possible from the detainees, at any cost and by whatever means available,? he said.
Frederick?s attorney, Gary Myers, concurred that no civilian contractors appeared at his client?s Article 32 hearing. He said he will request a new hearing ? in the United States.
?We intend to seek a new Article 32 hearing (that is more like) what it?s supposed to be, which is mainly fact-finding,? Myers told The Signal.
Bergrin said he will request Israel?s presence at Davis? court martial, which hasn?t been scheduled.
?We?re going to request that these individuals be made available to testify,? he said, referring to Israel as well as Steve Stephanowicz, a CACI interrogator, and Adel L. Nakhla, a Titan translator.
Darden and an associate didn?t return phone messages Tuesday asking whether Israel will cooperate with Bergrin?s request to appear.
Bergrin acknowledged the difficulty in linking a name with a face ? because interrogators and translators didn?t use their real names in front of prison guards.
?(You must) understand that military intelligence personnel would not be identified,? he said. ?They never used their real names at all. A lot (called themselves things like) ?Special Agent James Bond?,? he said.
But Israel ?fits the physical description of one of the agents of what went on there,? and ?there were numerous photographs with military intelligence (personnel),? Bergrin said.
?He (Israel) has been proven, based upon independent examination of numerous military police officers, to be an integral part of the intelligence-gathering community and a catalyst behind the interrogation techniques that were used at the Abu Ghraib prison, including but not limited to placing a hood on the heads of detainees, nudity, sexual humiliation and embarrassment, and the threat of sexual exploitation,? Bergrin said.
No photographs of prison abuse that have been released to the media are known to depict Israel.
About three dozen government investigations of prisoner abuse in Iraq are believed to be under way, but it is unclear whether Israel is a target of any of them.
On May 5, Attorney General John Ashcroft said the Justice Department will ?take action where appropriate? against civilian contractors and said May 21 that they were being investigated.
CACI President J.P. ?Jack? London said in an investor conference call Thursday that his company is the subject of five government investigations, including an Army inquiry into intelligence management practices at Abu Ghraib and other prisons. However, a Titan executive told The Signal on Tuesday that he knows of no investigation of his company?s contract personnel.
?To my knowledge, there are no investigations against Titan whatsoever,? said Ralph Williams, Titan?s vice president of corporate communications.
Titan fired one of its former Abu Ghraib translators, Nakhla, earlier this month.
Asked about a discrepancy in an Army report that lists Israel as an employee of both Titan and CACI, Williams said the report ?misidentifies some people.?
Israel actually works for SOS Interpreting Ltd., a subcontractor to Titan. No relationship has been verified between Israel and CACI.
Little is known of Israel?s background prior to his deployment at Abu Ghraib. His wife told The Signal that the family has lived in Santa Clarita since 1988. Public records indicate he filed for bankruptcy protection in 1993, and that he either paid $220,000 in cash for his house in 1996 or was given it by the builder. Darden didn?t return messages asking for a clarification.
Additional articles by Leon Worden (for 'The Signal') appear at the following URL:
http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/
Additional material (articles and similar) related to the above appear at the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/05/26/fisk-israeli-mossad-shin-bet-associated-with-prison-torture.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:10 pm Post subject: Attorneys: Abu Ghraib Translator (John Israel) May Have Been |
| Subj: Attorneys: Abu Ghraib Translator (John Israel) May Have Been Israeli Agent
Date: 6/3/04 2:39:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
After reading Leon Worden's article which is included below, keep in mind that the Israelis have a history of lying going back to the notorious Lavon Affair ( http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lavon.html ) and the deliberate attack on the USS Liberty as well ( http://www.ussliberty.com ). In addition, it was mentioned in Leon Worden's article that John B. Israel (who is apparently an Iraqi Jew as no Iraqi Arab would have such a name) was involved in the picture framing business or similar (Mossad agents were posing as Israeli art students and similar in the Israeli spy ring that was exposed in the USA and then covered up as mentioned at the following URL):
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html
Read (in the 'Forward' which is a respected Jewish publication out of New York) at the following URL that Israeli Mossad agents (with a specialty in ordinance and surveillance) were detained after they were seen celebrating while taking pictures of the burning World Trade Center on 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/16/israeli-spy-rumors-fly-on-gusts-of-truth-with-9-11.php
http://www.the-signal.com/News/ViewStory.asp?storyID=4774
Attorneys: Translator May Have Been Agent
6/3/2004
Leon Worden City Editor
Was he ?just a translator,? as his wife said, or did he influence the guards at Abu Ghraib prison, as alleged in an Army report?
Is he the friendly family man his Canyon Country neighbors described, or is he connected to something more shadowy?
John B. Israel is one of two civilian contractors alleged by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba to have been ?directly or indirectly responsible? for the abuse of prisoners by military police officers. But exactly who he is, and what qualified him for intelligence work, remains a mystery.
Attorneys for some of the seven Army reserve guards who face court martials are trying to find out.
?There is a lot of conjecture going on right now about whether he was some kind of a foreign agent,? said Blake Ellis, a member of Pfc. Lynndie England?s legal team in Colorado. ?When you deal with the intelligence types, it gets pretty hard to pin down who they are.?
