Fisk: Israeli Mossad/Shin Bet Associated with Prison Torture - page 4

Alpha

On FOIA Front, More Agencies Contract Out
Private Firms Have Growing Role in Handling Backlogs of Requests for Government Records

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 8, 2004; Page A21

Steven Aftergood has waited so long for federal officials to answer his requests for public information that, he says jokingly, he may be in his grave before some of the documents land on his desk.

Aftergood, 47, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, is still awaiting responses to Freedom of Information Act requests for Air Force historical papers that he submitted in 1990. Government officials have blamed the delay on backlogs and problems in locating the records, he said.

"There is no end of difficulties," said Aftergood, who specializes in unearthing national security materials. "You almost expect them to ask you to designate a next of kin for when the document is ultimately released, because you won't be here."

Aftergood is hardly alone. Many people who have filed FOIA requests can tell stories of waiting months or years for responses.

These days, however, some agencies say they have found a new way to combat such delays. They are turning increasingly to private contractors to help shrink their mounting backlogs of FOIA requests.

Departments that have tapped contractors include Defense, State, Energy and Transportation, as well as agencies such as the Transportation Security Administration. Officials say outside help is necessary at a time when tight budgets make it all but impossible to permanently hire new FOIA officers.

"Congress puts ceilings on us on the number of billets we can have," said Larry E. Curry, a Defense official, referring to limits on full-time positions. "What we're trying to do is comply with the law and to try to improve the service to the public using contractors. No personnel have been replaced with contractors. So I think it's a positive thing. . . . You know, we get complaints all the time from the public that we're too slow in processing these things."

Despite some concerns that the government is becoming overly reliant on private contractors for basic work, the arrangements have drawn favorable reviews from some outside experts. And those seeking information are eager to see federal agencies fill FOIA requests faster -- as long as no materials are withheld unnecessarily.

Many contract workers "are former officials who retired from civil service that have got the background, and very often they still have an active [security] clearance," said William Ferroggiaro, a past president of the American Society of Access Professionals, a nonprofit group that works on FOIA issues.

Ferroggiaro said the contractors have done a fair job and he has not heard any complaints about their work. His only concern is that they may cut corners in filling requests in order to meet numerical targets set by agencies.

"It raises an issue that needs to be watched," he said.

Aftergood said it's unlikely more information would be withheld just because contractors are on the job.

"On balance, it's a good thing," he said, "because the truth is that the agencies on their own were not exercising good judgment. They were only moving more slowly."

Agencies get FOIA requests from many corners -- academic researchers, corporations, journalists, veterans and prisoners, among others. The law, which dates to 1966, is designed to make the bureaucracy more accessible and accountable to the public.

On FOIA Front, More Agencies Contract Out

A 2002 General Accounting Office study found that "agency backlogs of pending requests are substantial and growing government-wide." An average of about 10 weeks' worth of requests remained unfilled at any given time at two-thirds of the 25 agencies the GAO surveyed. Agency officials blamed the problem on increasingly complex requests and a lack of staff and computer expertise to help fill them.

A GAO update last year found that agencies received and processed 2.3 million requests in 2002, at a cost of $283 million. Nearly two-thirds of requests were to the Department of Veterans Affairs, largely because veterans' inquiries about their medical records count as FOIA requests. About 4,900 full-time federal employees handled FOIA requests government-wide that year. The backlog of pending requests, not including those at the VA, decreased by about 23 percent in 2002, the GAO found.

Contractors who have performed FOIA work for federal agencies include CACI International Inc. of Arlington and McNeil Technologies of Springfield. FOIA Group Inc., a 16-year-old D.C.-based company that helps businesses and nonprofits submit FOIA requests, plans to diversify by moving into processing such requests for agencies, said Jeff Stachewicz, a founder of the firm.

"That is going to be the wave of the future," Stachewicz said, citing the Bush administration's policy of moving more government work to private contractors if they can do the work better and more cheaply. "For many years, agencies thought they could not delegate this type of function to private contractors."

McNeil, which also offers services such as translations and records declassification, has been especially active in FOIA work. Over the last eight years, the company has landed contracts totaling more than $10.5 million to perform FOIA work for such clients as State, Defense, Transportation and TSA.

About 50 to 60 McNeil analysts, some of them former government FOIA officers, are doing FOIA work for agencies in any given week, said Tim Ayoub, McNeil's director of information access programs. Those who handle classified information have security clearances, but others need no special credentials other than training in performing the work, he said.

The analysts are involved in nearly every phase of answering a FOIA request -- retrieving documents, reviewing them for relevance, blacking out portions that pose security concerns and composing a response. But it is government officials who make the final decisions on what is released, Ayoub said.

"We do it all for them up until the decision point, and then the government takes over," Ayoub said.

Ayoub, who joined McNeil in 1997, said he learned the shortcomings of the government's FOIA system when he was a command chief at the Naval Historical Center. Handling FOIA requests was just one of his "collateral" duties.

"There is a real need to service the public out there, and obviously the government can't get it done right now," Ayoub said in an interview. " . . . Very few agencies are staffed at the right level to do an adequate job."

According to GAO figures for 2002, average processing time for pending requests was longer than one year at eight agencies, including the Agency for International Development, the CIA, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Agriculture, Justice, State, Treasury and Interior departments.

Will Kammer, FOIA chief for Defense's Directorate for Freedom of Information and Security Review, said his agency hired two McNeil analysts three years ago to supplement its staff of 18. The agency plans to expand that number to eight in a contract that will pay McNeil $1.1 million a year, according to the company, which says it cut the agency's backlog by 20 percent.

"We are very pleased with the contracting effort," Kammer said. "It has resulted in a reduction in the backlog, which is exactly what we wanted it to do. . . . The backlog that the contractor has been working on, it's a backlog for a reason -- because it's a complicated request."

Federal officials and contractors said there is little chance that full disclosure would be sacrificed in pursuit of speedier responses to FOIA requests. Federal supervisors review contractors' work and have final say on what is released, they note.

"All of their work is cleared and approved, and there is oversight by a TSA FOIA officer," said Yolanda Clarke, a TSA spokeswoman.

Moreover, the threat of lawsuits by requesters who are denied access to information provides an important check. Donald Kirkley Jr., a McNeil vice president, said the company has a reputation for quality to protect.

"I have never, ever counseled someone on low numbers, but I have terminated people for poor quality," Kirkley said. "It only takes one mistake to hit the street. . . . We'll be dead in the water."

Alpha

Forwarded:

Subj: wash post
Date: 6/8/04 11:57:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time

you must check out the story in today's Wash Post on US govt agencies including the DoD contracting out FOIA work to private companies. One of the 2 companies mentioned is CACI. Can you see the ramifications? If CACI is doing FOIAs for DoD, how would they handle FOIA requests for info on Abu Ghraib and other prison torture from the media and researchers? What a conflict of interests!!!

wayne

Alpha

http://www.the-signal.com/News/ViewStory.asp?storyID=4798

Interior: Army Never Reported Abuse

6/9/2004
Leon Worden City Editor

The federal government didn?t crack down on an intelligence firm that provided civilian interrogators to Abu Ghraib prison last fall because the Army never reported any kind of problem, an official said Tuesday.
The U.S. Interior Department administers the contract between the Army and CACI International Inc., an information technology firm in Virginia that supplied some of the intelligence experts who have been blamed for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
If the Army has a problem with the personnel or services provided by CACI, it is supposed to tell Interior Department officials, who would then deal with the company, Interior Department spokesman Frank Quimby said.
?At no point during these two delivery orders did the Army indicate there was a problem,? Quimby told The Signal. ?They still haven?t.?
An Army spokeswoman in Washington didn?t have an immediate explanation Tuesday.
The Interior Department?s Inspector General is conducting a review of the agency?s contracting procedures.
CACI supplied interrogators and ?human intelligence support? to the Army at Abu Ghraib prison under Interior Department delivery orders that were signed in August and December, covering the period when the abuse took place. Two supposed CACI contractors, including a Santa Clarita translator, were named in Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba?s report on abuse at the prison.
One, John B. Israel, 48, of Canyon Country, is accused of sharing overall responsibility for the abuse, and of saying he didn?t watch prisoners being maltreated despite ?several witness statements? to the contrary.
The other, Steven Stephanowicz of Philadelphia, is accused of lying about his knowledge of abusive interrogations, and of prompting prison guards to soften up detainees for questioning in violation of Army regulations.
Israel?s employment through CACI has not been verified. In one section of his report, Taguba identifies Israel as a CACI employee, while in two other places he identifies him as an employee of Titan Corp., another information technology company based in San Diego.
The Signal has established that Israel works for SOS Interpreting Ltd., a New York subcontractor that provided translators to Titan. A Titan official said his company?s contract is directly with the Army.
?We have one contract in Iraq, and it is to provide linguists,? Titan spokesman Ralph ?Wil? Williams said. He said Titan has held the contract since 1999.
Quimby confirmed that the Interior Department does not administer Titan?s contract.
Quimby said the Interior Department assumed some ? not all ? contract administration functions for the Army, Homeland Security, Justice, Commerce and Defense during a period of government reform in the late 1990s.
On Jan. 14, 2001, the Interior Department took over the management of a particular information technology contract that the Army had previously handled itself at Ft. Huachuka, Ariz.
The contract was with Premier Technologies Group. CACI bought the contract from Premier in 2003. It was a blanket purchase agreement under which the Army would fill out a new delivery order whenever it needed more services or personnel.
Since 2001 there have been 81 delivery orders under the blanket Premier-CACI contract, including 11 for Coalition Joint Task Force 7 in Iraq, of which two were for interrogation and intelligence analysis at Abu Ghraib, Quimby said.
He did not know specifics about the personnel provided under the two delivery orders for Abu Ghraib.
The two delivery orders are valued at $41.7 million, but only about $3.4 million has been paid out on them so far, he said.
Quimby said all three parties to the contract ? CACI, the Army and the Interior Department ? have certain legal responsibilities.
?CACI?s responsibility is to provide the services at a (negotiated) price,? he said. ?The Interior Department is responsible for administering the contract,? which includes functions such as issuing checks to the contract firms.
?The Army is to provide the specifications, (determine the) pay, and supervise the contract work and contract workers,? he said.
?They have the legal responsibly to provide the supervision of the contractors by Army officers, who report up the chain of command,? he said.
After the release of the Taguba report in April, the Interior Department took it upon itself to ask Army officials in Baghdad whether there were any problems with CACI?s services, Quimby said.
Three weeks ago, ?We got the response: no problem,? he said.
?The Army apparently doesn?t have a problem with the contract yet,? he said.
The Army would have to report problems before the Interior Department could compel CACI to take corrective measures, he said.
?We can only act when we?re told there is a problem,? Quimby said.
He said Interior Department?s Inspector General is conducting an independent audit and review to determine whether a blanket contract for information technology was an appropriate vehicle for providing interrogators to Abu Ghraib prison.
?In the summer of 2003, the Army was ... trying to house troops by the thousands. The Army was sorely pressed for intelligence personnel,? and it could get some quickly under the CACI contract, Quimby said.
An contract for information technology was deemed a proper fit ?because a significant portion of the work involved information technology work,? he said. Interrogators would have to record their entries into computer databases.
The Interior Department won?t execute any more delivery orders under CACI?s blanket contract, Quimby said.
CACI said in a May 25 statement that it is ?confident with respect to the continuation of (CACI?s) services in support of clients served throughout the current contract,? and that its ?U.S. military customers continue to report their satisfaction with CACI?s performance.?
Brig. Gen. George R. Fay is conducting a full inquiry in Baghdad into the intelligence practices of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, to which CACI?s contractors at Abu Ghraib were assigned.

Additional articles are linked at the following URLs:

http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/

Other articles appear at this URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/05/26/fisk-israeli-mossad-shin-bet-associated-with-prison-torture.php

Alpha

CCR FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST PRIVATE CONTRACTORS FOR TORTURE CONSPIRACY:

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/home.asp

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=TutDBqRhAY&Content=387

http://www.the-signal.com/News/ViewStory.asp?storyID=4798

Interior: Army Never Reported Abuse

6/9/2004
Leon Worden City Editor

The federal government didn?t crack down on an intelligence firm that provided civilian interrogators to Abu Ghraib prison last fall because the Army never reported any kind of problem, an official said Tuesday.
The U.S. Interior Department administers the contract between the Army and CACI International Inc., an information technology firm in Virginia that supplied some of the intelligence experts who have been blamed for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
If the Army has a problem with the personnel or services provided by CACI, it is supposed to tell Interior Department officials, who would then deal with the company, Interior Department spokesman Frank Quimby said.
?At no point during these two delivery orders did the Army indicate there was a problem,? Quimby told The Signal. ?They still haven?t.?
An Army spokeswoman in Washington didn?t have an immediate explanation Tuesday.
The Interior Department?s Inspector General is conducting a review of the agency?s contracting procedures.
CACI supplied interrogators and ?human intelligence support? to the Army at Abu Ghraib prison under Interior Department delivery orders that were signed in August and December, covering the period when the abuse took place. Two supposed CACI contractors, including a Santa Clarita translator, were named in Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba?s report on abuse at the prison.
One, John B. Israel, 48, of Canyon Country, is accused of sharing overall responsibility for the abuse, and of saying he didn?t watch prisoners being maltreated despite ?several witness statements? to the contrary.
The other, Steven Stephanowicz of Philadelphia, is accused of lying about his knowledge of abusive interrogations, and of prompting prison guards to soften up detainees for questioning in violation of Army regulations.
Israel?s employment through CACI has not been verified. In one section of his report, Taguba identifies Israel as a CACI employee, while in two other places he identifies him as an employee of Titan Corp., another information technology company based in San Diego.
The Signal has established that Israel works for SOS Interpreting Ltd., a New York subcontractor that provided translators to Titan. A Titan official said his company?s contract is directly with the Army.
?We have one contract in Iraq, and it is to provide linguists,? Titan spokesman Ralph ?Wil? Williams said. He said Titan has held the contract since 1999.
Quimby confirmed that the Interior Department does not administer Titan?s contract.
Quimby said the Interior Department assumed some ? not all ? contract administration functions for the Army, Homeland Security, Justice, Commerce and Defense during a period of government reform in the late 1990s.
On Jan. 14, 2001, the Interior Department took over the management of a particular information technology contract that the Army had previously handled itself at Ft. Huachuka, Ariz.
The contract was with Premier Technologies Group. CACI bought the contract from Premier in 2003. It was a blanket purchase agreement under which the Army would fill out a new delivery order whenever it needed more services or personnel.
Since 2001 there have been 81 delivery orders under the blanket Premier-CACI contract, including 11 for Coalition Joint Task Force 7 in Iraq, of which two were for interrogation and intelligence analysis at Abu Ghraib, Quimby said.
He did not know specifics about the personnel provided under the two delivery orders for Abu Ghraib.
The two delivery orders are valued at $41.7 million, but only about $3.4 million has been paid out on them so far, he said.
Quimby said all three parties to the contract ? CACI, the Army and the Interior Department ? have certain legal responsibilities.
?CACI?s responsibility is to provide the services at a (negotiated) price,? he said. ?The Interior Department is responsible for administering the contract,? which includes functions such as issuing checks to the contract firms.
?The Army is to provide the specifications, (determine the) pay, and supervise the contract work and contract workers,? he said.
?They have the legal responsibly to provide the supervision of the contractors by Army officers, who report up the chain of command,? he said.
After the release of the Taguba report in April, the Interior Department took it upon itself to ask Army officials in Baghdad whether there were any problems with CACI?s services, Quimby said.
Three weeks ago, ?We got the response: no problem,? he said.
?The Army apparently doesn?t have a problem with the contract yet,? he said.
The Army would have to report problems before the Interior Department could compel CACI to take corrective measures, he said.
?We can only act when we?re told there is a problem,? Quimby said.
He said Interior Department?s Inspector General is conducting an independent audit and review to determine whether a blanket contract for information technology was an appropriate vehicle for providing interrogators to Abu Ghraib prison.
?In the summer of 2003, the Army was ... trying to house troops by the thousands. The Army was sorely pressed for intelligence personnel,? and it could get some quickly under the CACI contract, Quimby said.
An contract for information technology was deemed a proper fit ?because a significant portion of the work involved information technology work,? he said. Interrogators would have to record their entries into computer databases.
The Interior Department won?t execute any more delivery orders under CACI?s blanket contract, Quimby said.
CACI said in a May 25 statement that it is ?confident with respect to the continuation of (CACI?s) services in support of clients served throughout the current contract,? and that its ?U.S. military customers continue to report their satisfaction with CACI?s performance.?
Brig. Gen. George R. Fay is conducting a full inquiry in Baghdad into the intelligence practices of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, to which CACI?s contractors at Abu Ghraib were assigned.

Additional articles are linked at the following URLs:

http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/

Other articles appear at this URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/05/26/fisk-israeli-mossad-shin-bet-associated-with-prison-torture.php

Alpha

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26814-2004Jun9.html

Soldier Described White House Interest
Staff Requested Data From Abu Ghraib, Probers Told
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page A03

The head of the interrogation center at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq told an Army investigator in February that he understood some of the information being collected from prisoners there had been requested by "White House staff," according to an account of his statement obtained by The Washington Post.

Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, an Army reservist who took control of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center on Sept. 17, 2003, said a superior military intelligence officer told him the requested information concerned "any anti-coalition issues, foreign fighters, and terrorist issues."

The Army investigator, Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, asked Jordan whether it concerned "sensitive issues," and Jordan said, "Very sensitive. Yes, sir," according to the account, which was provided by a government official.

The reference by Jordan to a White House link with the military's scandal-plagued intelligence-gathering effort at the prison was not explored further by Taguba, whose primary goal at that time was to assess the scope of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. The White House was unable to provide an immediate explanation.

During the period in question, the last quarter of 2003, virtually every senior military officer in Iraq, as well as at the Pentagon, was intensely interested in determining who was behind the rising insurgency in Iraq and using that information to squelch it. But no reference has previously been made in the publicly available Abu Ghraib investigative documents to a special interest by White House staff.