England, 21, achieved worldwide notoriety in late April when photographs showed her pointing at the crotch of one naked prisoner and holding a chain connected to the neck of another.
She faces an Article 32 (pretrial) hearing later this month at Ft. Bragg, where her attorneys hope to show that she answered to military intelligence personnel who supervised the prison operations ? some of whom were Army, some of whom were civilian contractors, some of whom were from other agencies, and none of whom can be readily identified because they didn?t wear uniforms or use their real names, Ellis said.
?We have maintained all along that our client was following orders and was directed by military intelligence personnel and supervisors, whether military or civilian,? Ellis said. ?They (England and other guards) are innocent of the charges they are accused of. They were taking orders from a mixed group ? military intelligence as well as officers from OGA (other government agencies), which is their word for CIA.?
England?s defense team wants to turn tables on Israel and interrogate the interpreter.
?We are actively pursuing him to find out what information he has in defense of our client,? Ellis told The Signal on Wednesday. ?We don?t know who he is, who he was working for, or what he was doing there.?
The simple answer is that Israel, 48, was employed by SOS Interpreting Ltd., a subcontractor that provided civilian linguists to the prison.
Beneath his employment contract ? which SOS officials won?t discuss ? are more questions.
No criminal charges are known to have been filed against Israel, and no known evidence links him to a foreign government.
Nor has it been positively ascertained that the U.S. government is following up on Taguba?s recommendation for a formal inquiry to determine the extent of Israel?s culpability.
Nonetheless, Israel?s high-profile defense attorney, onetime O.J. Simpson prosecutor Christopher A. Darden, has thus far maintained a low profile, shunning questions about Israel?s citizenship or background.
A spokesman for the Office of Homeland Security said Israel?s citizenship and immigration status are protected under the Privacy Act, while a CIA spokeswoman said it is agency policy not to identify current or past employees.
According to The New York Times, which obtained Israel?s brief written reply to Army investigators, the translator was born in Baghdad in 1955 and is an Iraqi-American Christian, referring to Iraq?s Christian minority group.
His emigration date isn?t known. His wife said the family moved to Santa Clarita in 1988. They had three daughters, all born in the interim. Public records show Israel owned what may have been an out-of-town picture framing business called Fancy Frame when he filed for bankruptcy protection in 1993. He paid cash for his $220,000 home in 1996 or was given it by the builder. A neighbor said she knew him as ?a computer guy? prior to his deployment at Abu Ghraib in October.
Paul Bergrin is the stateside attorney for Sgt. Javal ?Sean? Davis, one of the seven guards charged with prisoner abuse.
To determine who was giving orders inside Abu Ghraib last fall, and to discover what Taguba meant when he referred in his report to the presence of ?third-country nationals? among the intelligence personnel, Bergrin said one need look not only ?up? at superiors, but ?over? geographically.
?The intelligence community were trained in intelligence acquisition from foreign agents who had experience in dealing with Arab and Muslim prisoners. This had to come from Israeli intelligence personnel as well as CIA-trained agents who knew how to induce these types of detainees to speak,? Bergrin said.
He said the intelligence gathering tactics used at Abu Ghraib were consistent with those used by agencies such as Shin Bet, the Israeli counter-intelligence and internal security service.
Some anti-war groups in the United States and pro-Palestinian organizations in the Middle East have speculated that the Israeli government provided or trained intelligence personnel at Abu Ghraib ? the implication being that a demonstration of Israeli involvement could cause the ?coalition of the willing? to unravel.
Several such organizations honed in on the name ?John B. Israel? when it became public in the Taguba report, which identifies him ? probably mistakenly ? as an employee of CACI International Inc., another intelligence firm that provided interrogators to Abu Ghraib.
Noting that the Taguba report shows John Israel lacked the appropriate security clearance at the prison, The Daily Star, an English-language newspaper out of Lebanon, reported May 11 that ?although no evidence has emerged directly linking CACI?s involvement in the Abu Ghraib atrocities to (the nation of) Israel ... more evidence has emerged undermining the U.S. thesis that the abuses at Abu Ghraib was (sic) the work of ?a few bad apples.??
The newspaper said interrogation techniques such as ?hooding, sleep deprivation, time disorientation and depriving prisoners (of) dignity? are ?all techniques long employed by Israel.?
CACI President J.P. ?Jack? London?s visit to Jerusalem in January further piqued critics? interest.
CACI said in a press release that members of the Senate and House Armed Services committees accompanied London on the trip, where Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz presented him with a prestigious information technology award. (U.S. Rep. Howard ?Buck? McKeon, R-Santa Clarita and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, was not among them, McKeon?s press deputy said.)
?The purpose of the mission was to promote opportunities for strategic partnerships and joint ventures between U.S. and Israeli defense and homeland security companies,? CACI?s press release said. ?Participants also attended high-level briefings and demonstrations on innovative technologies and their application to homeland security, counter-terrorism and national defense.?
Shin Bet sources in Tel Aviv have disavowed the idea of Israeli participation or influence at Abu Ghraib.
Under the heading ?All evidence refutes claims of Israeli involvement in Iraqi prison affair,? the Haaretz Daily commented on John Israel?s connection to Titan Corp., the intelligence firm that contracted the prison translation work to SOS, his employer.