The precise role and mission of Jordan, who is still stationed in Iraq and through his attorneys has declined requests to speak with the news media, remains one of the least well understood facets of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal.

Jordan has been described by other military personnel as playing a key role at Abu Ghraib in overseeing interrogations; they have described him as being deeply involved in an incident on Nov. 24, 2003, when a detainee was confronted in his cell by snarling military dogs, which Taguba deemed a violation of the prisoner's rights.

In a March 9 report on the abuse scandal, Taguba listed Jordan as one of four military intelligence officers he suspected were "directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib." He also said Jordan had "failed to ensure that soldiers under his direct control were properly trained" in interrogation techniques and were aware of Geneva Conventions human rights protections for detainees.

Col. Thomas M. Pappas, the chief military intelligence officer at the prison, said in his statement to Taguba that Jordan was working on a special project for the office of Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, the top U.S. intelligence official in Iraq. He also described Jordan as "a loner who freelances between military intelligence and military police" officers at the prison.

Asserting that Jordan repeatedly took part in searches of detainee cells without notifying military police commanders -- an activity that fell outside the customary duties of an intelligence officer -- he also told Taguba that "I must admit I failed in not reining him in."

But Jordan, in the statement to Taguba, described himself as more of a functionary than a rogue operator. He said that Pappas was really in charge, as evidenced by the fact that he was not responsible for rating other military intelligence officers in reports to superiors and "had no input . . . no responsibility . . . no resources" under his control. He said he was just a "liaison" between Fast and those collecting intelligence at the prison.

"My direction when it came to the [center] . . . was to set up a structure [of] target folders on individuals," he said, evidently referring to specific detainees. He said he was aware of the "rules of engagement" approved by commanders for interrogations, which have been a topic of controversy. But the rules changed several times, and he did not clarify which set he relied on.

Pappas, he said, was the officer who approved lengthy sleep deprivation or keeping detainees in isolation for more than 30 days. He also said that an "OGA" team -- or Other Government Agency, a euphemism for the CIA -- known as Task Force 121 had caused problems by bringing detainees they had captured to Abu Ghraib and essentially dumping them without conducting any follow-up. "It's a very cowboy kind of affair," he said of Task Force 121.

Some of Jordan's statements to Taguba were not consistent. He said at one point, for example, that "I can never remember seeing an actual interrogation going on at this site." But then he admitted being present during questioning of a detainee in the prison's shower stalls before the use of guard dogs on Nov. 24. One of his civilian attorneys, John Shapiro, described Jordan last night as "a fine soldier who was serving his country and is cooperating in every way with the investigations" into the abuse.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Alpha

Ashcroft Refuses to Release '02 Memo
Document Details Suffering Allowed In Interrogations

By Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page A01

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft told Congress yesterday that he would not
release a 2002 policy memo on the degree of pain and suffering legally
permitted during enemy interrogations, but said he knows of no presidential
order that would allow al Qaeda suspects to be tortured by U.S. personnel.

Angry Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee called on Ashcroft to
provide the document. They said portions that have appeared in news reports
suggest the Bush administration is reinterpreting U.S. law and the Geneva
Conventions prohibiting torture.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said the memo on interrogation techniques
permissible for the CIA to use on suspected al Qaeda operatives "appears to
be an effort to redefine torture and narrow prohibitions against it." The
document was prepared by the Justice Department's office of legal counsel
for the CIA and addressed to White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales.

The 50-page Justice Department memo said inflicting physical or
psychological pain might be justified in the war on terrorism "to prevent
further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network." It
added that "necessity and self defense could provide justifications that
would eliminate any criminal liability."

The Bush administration has said that the discussion in the memo
notwithstanding, al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, including those held at
Guantanamo Bay, have been treated in accord with international conventions
prohibiting torture.

The memo and a second written by Pentagon lawyers surfaced in news reports
this week amid the ongoing abuse scandal at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. The
documents reflect discussions on the legality of softening prohibitions
against inflicting pain on al Qaeda suspects abroad, saying the practice
may sometimes be justified.

Ashcroft's hard-line approach to the war on terrorism has drawn criticism
from civil libertarians. This time, he came under fire during a scheduled
oversight hearing on a day that brought news of the memos.

"There is no presidential order immunizing torture," Ashcroft told the
Judiciary panel. He cited President Bush's statement that al Qaeda captives
should be treated in a manner consistent with the Geneva Conventions, even
though the administration chose not to designate detainees as prisoners of
war.

Under questioning, Ashcroft said he could not discuss whether the president
issued any orders on the interrogation of detainees, but said: "I want to
confirm that the president has not directed or ordered any conduct that
would violate any one of those enactments of the United States Congress or
that would violate the provisions of any of the treaties as they have been
entered into by the United States."

Ashcroft said he would not discuss the contents of the Justice and Pentagon
memos, and would not turn over the Justice memo to the committee. "I
believe it is essential to the operation of the executive branch that the
president have the opportunity to get information from the attorney general
that is confidential," he said.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) warned
Ashcroft that his refusal might place him in contempt of Congress.

"If such a memo existed, would that -- is that good law? . . . Do you think
that torture might be justified?" Biden demanded.

Ashcroft responded, "I condemn torture. I don't think it's productive, let
alone justified."

Biden told Ashcroft that prohibitions against torture are intended to
"protect my son in the military. That's why we have these treaties. So when
Americans are captured, they are not tortured. That's the reason, in case
anybody forgets it."

Ashcroft said he needed no reminder, because his own son has been on active
military duty in the Persian Gulf.

Ashcroft added that although he would not comment on the contents of the
memo, "it is not the job of the Justice Department or this administration
to define torture."

That, he said, has been done in explicit fashion by Congress in enacting law
that bars intentional infliction of "severe physical or mental pain or
suffering." Ashcroft said he would not be drawn into a discussion of the
legal boundaries of aggressive interrogation.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has taken a tough line against
terrorism suspects, alluded to the "high dudgeon" of his Democratic
colleagues, saying he wanted to "interject a note of balance here.

"We ought to be reasonable about this," he told the crowded committee room.
"I think there are very few people in this room or in America who would say
that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives
are at stake."

Bush, Schumer told Ashcroft, "can hardly be blamed for asking you or his
White House counsel or the Department of Defense to figure out when it
comes to torture, what the law allows." But, Schumer said, the debate and
decisions should be public.

Ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy (Vt.) , angry that Ashcroft had not been
before the panel in 15 months, released a fusillade of criticism about his
handling of the war on terrorism.

"Mr. Attorney General, your statement lists accomplishments of the
Department of Justice since 9/11. But you leave out a number of things. For
example, of course, the obvious: Osama bin Laden remains at large," Leahy
said. He said that Ashcroft's "practices seem to be built on secret
detentions and overblown press releases."

But Republicans, particularly committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (Utah),
lauded the Justice Department's efforts. Ashcroft was unapologetic about
his department's efforts to jail or deport suspected terrorist
sympathizers.

"We have been criticized for these tough tactics, but we will continue to
use every means within the department and its reach and within the
Constitution and the statutes to deter, to disrupt, destroy terrorist
threats," he said.

Alpha

Pentagon Report Set Framework For Use of Torture Security or Legal Factors Could Trump Restrictions, Memo to Rumsfeld Argued
Infoshop News - Pentagon Report Set Framework For Use of Torture
by Jess Bravin
Monday, June 7, 2004 / Wall Street Journal

Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by the Justice Department.

The advice was part of a classified report on interrogation methods prepared for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after commanders at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained in late 2002 that with conventional methods they weren't getting enough information from prisoners.

The report outlined U.S. laws and international treaties forbidding torture, and why those restrictions might be overcome by national-security considerations or legal technicalities. In a March 6, 2003, draft of the report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, passages were deleted as was an attachment listing specific interrogation techniques and whether Mr. Rumsfeld himself or other officials must grant permission before they could be used. The complete draft document was classified "secret" by Mr. Rumsfeld and scheduled for declassification in 2013.

The draft report, which exceeds 100 pages, deals with a range of legal issues related to interrogations, offering definitions of the degree of pain or psychological manipulation that could be considered lawful. But at its core is an exceptional argument that because nothing is more important than "obtaining intelligence vital to the protection of untold thousands of American citizens," normal strictures on torture might not apply.

The president, despite domestic and international laws constraining the use of torture, has the authority as commander in chief to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during interrogation, up to and including torture, the report argued. Civilian or military personnel accused of torture or other war crimes have several potential defenses, including the "necessity" of using such methods to extract information to head off an attack, or "superior orders," sometimes known as the Nuremberg defense: namely that the accused was acting pursuant to an order and, as the Nuremberg tribunal put it, no "moral choice was in fact possible."

According to Bush administration officials, the report was compiled by a working group appointed by the Defense Department's general counsel, William J. Haynes II. Air Force General Counsel Mary Walker headed the group, which comprised top civilian and uniformed lawyers from each military branch and consulted with the Justice Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Defense Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies. It isn't known if President Bush has ever seen the report.