The newspaper noted that former CIA Director James Woolsey was a Titan board member and said Woolsey ?is considered a close friend of (the nation of) Israel.?
However, it reported, Shin Bet had its wings clipped in 1987 when an Israeli Supreme Court judge found that interrogators ?had extracted confessions from prisoners under duress and unacceptable physical and psychological torture,? and ?since then, the Shin Bet has drafted clear regulations and orders for interrogators, from which there can be no deviation.?
An unnamed Shin Bet source told Haaretz, ?We did not operate (in Iraq) and did not assist the United States in running the interrogations. This is baseless slander.?
?When one reads all the American documents and reports,? another former senior Shin Bet official said, ?it is clear that the Americans did not need us to conduct interrogations. The reports and the pictures of the torture, abuse and humiliation from the prison in Iraq portray a reality compared to which the interrogations of the Palestinians by us are really child?s play.?
Signal staff writer Burt Stillar contributed to this story.
http://www.the-signal.com/News/ViewStory.asp?storyID=4769
MP's Lawyer: Translator Gave Orders
6/2/2004
Leon Worden City Editor
Attorneys for guards charged with abuse at Abu Ghraib prison last fall would like to talk to Canyon Country resident John B. Israel.
They tried in April, but he had left Iraq.
?It is very frustrating,? said Paul Bergrin, the stateside attorney for Sgt. Javal ?Sean? Davis of Roselle, N.J.
Davis, 26, is one of seven Army reserve guards to face criminal charges for their roles at Abu Ghraib. Several, including Davis, are pointing fingers at superiors, claiming they were instructed or encouraged by military and civilian intelligence personnel to ?soften up? prisoners for questioning.
Davis and two other guards believe Israel, a civilian translator under contract with Army intelligence, was one of them, Bergrin said.
?He (Israel) is one of the intelligence individuals identified by three of the accused,? Bergrin told The Signal on Tuesday. ?He fits the characteristics and physical profile of one of the individuals ... who came in and gave the orders to ?soften them up? for the interrogations.?
While Bergrin wouldn?t identify the other accusers, Israel is one of four people implicated in an Army report as having been ?directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses? and of making false statements about interrogations he witnessed.
No charges are known to have been filed against Israel. His attorney, Christopher Darden, told The Signal on Saturday that he is making no statements.
Arriving at Abu Ghraib on Oct. 14, two days after a Military Intelligence brigade took operational control there, Israel was part of the buildup of intelligence personnel who were needed to question swelling ranks of prisoners as Iraqi insurgents stepped up their attacks on U.S. ground forces.
Israel would have been assigned to a three-member interrogation team, known as a ?tiger team,? that included one interrogator, one translator and one U.S. government agent, Bergrin said.
He said Davis? defense team wanted Israel and two other civilian contractors to testify at his client?s Article 32 (pretrial) hearing in Baghdad on April 9, but Israel was nowhere to be found.
?They were asked (to appear), but they were taken immediately (out of Iraq),? Bergrin said. ?The exact responses of the (Army) investigators were that they were ?unavailable, whereabouts unknown.??
A Canyon Country neighbor said Israel returned home the first week of April.
Bergrin said no civilian interrogators or translators testified at three Article 32 hearings held in April ? those of Davis, Spec. Charles A. Graner, and Staff Sgt. Ivan L. ?Chip? Frederick II. Only one Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) officer appeared and gave second-hand testimony based on interviews he conducted.
?My client remembers the Titan and CACI (contractors) and OGA, whether they were FBI or CIA,? Bergrin said.
OGA is shorthand for ?other government agencies,? and the prison guards assumed they were ?CIA or FBI or some other intelligence (agency),? Bergrin said. ?It was impossible to identify them.?
Titan Corp. and CACI International Corp. are two intelligence firms that provided interrogators and translators to the prison under umbrella contracts with the Interior Department.
?You can see, if these individuals are not being made available? to testify at the Article 32 hearings, ?there has got to be a cover-up somewhere,? Bergrin said.
?There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, based upon the partial investigation that has been done in this case, that these young soldiers were acting based upon orders of intelligence agents whose sole purpose and function was to get as much information as possible from the detainees, at any cost and by whatever means available,? he said.
Frederick?s attorney, Gary Myers, concurred that no civilian contractors appeared at his client?s Article 32 hearing. He said he will request a new hearing ? in the United States.
?We intend to seek a new Article 32 hearing (that is more like) what it?s supposed to be, which is mainly fact-finding,? Myers told The Signal.
Bergrin said he will request Israel?s presence at Davis? court martial, which hasn?t been scheduled.
?We?re going to request that these individuals be made available to testify,? he said, referring to Israel as well as Steve Stephanowicz, a CACI interrogator, and Adel L. Nakhla, a Titan translator.
Darden and an associate didn?t return phone messages Tuesday asking whether Israel will cooperate with Bergrin?s request to appear.
Bergrin acknowledged the difficulty in linking a name with a face ? because interrogators and translators didn?t use their real names in front of prison guards.
?(You must) understand that military intelligence personnel would not be identified,? he said. ?They never used their real names at all. A lot (called themselves things like) ?Special Agent James Bond?,? he said.