A Pentagon official said some military lawyers involved objected to some of the proposed interrogation methods as "different than what our people had been trained to do under the Geneva Conventions," but those lawyers ultimately signed on to the final report in April 2003, shortly after the war in Iraq began. The Journal hasn't seen the full final report, but people familiar with it say there were few substantial changes in legal analysis between the draft and final versions.

A military lawyer who helped prepare the report said that political appointees heading the working group sought to assign to the president virtually unlimited authority on matters of torture -- to assert "presidential power at its absolute apex," the lawyer said. Although career military lawyers were uncomfortable with that conclusion, the military lawyer said they focused their efforts on reining in the more extreme interrogation methods, rather than challenging the constitutional powers that administration lawyers were saying President Bush could claim.

The Pentagon disclosed last month that the working group had been assembled to review interrogation policies after intelligence officials in Guantanamo reported frustration in extracting information from prisoners. At a news conference last week, Gen. James T. Hill, who oversees the offshore prison at Guantanamo as head of the U.S. Southern Command, said the working group sought to identify "what is legal and consistent with not only Geneva [but] ... what is right for our soldiers." He said Guantanamo is "a professional, humane detention and interrogation operation ... bounded by law and guided by the American spirit."

Gen. Hill said Mr. Rumsfeld gave him the final set of approved interrogation techniques on April 16, 2003. Four of the methods require the defense secretary's approval, he said, and those methods had been used on two prisoners. He said interrogators had stopped short of using all the methods lawyers had approved. It remains unclear what actions U.S. officials took as a result of the legal advice.

Critics who have seen the draft report said it undercuts the administration's claims that it recognized a duty to treat prisoners humanely. The "claim that the president's commander-in-chief power includes the authority to use torture should be unheard of in this day and age," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York advocacy group that has filed lawsuits against U.S. detention policies. "Can one imagine the reaction if those on trial for atrocities in the former Yugoslavia had tried this defense?"

Following scattered reports last year of harsh interrogation techniques used by the U.S. overseas, Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice asking for clarification. The response came in June 2003 from Mr. Haynes, who wrote that the U.S. was obliged to conduct interrogations "consistent with" the 1994 international Convention Against Torture and the federal Torture Statute enacted to implement the convention outside the U.S.

The U.S. "does not permit, tolerate or condone any such torture by its employees under any circumstances," Mr. Haynes wrote. The U.S. also followed its legal duty, required by the torture convention, "to prevent other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture," he wrote.

The U.S. position is that domestic criminal laws and the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments already met the Convention Against Torture's requirements within U.S. territory.

The Convention Against Torture was proposed in 1984 by the United Nations General Assembly and was ratified by the U.S. in 1994. It states that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture," and that orders from superiors "may not be invoked as a justification of torture."

That prohibition was reaffirmed after the Sept. 11 attacks by the U.N. panel that oversees the treaty, the Committee Against Torture, and the March 2003 report acknowledged that "other nations and international bodies may take a more restrictive view" of permissible interrogation methods than did the Bush administration.

The report then offers a series of legal justifications for limiting or disregarding antitorture laws and proposed legal defenses that government officials could use if they were accused of torture.

A military official who helped prepare the report said it came after frustrated Guantanamo interrogators had begun trying unorthodox methods on recalcitrant prisoners. "We'd been at this for a year-plus and got nothing out of them" so officials concluded "we need to have a less-cramped view of what torture is and is not."

The official said, "People were trying like hell how to ratchet up the pressure," and used techniques that ranged from drawing on prisoners' bodies and placing women's underwear on prisoners heads -- a practice that later reappeared in the Abu Ghraib prison -- to telling subjects, "I'm on the line with somebody in Yemen and he's in a room with your family and a grenade that's going to pop unless you talk."

Senior officers at Guantanamo requested a "rethinking of the whole approach to defending your country when you have an enemy that does not follow the rules," the official said. Rather than license torture, this official said that the report helped rein in more "assertive" approaches.

Methods now used at Guantanamo include limiting prisoners' food, denying them clothing, subjecting them to body-cavity searches, depriving them of sleep for as much as 96 hours and shackling them in so-called stress positions, a military-intelligence official said. Although the interrogators consider the methods to be humiliating and unpleasant, they don't view them as torture, the official said.

The working-group report elaborated the Bush administration's view that the president has virtually unlimited power to wage war as he sees fit, and neither Congress, the courts nor international law can interfere. It concluded that neither the president nor anyone following his instructions was bound by the federal Torture Statute, which makes it a crime for Americans working for the government overseas to commit or attempt torture, defined as any act intended to "inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering." Punishment is up to 20 years imprisonment, or a death sentence or life imprisonment if the victim dies.

"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 report asserted. (The parenthetical comment is in the original document.) The Justice Department "concluded that it could not bring a criminal prosecution against a defendant who had acted pursuant to an exercise of the president's constitutional power," the report said. Citing confidential Justice Department opinions drafted after Sept. 11, 2001, the report advised that the executive branch of the government had "sweeping" powers to act as it sees fit because "national security decisions require the unity in purpose and energy in action that characterize the presidency rather than Congress."

The lawyers concluded that the Torture Statute applied to Afghanistan but not Guantanamo, because the latter lies within the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and accordingly is within the United States" when applying a law that regulates only government conduct abroad.

Administration lawyers also concluded that the Alien Tort Claims Act, a 1789 statute that allows noncitizens to sue in U.S. courts for violations of international law, couldn't be invoked against the U.S. government unless it consents, and that the 1992 Torture Victims Protection Act allowed suits only against foreign officials for torture or "extrajudicial killing" and "does not apply to the conduct of U.S. agents acting under the color of law."

The Bush administration has argued before the Supreme Court that foreigners held at Guantanamo have no constitutional rights and can't challenge their detention in court. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on that question by month's end.

For Afghanistan and other foreign locations where the Torture Statute applies, the March 2003 report offers a narrow definition of torture and then lays out defenses that government officials could use should they be charged with committing torture, such as mistakenly relying in good faith on the advice of lawyers or experts that their actions were permissible. "Good faith may be a complete defense" to a torture charge, the report advised.

"The infliction of pain or suffering per se, whether it is physical or mental, is insufficient to amount to torture," the report advises. Such suffering must be "severe," the lawyers advise, and they rely on a dictionary definition to suggest it "must be of such a high level of intensity that the pain is difficult for the subject to endure."

The law says torture can be caused by administering or threatening to administer "mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the sense of personality." The Bush lawyers advised, though, that it "does not preclude any and all use of drugs" and "disruption of the senses or personality alone is insufficient" to be illegal. For involuntarily administered drugs or other psychological methods, the "acts must penetrate to the core of an individual's ability to perceive the world around him," the lawyers found.

Gen. Hill said last week that the military didn't use injections or chemicals on prisoners.

After defining torture and other prohibited acts, the memo presents "legal doctrines ... that could render specific conduct, otherwise criminal, not unlawful." Foremost, the lawyers rely on the "commander-in-chief authority," concluding that "without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president's ultimate authority" to wage war. Moreover, "any effort by Congress to regulate the interrogation of unlawful combatants would violate the Constitution's sole vesting of the commander-in-chief authority in the president," the lawyers advised.

Likewise, the lawyers found that "constitutional principles" make it impossible to "punish officials for aiding the president in exercising his exclusive constitutional authorities" and neither Congress nor the courts could "require or implement the prosecution of such an individual."

To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

The report advised that government officials could argue that "necessity" justified the use of torture. "Sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law," the lawyers wrote, citing a standard legal text, "Substantive Criminal Law" by Wayne LaFave and Austin W. Scott. "In particular, the necessity defense can justify the intentional killing of one person ... so long as the harm avoided is greater."

In addition, the report advised that torture or homicide could be justified as "self-defense," should an official "honestly believe" it was necessary to head off an imminent attack on the U.S. The self-defense doctrine generally has been asserted by individuals fending off assaults, and in 1890, the Supreme Court upheld a U.S. deputy marshal's right to shoot an assailant of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field as involving both self-defense and defense of the nation. Citing Justice Department opinions, the report concluded that "if a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate criminal prohibition," he could be justified "in doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network."

Mr. LaFave, a law professor at the University of Illinois, said he was unaware that the Pentagon used his textbook in preparing its legal analysis. He agreed, however, that in some cases necessity could be a defense to torture charges. "Here's a guy who knows with certainty where there's a bomb that will blow New York City to smithereens. Should we torture him? Seems to me that's an easy one," Mr. LaFave said. But he said necessity couldn't be a blanket justification for torturing prisoners because of a general fear that "the nation is in danger."

For members of the military, the report suggested that officials could escape torture convictions by arguing that they were following superior orders, since such orders "may be inferred to be lawful" and are "disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate." Examining the "superior orders" defense at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals, the Vietnam War prosecution of U.S. Army Lt. William Calley for the My Lai massacre and the current U.N. war-crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the report concluded it could be asserted by "U.S. armed forces personnel engaged in exceptional interrogations except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful."

The report seemed "designed to find the legal loopholes that will permit the use of torture against detainees," said Mary Ellen O'Connell, an international-law professor at the Ohio State University who has seen the report. "CIA operatives will think they are covered because they are not going to face liability."

Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc

Alpha

http://www.the-signal.com/News/ViewStory.asp?storyID=4810

Iraqis Sue SCV Translator

6/10/2004
Leon Worden City Editor

Former Iraqi prisoners who were stripped and beaten at Abu Ghraib prison have filed a lawsuit alleging that a Santa Clarita man conspired with others to torture them.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in San Diego, accuses John B. Israel, 48, of Canyon Country, as well as Steven Stephanowicz of Philadelphia and Adel Nakhla of Maryland, of inflicting cruel and unusual punishment upon detainees last fall at the prison outside Baghdad.
Co-defendants are the companies that provided the three civilians to the Army?s 205th Military Intelligence Brigade ? Virginia-based CACI International Inc. and San Diego-based Titan Corp., whose spokesman termed the lawsuit frivolous.
Filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York and four other law firms, the 52-page lawsuit claims that Israel, Stephanowicz and Nakhla ?conspired with certain United States officials to engage in a series of wrongful and illegal acts, including but not limited to summary execution, torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, arbitrary arrest and detention, assault and battery, false imprisonment and intentional interference with religious practices.?
It doesn?t identify the ?certain United States officials.?
The lawsuit accuses Titan and CACI of violating federal racketeering laws on grounds that the two publicly traded companies profited from their employees? wrongful acts.
It further alleges that the so-called ?torture conspirators? violated two applicable Geneva conventions and several amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of seven named and two unnamed Iraqi citizens who were held at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq. It seeks class-action status on behalf of as many as 1,000 additional ex-detainees.
The lawsuit identifies Israel as an associate of CACI, but Israel?s employer is SOS Interpreting Ltd., a subcontractor to Titan.
Israel was accused in an Army report of sharing overall responsibility for the abuse of prisoners and of contradicting witness statements about interrogations. Stephanowicz, a CACI interrogator, was accused of instructing prison guards to soften up detainees for questioning, while Nakhla, a Titan translator, was listed as a suspect in abusive incidents. Titan subsequently fired Nakhla.
Israel, Stephanowicz and Nakhla have not been charged with crimes. An Army investigation of intelligence practices at Abu Ghraib is under way.
Israel?s attorney, Christopher Darden, did not return phone messages Wednesday and has not replied to any of The Signal?s inquiries. Stephanowicz?s attorney and CACI officials could not be reached, and Nakhla?s whereabouts are unknown.
Titan spokesman Ralph ?Wil? Williams said his company is girding for battle.
?In regard to Titan, we believe the lawsuit to be frivolous and we will defend ourselves against it vigorously,? Williams said.
He said no government agency has accused Titan of wrongdoing, ?nor is there any charge against our single former employee,? meaning Nakhla.
?Titan has never provided interrogators or interrogation support to anyone,? Williams said. ?We provide only linguists, whose job is translating or transcribing from one language to another.?
Williams said the company has about 12,000 employees. According to published news reports, about 8,800 have government security clearances and there are about 4,200 Titan employees in Iraq, including indigenous Iraqi workers.
Susan Burke, an attorney for the prisoners, said each plaintiff individually retained one of the law firms.
Citing what purports to be a joint advertisement for linguists, the lawsuit claims Titan and CACI acted together as ?a joint enterprise known as ?Team Titan.??
Williams characterized the two companies as competitors and said Titan has no contractual relationship with CACI in Iraq.
The lawsuit alleges Titan and CACI sent interrogation teams from Guantanamo Bay ? where the U.S. government determined Geneva convention protections didn?t apply to stateless al-Qaida terrorists and Taliban fighters ? to Iraq, where the third and fourth Geneva conventions were supposed to apply to prisoners of war and civilian detainees.
?In or around October 2003, five interrogation teams ... who had been conducting interrogations in Guantanamo were sent to Iraq to set up a ?Gitmo-style? prison at Abu Ghraib,? the lawsuit states. Gitmo is a nickname for Guantanamo Bay.
Israel reportedly told Army investigators he arrived at Abu Ghraib on Oct. 14. His previous whereabouts are unknown.
The lawsuit alleges that, in addition to inflicting serious physical injuries, the defendants ?summarily executed at least 15 persons? and ?caused as many as 50 suicides.?
It alleges that the specific instances of wrongful death, torture, rape and humiliation violate international law and are covered under the federal Alien Tort Claims Act.
Dan Guttman, an expert in government contracting and procurement processes at John Hopkins University, said the claims under the tort act may prove significant.
?The Alien Tort Claims Act was one of the first laws Congress passed in 1789,? he said. ?It basically says U.S. courts are available for folks who want to make claims for rights under the law of nations or treaties that have been violated.?
?People from other countries can use U.S. courts because courts in their countries don?t exist or are not adequate,? he said.
But it might be difficult to prove Titan and CACI broke laws ?if the company is working hand-in-glove with the government,? he said.
?One individual might violate the Geneva Convention,? he said, but ?for RICO (racketeering), one of the critical things that will have to be shown is conspiracy, people acting together.?
?Even if CACI tortured someone,? he said, ?was it an individual acting alone??

Signal staff writer Judy O?Rourke contributed to this story.

Additional articles are linked at the following URLs:

http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/

Other articles appear at this URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/05/26/fisk-israeli-mossad-shin-bet-associated-with-prison-torture.php

http://www.the-signal.com/News/ViewStory.asp?storyID=4798

Interior: Army Never Reported Abuse

6/9/2004
Leon Worden City Editor

The federal government didn?t crack down on an intelligence firm that provided civilian interrogators to Abu Ghraib prison last fall because the Army never reported any kind of problem, an official said Tuesday.
The U.S. Interior Department administers the contract between the Army and CACI International Inc., an information technology firm in Virginia that supplied some of the intelligence experts who have been blamed for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
If the Army has a problem with the personnel or services provided by CACI, it is supposed to tell Interior Department officials, who would then deal with the company, Interior Department spokesman Frank Quimby said.
?At no point during these two delivery orders did the Army indicate there was a problem,? Quimby told The Signal. ?They still haven?t.?
An Army spokeswoman in Washington didn?t have an immediate explanation Tuesday.
The Interior Department?s Inspector General is conducting a review of the agency?s contracting procedures.
CACI supplied interrogators and ?human intelligence support? to the Army at Abu Ghraib prison under Interior Department delivery orders that were signed in August and December, covering the period when the abuse took place. Two supposed CACI contractors, including a Santa Clarita translator, were named in Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba?s report on abuse at the prison.
One, John B. Israel, 48, of Canyon Country, is accused of sharing overall responsibility for the abuse, and of saying he didn?t watch prisoners being maltreated despite ?several witness statements? to the contrary.
The other, Steven Stephanowicz of Philadelphia, is accused of lying about his knowledge of abusive interrogations, and of prompting prison guards to soften up detainees for questioning in violation of Army regulations.
Israel?s employment through CACI has not been verified. In one section of his report, Taguba identifies Israel as a CACI employee, while in two other places he identifies him as an employee of Titan Corp., another information technology company based in San Diego.
The Signal has established that Israel works for SOS Interpreting Ltd., a New York subcontractor that provided translators to Titan. A Titan official said his company?s contract is directly with the Army.
?We have one contract in Iraq, and it is to provide linguists,? Titan spokesman Ralph ?Wil? Williams said. He said Titan has held the contract since 1999.
Quimby confirmed that the Interior Department does not administer Titan?s contract.
Quimby said the Interior Department assumed some ? not all ? contract administration functions for the Army, Homeland Security, Justice, Commerce and Defense during a period of government reform in the late 1990s.
On Jan. 14, 2001, the Interior Department took over the management of a particular information technology contract that the Army had previously handled itself at Ft. Huachuka, Ariz.
The contract was with Premier Technologies Group. CACI bought the contract from Premier in 2003. It was a blanket purchase agreement under which the Army would fill out a new delivery order whenever it needed more services or personnel.
Since 2001 there have been 81 delivery orders under the blanket Premier-CACI contract, including 11 for Coalition Joint Task Force 7 in Iraq, of which two were for interrogation and intelligence analysis at Abu Ghraib, Quimby said.
He did not know specifics about the personnel provided under the two delivery orders for Abu Ghraib.
The two delivery orders are valued at $41.7 million, but only about $3.4 million has been paid out on them so far, he said.
Quimby said all three parties to the contract ? CACI, the Army and the Interior Department ? have certain legal responsibilities.
?CACI?s responsibility is to provide the services at a (negotiated) price,? he said. ?The Interior Department is responsible for administering the contract,? which includes functions such as issuing checks to the contract firms.
?The Army is to provide the specifications, (determine the) pay, and supervise the contract work and contract workers,? he said.
?They have the legal responsibly to provide the supervision of the contractors by Army officers, who report up the chain of command,? he said.
After the release of the Taguba report in April, the Interior Department took it upon itself to ask Army officials in Baghdad whether there were any problems with CACI?s services, Quimby said.
Three weeks ago, ?We got the response: no problem,? he said.
?The Army apparently doesn?t have a problem with the contract yet,? he said.
The Army would have to report problems before the Interior Department could compel CACI to take corrective measures, he said.
?We can only act when we?re told there is a problem,? Quimby said.
He said Interior Department?s Inspector General is conducting an independent audit and review to determine whether a blanket contract for information technology was an appropriate vehicle for providing interrogators to Abu Ghraib prison.
?In the summer of 2003, the Army was ... trying to house troops by the thousands. The Army was sorely pressed for intelligence personnel,? and it could get some quickly under the CACI contract, Quimby said.
An contract for information technology was deemed a proper fit ?because a significant portion of the work involved information technology work,? he said. Interrogators would have to record their entries into computer databases.
The Interior Department won?t execute any more delivery orders under CACI?s blanket contract, Quimby said.
CACI said in a May 25 statement that it is ?confident with respect to the continuation of (CACI?s) services in support of clients served throughout the current contract,? and that its ?U.S. military customers continue to report their satisfaction with CACI?s performance.?
Brig. Gen. George R. Fay is conducting a full inquiry in Baghdad into the intelligence practices of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, to which CACI?s contractors at Abu Ghraib were assigned.