But Israel ?fits the physical description of one of the agents of what went on there,? and ?there were numerous photographs with military intelligence (personnel),? Bergrin said.
?He (Israel) has been proven, based upon independent examination of numerous military police officers, to be an integral part of the intelligence-gathering community and a catalyst behind the interrogation techniques that were used at the Abu Ghraib prison, including but not limited to placing a hood on the heads of detainees, nudity, sexual humiliation and embarrassment, and the threat of sexual exploitation,? Bergrin said.
No photographs of prison abuse that have been released to the media are known to depict Israel.
About three dozen government investigations of prisoner abuse in Iraq are believed to be under way, but it is unclear whether Israel is a target of any of them.
On May 5, Attorney General John Ashcroft said the Justice Department will ?take action where appropriate? against civilian contractors and said May 21 that they were being investigated.
CACI President J.P. ?Jack? London said in an investor conference call Thursday that his company is the subject of five government investigations, including an Army inquiry into intelligence management practices at Abu Ghraib and other prisons. However, a Titan executive told The Signal on Tuesday that he knows of no investigation of his company?s contract personnel.
?To my knowledge, there are no investigations against Titan whatsoever,? said Ralph Williams, Titan?s vice president of corporate communications.
Titan fired one of its former Abu Ghraib translators, Nakhla, earlier this month.
Asked about a discrepancy in an Army report that lists Israel as an employee of both Titan and CACI, Williams said the report ?misidentifies some people.?
Israel actually works for SOS Interpreting Ltd., a subcontractor to Titan. No relationship has been verified between Israel and CACI.
Little is known of Israel?s background prior to his deployment at Abu Ghraib. His wife told The Signal that the family has lived in Santa Clarita since 1988. Public records indicate he filed for bankruptcy protection in 1993, and that he either paid $220,000 in cash for his house in 1996 or was given it by the builder. Darden didn?t return messages asking for a clarification.
Additional articles by Leon Worden (for 'The Signal') appear at the following URL:
http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/
Additional material (articles and similar) related to the above appear at the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/05/26/fisk-israeli-mossad-shin-bet-associated-with-prison-torture.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:22 pm Post subject: Good background info on Israeli involvement |
| Subj: Good background info on Israeli involvement
Date: 6/4/04 9:21:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time
While going through my old emails, I found this article from the Guardian. It's written in Dec 2003 and outlines the fact that Israelis are in Iraq. It might make good information.
Israel trains US assassination squads in Iraq
Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday December 9, 2003
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1102869,00.html
Israeli advisers are helping train US special forces in aggressive
counter-insurgency operations in Iraq, including the use of
assassination squads against guerrilla leaders, US intelligence and military sources said yesterday.
The Israeli Defence Force (IDF) has sent urban warfare specialists to Fort
Bragg in North Carolina, the home of US special forces, and according to
two
sources, Israeli military "consultants" have also visited Iraq.
US forces in Iraq's Sunni triangle have already begun to use tactics
that
echo Israeli operations in the occupied territories, sealing off centres
of
resistance with razor wire and razing buildings from where attacks have
been
launched against US troops.
But the secret war in Iraq is about to get much tougher, in the hope of
suppressing the Ba'athist-led insurgency ahead of next November's
presidential
elections.
US special forces teams are already behind the lines inside Syria
attempting
to kill foreign jihadists before they cross the border, and a group
focused on
the "neutralisation" of guerrilla leaders is being set up, according to
sources familiar with the operations.
"This is basically an assassination programme. That is what is being
conceptualised here. This is a hunter-killer team," said a former senior
US
intelligence official, who added that he feared the new tactics and
enhanced cooperation
with Israel would only inflame a volatile situation in the Middle East.
"It is bonkers, insane. Here we are - we're already being compared to
Sharon
in the Arab world, and we've just confirmed it by bringing in the
Israelis and
setting up assassination teams."
"They are being trained by Israelis in Fort Bragg," a well-informed
intelligence source in Washington said.
"Some Israelis went to Iraq as well, not to do training, but for
providing
consultations."
The consultants' visit to Iraq was confirmed by another US source who
was in
contact with American officials there.
The Pentagon did not return calls seeking comment, but a military
planner,
Brigadier General Michael Vane, mentioned the cooperation with Israel in
a
letter to Army magazine in July about the Iraq counter-insurgency
campaign.
"We recently travelled to Israel to glean lessons learned from their
counterterrorist operations in urban areas," wrote General Vane, deputy
chief of staff
at the army's training and doctrine command.
An Israeli official said the IDF regularly shared its experience in the
West
Bank and Gaza with the US armed forces, but said he could not comment
about
cooperation in Iraq.
"When we do activities, the US military attaches in Tel Aviv are
interested.
I assume it's the same as the British. That's the way allies work. The
special
forces come to our people and say, do debrief on an operation we have
done,"
the official said.
"Does it affect Iraq? It's not in our interest or the American interest
or in
anyone's interest to go into that. It would just fit in with jihadist
prejudices."
Colonel Ralph Peters, a former army intelligence officer and a critic of
Pentagon policy in Iraq, said yesterday there was nothing wrong with
learning
lessons wherever possible.