Alpha

http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/sg061104a.htm

Intel Firm Denies Torture Conspiracy

By Leon Worden

Signal City Editor Friday, June 11, 2004

An intelligence firm accused in a new lawsuit of conspiring to torture Abu Ghraib prisoners denounced the allegations as malicious Thursday and disavowed any connection to a Santa Clarita man targeted in the suit.
A spokesman for a second firm named in the lawsuit said lawyers manipulated documents to make it appear the two companies acted together.
CACI International Inc., a Virginia-based information technology firm that provided civilian interrogators to Army intelligence at Abu Ghraib last fall, said in a statement that it "rejects and denies the allegations of the suit as being a malicious recitation of false statements and intentional distortions."
The federal lawsuit was filed Wednesday on behalf of nine former Iraqi prisoners who claimed they were stripped and beaten as part of a conspiracy to extract answers from them during interrogation sessions at Abu Ghraib and other U.S.-run prisons.
The lawsuit alleges that John B. Israel, 48, of Canyon Country, and two other civilian contractors inflicted cruel and unusual punishment upon the prisoners. Israel's attorney has not replied to queries.
The lawsuit identifies Israel as an associate of CACI, but CACI said he didn't work for the company.
"John Israel is not, and has never been, an employee of CACI," the statement said.
Israel is actually an employee of SOS Interpreting Ltd., a New York-based translation firm that provided civilian linguists to the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) under a subcontract with Titan Corp., which is named as a co-defendant.
Titan spokesman Ralph "Wil" Williams termed the lawsuit frivolous and said his employees didn't have control over the treatment of prisoners.
SOS is not directly named in the suit.
Susan Burke, a lead attorney for the ex-prisoners, said the lawsuit identified Israel with CACI because that's the way he appears in Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba's report on the actions of military police officers at Abu Ghraib.
Taguba listed Israel as a CACI associate in one section and as a Titan associate in two other sections of his report, where he concluded that Israel was one of four men who bore overall responsibility for the abuse. Israel has not been charged with a crime.
Asked for Taguba's explanation of the discrepancy, an Army spokesperson in Baghdad told The Signal on Thursday that the report has not been officially declassified, and declined further comment.
CACI and Titan took issue with the allegation that they formed an alliance to maximize profits through their employees' wrongful actions, in violation of racketeering laws.
"CACI does not have and has never had any agreement with Titan Corporation or anyone else pertaining to conspiring with the government, or to perpetrate abuses of any kind on anyone," the statement said.
Williams, of Titan, characterized the two companies as competitors for government contracts and said CACI "has absolutely nothing to do with Titan's linguist contract in Iraq."
To show evidence of an alliance, the lawsuit cites what purports to be an undated advertisement from "Titan Corporation and its partners CACI and Alion, collectively known as Team Titan" for translators at Camp X-ray in Cuba and in Iraq.
But Williams said the lawyers for the ex-prisoners cut-and-pasted one or more unrelated Titan job postings to turn them into a single document.
Williams said the reference to "Team Titan" came from an old advertisement for a job in Europe that had "nothing whatsoever to do with" online postings for Titan jobs in Cuba and Iraq that were shown in subsequent pages of the legal exhibit.
"What they've done is, they have commingled these things together to make them appear as if they are one," Williams said.
Burke said, "What's up on the Web reveals the existence of Team Titan. There are a variety of job postings for Titan up on the Web as well."
The lawsuit contends that interrogation teams were sent from Guantanamo Bay, aka Gitmo, to Iraq last October in order to set up a "Gitmo-style" prison system at Abu Ghraib. Geneva convention protections don't apply to stateless al-Qaida terrorists and Taliban fighters at Guantanamo Bay, but they are supposed to be honored for prisoners of war and civilian detainees in Iraq.
CACI disavowed having personnel in Cuba, labeling "false" the allegation that it had "contracts for interrogation work in Guantanamo Bay."
Williams said Titan has employees at Guantanamo Bay, but they are not interrogators. Like those in Iraq, they are interpreters who perform a "passive" function, he said, translating and transcribing verbal and written communications. He didn't know if any Titan translators had been transferred from Cuba to Iraq.
CACI said it may counter-sue.
"In light of the frivolous and malicious nature of this lawsuit, (CACI is) examining its options for sanctions against the lawyers who participated in the filing of this lawsuit."
Burke said the threat may be an intimidation ploy.
"I think they'll obviously have to assess their legal remedies," she said. "We're more than prepared to respond to anything they throw our way."
The suit was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York; Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoades LLP in Philadelphia; Melamed, Dailey & Akeel in Michigan; Susan Feathers of the University of Pennsylvania Law School; and attorney William J. Aceves of San Diego.
Burke, of Montgomery McCracken, said all eight Iraqi ex-detainee plaintiffs and the estate of a ninth who died at Abu Ghraib individually hired one of the law firms to represent them.

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

http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/sg061104c.htm

Abuse Inquiry Heading Higher

By Leon Worden

Friday, June 11, 2004

Lt. Col. Ricardo Sanchez, seen here in Washington in May, is stepping aside as investigation overseer so he can be questioned by a superior officer. AP/Evan Vucci
The officer who appointed the original investigator of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib is removing himself from the process so a new investigator can question him, a senior Pentagon spokesman said Thursday.
Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, commander of ground forces in Iraq, asked his superior, Gen. John Abizaid, to recuse him as the overseer of the investigation, deputy Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said.
In a memo Monday, Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, forwarded the request to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Abizaid also asked Rumsfeld to find somebody new to spearhead the investigation of intelligence practices at Abu Ghraib prison.
The memo was not publicly released.
The appointment of Maj. Gen. George R. Fay as the intelligence inquisitor has drawn fire from critics who claim he lacks sufficient seniority to follow the trail of responsibility wherever it may lead up the chain of command.
An Army reservist who sits on the board of an insurance company in civilian life, Fay is a two-star general.
Sanchez, who put Army intelligence in charge of prison operations while the abuse was happening, is a three-star general.
Although a two-star general can question a three-star general, it isn't practical, Whitman said.
Sanchez is the officer who appointed Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, another two-star general, to investigate the activities of the military police brigade at Abu Ghraib.
In his report, Taguba wrote, "I totally concur with Lt. Gen. Sanchez' opinion" about the performance of brigade commander Janis Karpinski, the one-star general Sanchez blamed for failing to keep prison guards under control.
Taguba recommended a second inquiry to determine the culpability of military intelligence personnel, including John B. Israel, an Iraqi-American translator from Canyon Country.
Sanchez appointed Fay in April to lead that second investigation, which is now under way.
This week's decision to replace Fay and remove Sanchez from the loop is intended to ensure "a complete, thorough and transparent investigation" that will "stand up to the veracity that we want it to," Whitman told The Signal.
Fay is said to be well along with his inquiry, which is one of 11 Defense Department investigations that have been or are being completed. Replacing him now could mean the results could take longer, although there is no deadline, Whitman said.
The new investigator could pick up where Fay leaves off or start all over, Whitman said.
The new investigator could be either a four-star general or a three-star general with more seniority than Sanchez.
"There aren't a lot of three- and four-star generals to go around," a Pentagon official said.
Although it will be up to the new investigator, Fay will likely remain part of the process in a junior capacity because of his experience with the case, Whitman said.
Rumsfeld will act soon to remove Sanchez from the role of appointing officer, and Sanchez' replacement will appoint the new investigator, officials said.