"When we turn to anyone for insights, it doesn't mean we blindly accept
it,"
Col Peters said. "But I think what you're seeing is a new realism. The
American tendency is to try to win all the hearts and minds. In Iraq,
there are just
some hearts and minds you can't win. Within the bounds of human rights,
if you
do make an example of certain villages it gets the attention of the
others,
and attacks have gone down in the area."
The new counter-insurgency unit made up of elite troops being put
together in
the Pentagon is called Task Force 121, New Yorker magazine reported in
yesterday's edition.
One of the planners behind the offensive is a highly controversial
figure,
whose role is likely to inflame Muslim opinion: Lieutenant General
William
"Jerry" Boykin.
In October, there were calls for his resignation after he told a church
congregation in Oregon that the US was at war with Satan, who "wants to
destroy us
as a Christian army".
"He's been promoted a rank above his abilities," he said. "Some generals
are
pretty good on battlefield but are disastrous nearer the source of
power."
Guardian Unlimited C Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:25 pm Post subject: Letter from CACI to a colleague |
| Forwarded:
Subj: Letter from CACI to a colleague
Date: 6/4/04 11:30:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
CACI is on a PR offensive. This was sent to a colleague who wrote about CACI.
-----------------
First of all, the company is saddened and disturbed over the photographs that appeared in the media concerning abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The company was also saddened by the tragic pictures of people jumping out of the windows of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. And the company was further saddened by the horrible pictures of American contractors’ charred and mutilated bodies hung from the bridge girders in Fallujah. All these photographs and images, sadly, are part of the war on terrorism.
Secondly, there are some aspects of your article for which we would like to provide additional factual information. We believe the following information adds our perspective to CACI’s work in Iraq.
CACI is aware of multiple investigations underway but knows at this time of allegations only against one employee as set forth in the illegally released (leaked) classified (SECRET/NO-FOREIGN] Taguba report (one report in a number of reports conducted as part of an ongoing investigation that has not been concluded), which has not been publicly confirmed.
Mr. John Israel was incorrectly identified as a CACI employee in the leaked sections of the report issued by Major General Antonio M. Taguba regarding allegations of abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. Mr. Israel is not now and never has been an employee of CACI.
CACI rejects in the strongest possible terms the central thesis (accusations) of the article. It is preposterous that the one and only visit of CACI’s CEO to Israel in January 2004 was part of a grand scheme between the Americans and Israelis to siphon defense contracts to Israeli firms in exchange for some kind of instruction or training in inappropriate interrogation techniques to be applied to Iraqi detainees. CACI has no knowledge whatsoever, and never has had, of the existence of any such activity. The participation of the Chief Executive Officer in the trip to Israel was part of his recent efforts to travel throughout the region to gain a better understanding of the region, its economy and its people. In fact, CACI’s CEO has traveled all over the world including to other countries in the Gulf region.
The full title of the conference was “Defense Aerospace Homeland Security Mission of Peace” and attendees appropriately represented Robert Liscouski, Assistant Secretary for Information Analysis & Infrastructure Protection – Department of Homeland Security and Joe Reeder, former Undersecretary of the Army. The delegation was made up of a number of U.S. CEOs representing defense and aerospace companies including CACI’s CEO as well as Dr. Rodney Leibowitz Chairman of the First Responder Inc. the organization created from the 9-11 attacks in the U.S. and Dr. Sergio Magistri, President of Invision Technologies, Inc. the company that developed the airport screening devices installed in most airports around the US which are now used extensively for baggage screening.
CACI’s CEO and the other U.S. CEOs were joined by acting members of congress representing both sides of the political spectrum including Senator Evan Bayh (D) from Indiana, Senator Ben Nelson, (R) from Kansas, Congressmen John Linder (D) from Georgia, and Congressman John McHugh (R) from New York. Virtually all of the attendees received an award in some form or another including the Albert Einstein Award given to the CEO of CACI. All members of the delegation attended, as a group, various tours including visits to homeland security facilities and main tourist and religious sites in Israel and Jordan. The delegation also visited with King Abdullah of Jordan.
Senator John Kerry, Democratic candidate for the U.S. Presidency, provided a testimonial from his trip which is listed on the website is as follows: “My wife, Teresa Heinz, and I were impressed by the top-quality meetings during our mission with Prime Minister Barak and Jordan’s King Abdullah, to say nothing of the spectacular insight into the people and character of Israel it provided.”
The website for the Homeland Security Conference also posts pictures of previous attendees including former U.S. President Bill Clinton, former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Margaret Thatcher, media personalities Barbara Walters and Tom Brokaw as well as Hollywood celebrities Kirk Douglas and William Shatner.
CACI has supported the U.S. Army's investigation since it began several months ago at which time CACI personnel in Iraq volunteered to be interviewed by Army officials in connection with that investigation.
CACI will continue to cooperate with all U.S. Government investigations when requested and is now conducting its own internal investigation and analysis of events. CACI has retained outside counsel to investigate any pending actions against any CACI employee’s performance relating to prisoner abuse matters. The company does not condone, tolerate or in any way endorse illegal behavior or inappropriate behavior on the part of any employee in any circumstance, at any time, anywhere.