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

http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/sg061104b.htm

Guard Can't Compel Witness Testimony By Leon Worden
Signal City Editor Friday, June 11, 2004 O
ne of the "few bad apples" accused of abusing Iraqi detainees is going after the whole tree - but there's no guarantee all the branches will fall in line.
"I would not expect that the vice president or the defense secretary would appear at an Article 32 hearing," a senior Pentagon spokesman said Thursday.
Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld are two of literally 100 witnesses attorneys hope to hear from later this month when an Army official decides whether Pfc. Lynndie England will face a court-martial.
Attorneys for England, perhaps the most prominent of seven guards to face criminal charges of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, issued a witness list this week that runs the gamut from high government officials to fellow low-level guards to former Iraqi detainees.
The list includes John B. Israel, a 48-year-old Iraqi-American translator from Canyon Country who was accused in an Army report of sharing overall responsibility for the abuse. England's attorneys want him and others to tell what went on inside Abu Ghraib prison.
But they can't force them to do so.
Under Army regulations, defense attorneys don't have the equivalent of subpoena power at an Article 32 hearing, where a military judge or investigating officer decides whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a court-martial.
An Article 32 hearing is a bit more favorable to the defense than a civilian grand jury hearing in that the defense can present witness testimony. But it's a little less favorable to the defense than a civilian preliminary hearing because the defense can't require witnesses to appear.
"Both the defense and the prosecution must show that a witness' testimony makes the difference between the case moving forward or not," a Pentagon official said. "The testimony would have to be substantial enough (for the hearing officer) to know whether the case moves forward or not."
The decision about who testifies could be made before the opening day of the hearing, which for England is tentatively set for June 22 at Ft. Bragg in North Carolina. But the decision might not come until the hearing is under way.
If a witness is needed, the Army will get him or her there, the spokesman said.
Blake Ellis, a representative of the 21-year-old Army reservist whose image is seen smiling and pointing at naked Iraqi prisoners in photographs published worldwide, said it's critical for England's defense team to be able to call a variety of witnesses who can testify that she acted on orders of superiors.
And Ellis hasn't given up on Rumsfeld just yet.
"We have heard from the Department of Defense that (Rumsfeld's) office is clearing his calendar to allow him to be there, and we're excited about that," Ellis said earlier this week.
"We will, of course, be ready with the important questions to ask him," Ellis said without elaborating.
Others are wanted for questioning about their specific recollections, he said.
"We want to find out if any of (the Iraqi ex-detainees) saw other people giving orders at the prison," he said.
The Pentagon spokesman admitted it could be difficult for the government to produce ex-prisoners who are in Iraq.
But he said some witness testimony could be presented in the form of written or videotaped statements.
Ellis said it's unknown whether the hearing officer can demand the testimony of Israel and other civilians who were working at the prison last fall under Army intelligence contracts.
"We need to review their contract and find out if it compels them to appear," he said. "If it's not stipulated in the contract (shielding them from testifying), then it's a possibility.
"We're asking the Army to make (the witnesses) available," he said. "It's the investigating officer's decision. The government has been served with the list."
The Pentagon official said the government will cooperate with the defense's requests "within reason."
"We support the non-judicial system of punishment," he said, referring to the military system. "The Department of Defense upholds and abides by the rule of law."
Asked how many witnesses on the list he'd consider friendly, Ellis said, "I don't think a whole lot."
He said England's attorneys have communicated with some of the other guards' attorneys but said there is "no actual coordination" among them.
"It's not a united front," he said. "Each case is going to have to stand on its own merits."
If the Article 32 hearing results in a general court-martial and England is found guilty of each charge and specification, which haven't been officially announced, she could face a maximum sentence of 35 years in a military prison, Ellis said.

Additional articles are linked at the following URLs:

http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/

Other articles appear at this URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/05/26/fisk-israeli-mossad-shin-bet-associated-with-prison-torture.php

http://guantanamobile.org/blog/

Mother Jones Excerpts Torture Memo

A June 9 Mother Jones article excerpts portions of the leaked 2002 memo argued that the United States was not bound by domestic and international law prohibiting the use of torture and claimed that the weight of a presidential order acted as a shield against possible criminal persecution. Here is a citation from that memo concerning the President's powers during wartime:

"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… Sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law…In particular, the necessity defense can justify the intentional killing of one person ... so long as the harm avoided is greater."

Interrogators 'told to follow US laws' in Iraq
REUTERS Thu 10 June, 2004 21:50

SAVANNAH, Georgia (Reuters) - Facing criticism for methods used to interrogate terrorism suspects held by the United States, President George W. Bush has insisted he had always ordered questioning methods to remain within the law. "What I have authorised is that we stay within U.S. law," Bush told reporters in Savannah, Georgia, when asked what measures of interrogation he would authorise if the United States had a terror suspect in custody it knew was planning an attack.

"I'm going to say it one more time. In fact, maybe I can be more clear. The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law," said Bush, speaking at the end of a Group of Eight industrial nations summit on Thursday.

"That ought to comfort you. We're a nation of law. We adhere to laws. We have laws on the books. You might look at those laws, and that might provide comfort for you. And those were the instructions from me to the government."

The abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops, revealed in April, has raised wider questions over the interrogation of prisoners in U.S. custody during a period of heightened concerns over terror attacks.

A March 2003 memo by Bush administration lawyers argued that the president, as commander-in-chief, was not tied by US and international laws barring torture.

The 56-page memo to Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cited the president's "complete authority over the conduct of war," overriding international treaties such as a global treaty banning torture, the Geneva Conventions and a U.S. federal law against torture.

Bush, repeatedly quizzed at the news conference over whether he considered that torture was justified in certain circumstances, said he could not remember if he had seen the memo to Rumsfeld.

In Washington, U.S. officials said on Thursday that Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld may widen the investigation into abuses of Iraqi prisoners to include top military ranks, and has also ordered that he be told about the death of any prisoner in U.S. military custody.

Seven U.S. soldiers have been charged with abusing and humiliating Iraqis at that prison, and several investigations are underway into the U.S. military's detention and interrogation procedures.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.counterpunch.org/barghouthi06092004.html
>
> June 9, 2004
>
> Nearly Half of Palestinian Adult Males Have Spent Time in Israeli Prisons
> Since 1967

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

http://www.the-signal.com/News/ViewStory.asp?storyID=4810

Iraqis Sue SCV Translator

6/10/2004
Leon Worden City Editor

Former Iraqi prisoners who were stripped and beaten at Abu Ghraib prison have filed a lawsuit alleging that a Santa Clarita man conspired with others to torture them.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in San Diego, accuses John B. Israel, 48, of Canyon Country, as well as Steven Stephanowicz of Philadelphia and Adel Nakhla of Maryland, of inflicting cruel and unusual punishment upon detainees last fall at the prison outside Baghdad.
Co-defendants are the companies that provided the three civilians to the Army?s 205th Military Intelligence Brigade ? Virginia-based CACI International Inc. and San Diego-based Titan Corp., whose spokesman termed the lawsuit frivolous.
Filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York and four other law firms, the 52-page lawsuit claims that Israel, Stephanowicz and Nakhla ?conspired with certain United States officials to engage in a series of wrongful and illegal acts, including but not limited to summary execution, torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, arbitrary arrest and detention, assault and battery, false imprisonment and intentional interference with religious practices.?
It doesn?t identify the ?certain United States officials.?
The lawsuit accuses Titan and CACI of violating federal racketeering laws on grounds that the two publicly traded companies profited from their employees? wrongful acts.
It further alleges that the so-called ?torture conspirators? violated two applicable Geneva conventions and several amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of seven named and two unnamed Iraqi citizens who were held at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq. It seeks class-action status on behalf of as many as 1,000 additional ex-detainees.
The lawsuit identifies Israel as an associate of CACI, but Israel?s employer is SOS Interpreting Ltd., a subcontractor to Titan.
Israel was accused in an Army report of sharing overall responsibility for the abuse of prisoners and of contradicting witness statements about interrogations. Stephanowicz, a CACI interrogator, was accused of instructing prison guards to soften up detainees for questioning, while Nakhla, a Titan translator, was listed as a suspect in abusive incidents. Titan subsequently fired Nakhla.
Israel, Stephanowicz and Nakhla have not been charged with crimes. An Army investigation of intelligence practices at Abu Ghraib is under way.
Israel?s attorney, Christopher Darden, did not return phone messages Wednesday and has not replied to any of The Signal?s inquiries. Stephanowicz?s attorney and CACI officials could not be reached, and Nakhla?s whereabouts are unknown.
Titan spokesman Ralph ?Wil? Williams said his company is girding for battle.
?In regard to Titan, we believe the lawsuit to be frivolous and we will defend ourselves against it vigorously,? Williams said.
He said no government agency has accused Titan of wrongdoing, ?nor is there any charge against our single former employee,? meaning Nakhla.
?Titan has never provided interrogators or interrogation support to anyone,? Williams said. ?We provide only linguists, whose job is translating or transcribing from one language to another.?
Williams said the company has about 12,000 employees. According to published news reports, about 8,800 have government security clearances and there are about 4,200 Titan employees in Iraq, including indigenous Iraqi workers.
Susan Burke, an attorney for the prisoners, said each plaintiff individually retained one of the law firms.
Citing what purports to be a joint advertisement for linguists, the lawsuit claims Titan and CACI acted together as ?a joint enterprise known as ?Team Titan.??
Williams characterized the two companies as competitors and said Titan has no contractual relationship with CACI in Iraq.
The lawsuit alleges Titan and CACI sent interrogation teams from Guantanamo Bay ? where the U.S. government determined Geneva convention protections didn?t apply to stateless al-Qaida terrorists and Taliban fighters ? to Iraq, where the third and fourth Geneva conventions were supposed to apply to prisoners of war and civilian detainees.
?In or around October 2003, five interrogation teams ... who had been conducting interrogations in Guantanamo were sent to Iraq to set up a ?Gitmo-style? prison at Abu Ghraib,? the lawsuit states. Gitmo is a nickname for Guantanamo Bay.
Israel reportedly told Army investigators he arrived at Abu Ghraib on Oct. 14. His previous whereabouts are unknown.
The lawsuit alleges that, in addition to inflicting serious physical injuries, the defendants ?summarily executed at least 15 persons? and ?caused as many as 50 suicides.?
It alleges that the specific instances of wrongful death, torture, rape and humiliation violate international law and are covered under the federal Alien Tort Claims Act.
Dan Guttman, an expert in government contracting and procurement processes at John Hopkins University, said the claims under the tort act may prove significant.
?The Alien Tort Claims Act was one of the first laws Congress passed in 1789,? he said. ?It basically says U.S. courts are available for folks who want to make claims for rights under the law of nations or treaties that have been violated.?
?People from other countries can use U.S. courts because courts in their countries don?t exist or are not adequate,? he said.
But it might be difficult to prove Titan and CACI broke laws ?if the company is working hand-in-glove with the government,? he said.
?One individual might violate the Geneva Convention,? he said, but ?for RICO (racketeering), one of the critical things that will have to be shown is conspiracy, people acting together.?
?Even if CACI tortured someone,? he said, ?was it an individual acting alone??