In the unfortunate event that any CACI employee acted improperly or illegally, CACI will take immediate and appropriate action. None of CACI’s employees have been charged with any wrongdoing at this time. It is important that the facts be determined and that unsubstantiated allegations not be permitted to unfairly condemn anyone
We hope you will find this factual information helpful in creating a full and accurate picture of CACI as it relates to both your article and other statements appearing in the media. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2004 9:01 am Post subject: Legal Territory Untested for Civilian Translators |
| http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/sg060604.htm
Legal Territory Untested for Civilian Translators
By Leon Worden
Signal City Editor
The legal path is clear for the small number of military police guards who face charges of maltreating and sexually humiliating detainees at a prison 20 miles west of Baghdad where Saddam Hussein's Special Security Organization tortured and executed thousands of Saddam's fellow countrymen.
The guards who stand accused of offenses at Abu Ghraib are covered under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. They'll face the equivalent of a pretrial hearing, followed by possible court-martial. If found guilty, they'll receive a sentence likely to include hard time in a military prison.
But what about nonmilitary personnel who may have shared responsibility for the abuse of the same prisoners? They haven't committed an offense on U.S. soil or within America's maritime boundaries, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice doesn't apply to them.
From Oct. 14 until sometime earlier this year, John B. Israel, 48, of Canyon Country, was one of an estimated 20,000 civilian contractors working in postwar Iraq as a "hired hand" for the coalition forces. Many of those 20,000 contractors are working to rebuild power plants, bridges, schools and hospitals.
Many, but not all. Some are doing work that, in bygone days, would have been performed exclusively by military personnel.
Last year, coalition forces quickly executed the war but encountered monumental hurdles when the major hostilities ceased. As they took on the responsibility of governing, they were confronted with escalating attacks from Iraqi insurgents that hindered their efforts to rebuild infrastructure and forced them to beef up internal security.
Israel was part of the buildup of intelligence personnel who were needed to find out when and where the next attack would come.
Abu Ghraib prison is a 280-acre compound built by British contractors in the 1960s. Israel was assigned to the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, which was expanding its number of interrogation teams as more and more detainees were being brought to the prison for questioning. Israel's job was to translate back and forth between interrogator and detainee.
Some of the intelligence experts on the interrogation teams, known as "tiger teams," were military personnel. Others may have been with government agencies such as the CIA. Others evidently were foreign nationals. Others were civilians working under contract. Israel fell into the latter group.
Born in Baghdad in 1955, Israel was hired by SOS Interpreting Ltd., a New York-based intelligence firm that provided linguists to the prison under a "carve-out" contract with a larger intelligence firm, Titan Corp. of San Diego.
At Abu Ghraib, the Army reserve guards wouldn't have known whether Israel was military or civilian. Tiger team members didn't wear identifying uniforms, and MP guards have claimed that they didn't use their real names.
Just like a regular Army subordinate, Israel answered to the brigade commander, Col. Thomas M. Pappas, and to Pappas' second, Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan.
Now, Israel, Pappas, Jordan and another civilian contractor are likely targets of a full-blown investigation into the activities of their military intelligence brigade — which, on Nov. 19, had taken over operational control of the prison.
In an earlier, well publicized, separate-but-equal investigation of the military police brigade that was below them, the four men were accused of being "directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib."
The earlier investigation of the military police brigade resulted in criminal charges against seven Army reserve guards.
No charges have yet been filed against any intelligence personnel, military or civilian. Charges, if they are to come at all, would likely follow the completion of the new investigation in the next few weeks.
If Pappas or Jordan or any other Army intelligence personnel were to be charged, their prosecution would follow a path outlined in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
It's a different story with the civilian contractors. Not only don't they fall under the military code, but they probably also aren't subject to prosecution by the new Iraqi government because of a status-of-forces agreement that covers Americans who commit crimes while carrying out an official U.S. government duty.
Most attention is focusing on a relatively new, untested and highly obscure federal law called the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act.
As the name implies, the act enables the U.S. government to extend its legal authority beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States in cases where an American commits an offense while accompanying or working for the U.S. Armed Forces.
The act was written in 1999 by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and signed into law in 2000 by former President Bill Clinton in order to plug a gap. There was no way for the United States to prosecute a U.S. civilian accused of molesting his stepdaughter while living with his Army-sergeant wife at a military base in Germany.
The act's first full test will come this summer when a civilian woman stands trial for the murder of her Air Force-sergeant husband while at an air base in Germany.
Sessions couldn't have predicted his act would come into play the way it is today.
Sessions declined to speculate on the act's applicability to Army contractors who may have shared responsibility for prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. A spokeswoman for Sessions referred The Signal's calls to the Justice Department, where Attorney General John Ashcroft announced last month that the act does indeed facilitate the prosecution of civilian contractors under federal anti-torture and civil rights statues.
There's a "but."
The act applies only in cases where the offense, if committed within the United States, would be punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.
The devil could be in the details for civilians alleged by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba to have been "directly or indirectly responsible" for the abuse. Much will hinge on the specific findings of Brig. Gen. George R. Fay's new intelligence investigation.
If civilian contractors merely looked the other way when military police officers were abusing detainees, is it a crime punishable by more than one year in prison? Would it be, if in fact they enticed or instructed or ordered or in some other way coerced the guards to "soften up" prisoners?
"The legal question becomes, how do you characterize coercion?" asks Dan Guttman, a fellow at the Center for the Study of American Government at John Hopkins University. "Were Mr. Israel and others obliged to follow the Geneva conventions?"
Bertrand Ramcharan, the acting U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, didn't have an answer to that very question in a 45-page report he released Friday on current conditions in Iraq.
Acknowledging "the hiring by the coalition forces of private security organizations that have deployed personnel in significant numbers," Ramcharan wrote, "this raises the question of what legal regime applies to them, and what is the duty of protection" they owe to prisoners.
He also left open the question of individual culpability, asking, "Were acts of depravity against prisoners committed by guards acting on their own, or were they part of a systematic process of information gathering?" — but found that the acts themselves, as detailed by Taguba, "might be designated as war crimes by a competent tribunal."
Gay McDougall, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based human rights organization Global Rights, said anyone can be held accountable for war crimes.
"The laws ... say that military and civilians can be prosecuted for war crimes, whether we are at war or not," she said.
"Without question, all of the people who are identified in these crimes can be prosecuted" under one statute or another, even if there are gaps and loopholes in the law, she said.
One such potential loophole is the nature of Titan Corp.'s government contract. The company is actually providing linguists to Army intelligence under an umbrella contract with the Interior Department.
The extraterritorial act applies only to civilians who work for the Defense Department. Lawyers may soon be debating whether it covers civilians who are technically under contract with a different agency but take orders from Army officers.
"As a civilian contractor, their legal case depends on whom they are attached to," McDougall said, "whether they are with the military or with (other) government agencies."
"(The) question is, if Israel was following orders, was he obliged to?" Guttman asks.
In any event, Guttman said, the standard is high for prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act.
"They would have to prove there was a 'grave breach' of the Geneva conventions," he said. "The attorneys will argue what a 'grave breach' is."
According to Ramcharan, "the use of torture and other forms of physical and psychological coercion against any detainee to extract confessions of intelligence-related information is a violation of international humanitarian law," while both of the Geneva conventions the United States is respecting in Iraq — one for prisoners of war, another for civilian detainees — bar murder, mutilation, cruel treatment, torture and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."
How will it all play out with the civilian contractors?
"This is uncharted territory," Guttman said. "I couldn't guess."
Israel's attorney, Christopher Darden, did not respond to inquiries for his opinion about the topics discussed here.
Signal staff writer Burt Stillar contributed to this story. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 5:08 am Post subject: Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture |
| Memo Offered Justification for Torture --
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W5RT05BD997D23EA517543FC257C10
In August 2002, the Justice Department advised the White House that
torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad "may be justified,"
according to a newly obtained memo.
(By Dana Priest and R. Jeffrey Smith, The Washington Post)
Subj: Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture
Date: 6/8/04 5:11:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture
Justice Dept. Gave Advice in 2002
By Dana Priest and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, June 8, 2004; Page A01
In August 2002, the Justice Department advised the White House that
torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad "may be justified," and
that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if
applied to interrogations" conducted in President Bush's war on
terrorism, according to a newly obtained memo.
If a government employee were to torture a suspect in captivity, "he
would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United
States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network," said the memo, from the
Justice Department's office of legal counsel, written in response to a
CIA request for legal guidance. It added that arguments centering on
"necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would
eliminate any criminal liability" later.
The memo seems to counter the pre-Sept. 11, 2001, assumption that U.S.
government personnel would never be permitted to torture captives. It was
offered after the CIA began detaining and interrogating suspected al
Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the wake of the attacks,
according to government officials familiar with the document.
The legal reasoning in the 2002 memo, which covered treatment of al Qaeda
detainees in CIA custody, was later used in a March 2003 report by
Pentagon lawyers assessing interrogation rules governing the Defense
Department's detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. At that time,
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had asked the lawyers to examine the
logistical, policy and legal issues associated with interrogation techniques.
Bush administration officials say flatly that, despite the discussion of
legal issues in the two memos, it has abided by international conventions
barring torture, and that detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere have been
treated humanely, except in the cases of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in
Iraq for which seven military police soldiers have been charged.
Still, the 2002 and 2003 memos reflect the Bush administration's desire
to explore the limits on how far it could legally go in aggressively
interrogating foreigners suspected of terrorism or of having information
that could thwart future attacks.
In the 2002 memo, written for the CIA and addressed to White House
Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, the Justice Department defined torture in a
much narrower way, for example, than does the U.S. Army, which has
historically carried out most wartime interrogations.
In the Justice Department's view -- contained in a 50-page document
signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee and obtained by The
Washington Post -- inflicting moderate or fleeting pain does not
necessarily constitute torture. Torture, the memo says, "must be
equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury,
such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."
By contrast, the Army's Field Manual 34-52, titled "Intelligence
Interrogations," sets more restrictive rules. For example, the Army
prohibits pain induced by chemicals or bondage; forcing an individual to
stand, sit or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time;
and food deprivation. Under mental torture, the Army prohibits mock
executions, sleep deprivation and chemically induced psychosis.
Human rights groups expressed dismay at the Justice Department's legal
reasoning yesterday.
"It is by leaps and bounds the worst thing I've seen since this whole Abu
Ghraib scandal broke," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It
appears that what they were contemplating was the commission of war
crimes and looking for ways to avoid legal accountability. The effect is
to throw out years of military doctrine and standards on interrogations."
But a spokesman for the White House counsel's office said, "The president
directed the military to treat al Qaeda and Taliban humanely and
consistent with the Geneva Conventions."
Mark Corallo, the Justice Department's chief spokesman, said "the
department does not comment on specific legal advice it has provided
confidentially within the executive branch." But he added: "It is the
policy of the United States to comply with all U.S. laws in the treatment
of detainees -- including the Constitution, federal statutes and
treaties." The CIA declined to comment.
The Justice Department's interpretation for the CIA sought to provide
guidance on what sorts of aggressive treatments might not fall within the
legal definition of torture.
The 2002 memo, for example, included the interpretation that "it is
difficult to take a specific act out of context and conclude that the act
in isolation would constitute torture." The memo named seven techniques
that courts have considered torture, including severe beatings with
truncheons and clubs, threats of imminent death, burning with cigarettes,
electric shocks to genitalia, rape or sexual assault, and forcing a
prisoner to watch the torture of another person.
"While we cannot say with certainty that acts falling short of these
seven would not constitute torture," the memo advised, ". . . we believe
that interrogation techniques would have to be similar to these in their
extreme nature and in the type of harm caused to violate law."
"For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture," the memo
said, "it must result in significant psychological harm of significant
duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years." Examples include the
development of mental disorders, drug-induced dementia, "post traumatic
stress disorder which can last months or even years, or even chronic
depression."
Of mental torture, however, an interrogator could show he acted in good
faith by "taking such steps as surveying professional literature,
consulting with experts or reviewing evidence gained in past experience"
to show he or she did not intend to cause severe mental pain and that the
conduct, therefore, "would not amount to the acts prohibited by the statute."
In 2003, the Defense Department conducted its own review of the limits
that govern torture, in consultation with experts at the Justice
Department and other agencies. The aim of the March 6, 2003, review,
conducted by a working group that included representatives of the
military services, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the intelligence
community, was to provide a legal basis for what the group's report
called "exceptional interrogations."
Much of the reasoning in the group's report and in the Justice
Department's 2002 memo overlap. The documents, which address treatment of
al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, were not written to apply to detainees
held in Iraq.
In a draft of the working group's report, for example, Pentagon lawyers
approvingly cited the Justice Department's 2002 position that domestic
and international laws prohibiting torture could be trumped by the
president's wartime authority and any directives he issued.
At the time, the Justice Department's legal analysis, however, shocked
some of the military lawyers who were involved in crafting the new
guidelines, said senior defense officials and military lawyers.
"Every flag JAG lodged complaints," said one senior Pentagon official
involved in the process, referring to the judge advocate generals who are
military lawyers of each service.
"It's really unprecedented. For almost 30 years we've taught the Geneva
Convention one way," said a senior military attorney. "Once you start
telling people it's okay to break the law, there's no telling where they
might stop."
A U.S. law enacted in 1994 bars torture by U.S. military personnel
anywhere in the world. But the Pentagon group's report, prepared under
the supervision of General Counsel William J. Haynes II, said that "in
order to respect the President's inherent constitutional authority to
manage a military campaign . . . [the prohibition against torture] must
be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his
Commander-in-Chief authority."
The Pentagon group's report, divulged yesterday by the Wall Street
Journal and obtained by The Post, said further that the 1994 law barring
torture "does not apply to the conduct of U.S. personnel" at Guantanamo Bay.
It also said the anti-torture law did apply to U.S. military
interrogations that occurred outside U.S. "maritime and territorial
jurisdiction," such as in Iraq or Afghanistan. But it said both Congress
and the Justice Department would have difficulty enforcing the law if
U.S. military personnel could be shown to be acting as a result of
presidential orders.
The report then parsed at length the definition of torture under domestic
and international law, with an eye toward guiding military personnel
about legal defenses.
The Pentagon report uses language very similar to that in the 2002
Justice Department memo written in response to the CIA's request: "If a
government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an
interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate criminal
prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on
the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network," the draft states.
"In that case, DOJ [Department of Justice] believes that he could argue
that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the
nation from attack justified his actions."
The draft goes on to assert that a soldier's claim that he was following
"superior orders" would be available for those engaged in "exceptional
interrogations except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently
unlawful." It asserts, as does the Justice view expressed for the CIA,
that the mere infliction of pain and suffering is not unlawful; the pain
or suffering must be severe.
A Defense Department spokesman said last night that the March 2003 memo
represented "a scholarly effort to define the perimeters of the law" but
added: "What is legal and what is put into practice is a different
story." Pentagon officials said the group examined at least 35
interrogation techniques, and Rumsfeld later approved using 24 of them in
a classified directive on April 16, 2003, that governed all activities at
Guantanamo Bay. The Pentagon has refused to make public the 24
interrogation procedures.
Staff writer Josh White contributed to this report. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