Signal staff writer Judy O?Rourke contributed to this story.

Additional articles are linked at the following URLs:

http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/

Other articles appear at this URL:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/05/26/fisk-israeli-mossad-shin-bet-associated-with-prison-torture.php

http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-lawsuit10jun10,1,2008341.story

June 10, 2004

THE WORLD

Ex-Detainees Sue 2 U.S. Contractors

Employees of Titan and CACI are accused of torturing prisoners. Lawyers say the action is based on a military report on abuse.

By T. Christian Miller, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON - Eight Iraqis filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday claiming that employees of two American contractors subjected them to abuse in U.S.-run prisons in Iraq, including electric shocks, rape, and torture.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, alleges that employees of San Diego-based Titan Corp. and Virginia-based CACI International, contracted for interpretation and interrogation services respectively, systematically tortured prisoners to extract more information and increase the firms' chances of winning future contracts.

"We have not heard everything yet," said Shereef Akeel, a Michigan lawyer who filed the lawsuit along with the Center for Constitutional Rights, a nonprofit group in New York that specializes in human rights cases. "The stories are coming out now as more Abu Ghraib prisoners are coming out."

Both companies denied any wrongdoing.

The plaintiffs' lawyers acknowledged at a news conference Wednesday that none of their clients had been able to identify the people who allegedly tortured them or say whether they worked for contractors or the U.S. government. Their clients were hooded during the abuse or those abusing them concealed their identities, the lawyers said.

The suit was based on a report by U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba that identified several contractor employees in connection with the abuse seen in the photos taken at the Abu Ghraib prison, the lawyers said.

They said that none of their clients appeared in the photos, but that their status as detainees had been confirmed through personal interviews and prisoner identification records.

The Justice Department has announced that it is investigating an unidentified contractor in connection with the abuse, and six U.S. soldiers are facing courts-martial in the scandal. A seventh has pleaded guilty.

"When war becomes a for-profit enterprise, horror, human suffering and degradation is the dividend," said Barbara Olshansky, deputy legal director for the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Executives of CACI said they were cooperating with five government investigations in connection with the company's contract to supply interrogators to the government in Iraq. In addition, the company has announced its own internal investigation.

"CACI summarily rejects and denies the ill-informed, slanderous and malicious allegations of the lawsuit that attempts to malign the work that we do on behalf of the U.S. government around the world and in Iraq," the company said in a statement.

Steven A. Stefanowicz, a CACI employee identified in the Taguba report, was one of three people named as defendants in Wednesday's lawsuit. His lawyer, Henry E. Hockeimer, declined to comment on the lawsuit but reiterated that his client had done nothing wrong.

Titan executives called the lawsuit "frivolous." They said the U.S. government had not informed Titan of any wrongdoing by either the company or its employees. Titan has a contract to provide interpretation services to U.S. government and military officials in Iraq and elsewhere.

"We will vigorously defend against" the lawsuit, said Wil Williams, a company spokesman. "Titan has never provided interrogation or interrogation services to anyone."

Titan has fired one employee named in the Taguba report, Adel L. Nakhla, but declined to say why. Nakhla was also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. His lawyer, Francis Hoang, could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

John Israel, who worked for a Titan subcontractor called SOS Interpreting Ltd., was also named in the lawsuit. He could not be reached for comment Wednesday. SOS is not a defendant in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Diego, portrays CACI and Titan as having developed business strategies to aggressively pursue government contracts to boost their profits. The suit relies on a federal racketeering law and the Alien Tort Claims Act, which allows foreign nationals to sue in U.S. courts for violations of international laws against torture.

The lawsuit, which seeks to represent all Iraqis who were victims of abuse by contractors in U.S.-run prisons in Iraq, seeks unspecified monetary damages.

CACI, with a market value of $1.1 billion, has bought 26 companies since the 1990s, many specializing in the defense industry.

Titan, whose shareholders approved a $1.66-billion buyout offer this week from defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp., earns most of its revenue from government contracts.

One of the plaintiffs, whose name was given only as Ahmed, said unidentified workers at Abu Ghraib sprayed him and his father with cold water, kicked them with heavy military boots and stripped them naked. The interrogators tortured his father until he died, the lawsuit states.

A second plaintiff, identified only as Ismael, said that when he refused to answer questions, his interrogators showed him photographs that appeared to show U.S. soldiers sexually assaulting prisoners.

A third plaintiff, identified only as Neisef, said he was raped by a female worker at a prison at Camp Bucca in southern Iraq. He said interrogators attached wires to his genitals to give him electric shocks.

Two plaintiffs, identified as Sami Abbas al Rawi, 56, and his son, Mwafaq Sami Abbas al Rawi, 28, said they were kicked, beaten and forced to stand on one leg for hours.

The lawyers said most of the plaintiffs did not want their full names used because of the stigma attached to the alleged acts.

They said their clients believed that their abusers were private employees because they wore civilian clothes. They said they hoped to identify the alleged assailants through physical descriptions and from company employment records that they will seek during the litigation.

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

You can access a copy of the lawsuit via the following URL:

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/home.asp

There is a PDF link for the lawsuit at this URL:

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=TutDBqRhAY&Content=387

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

http://www.the-signal.com/News/ViewStory.asp?storyID=4798

Interior: Army Never Reported Abuse

Alpha

Use of Dogs to Scare Prisoners Was Authorized

35 minutes ago Add Top Stories - washingtonpost.com to My Yahoo!

By Josh White and Scott Higham, Washington Post Staff Writers

U.S. intelligence personnel ordered military dog handlers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (news - web sites) to use unmuzzled dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees during interrogations late last year, a plan approved by the highest-ranking military intelligence officer at the facility, according to sworn statements the handlers provided to military investigators.

• Bushes Return to Honor Reagan
• A Singular Blend of Styles
• The Day in Photos
• Remembering Ronald Reagan, 1911-2004

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

Search news on
washingtonpost.com

Latest headlines:
· Probe launched into possible archaeological damage of ancient Babylon
AFP - 4 minutes ago
· Bush sees NATO troops in Iraq as `unrealistic'
Chicago Tribune - 22 minutes ago
· Intelligence officers approved intimidating prisoners with dogs: report
AFP - 22 minutes ago
Special Coverage

A military intelligence interrogator also told investigators that two dog handlers at Abu Ghraib were "having a contest" to see how many detainees they could make involuntarily urinate out of fear of the dogs, according to the previously undisclosed statements obtained by The Washington Post.

The statements by the dog handlers provide the clearest indication yet that military intelligence personnel were deeply involved in tactics later deemed by a U.S. Army general to be "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses."

President Bush (news - web sites) and top Pentagon (news - web sites) officials have said the criminal abuse at Abu Ghraib was confined to a small group of rogue military police soldiers who stripped detainees naked, beat them and photographed them in humiliating sexual poses. An Army investigation into the abuse condemned the MPs for those practices, but also included the use of unmuzzled dogs to frighten detainees among the "intentional abuse."

So far, the only charges to emerge have been against seven MPs and do not include any dog incidents, even though such use of dogs is an apparent violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Army's field manual. The military intelligence officer in charge of Abu Ghraib later told investigators that the use of unmuzzled dogs in interrogation sessions was recommended by a two-star general and that it was "okay."

The newly obtained documents reinforce the picture that the abuse falls into two categories: sexual humiliation and beatings at the hands of MPs, and intimidation using dogs that is clearly tied to military intelligence. The sexual abuse happened weeks and even months before the dog incidents, some of which appear to be part of an organized strategy by military intelligence to scare detainees into talking, according to the statements.

Sgts. Michael J. Smith and Santos A. Cardona, Army dog handlers assigned to Abu Ghraib, told investigators that military intelligence personnel requested that they bring their dogs to prison interrogation sites multiple times to assist in questioning detainees in December and January. Col. Thomas M. Pappas, who was in charge of military intelligence at the prison, told both soldiers that the use of dogs in interrogations had been approved, according to the statements.

"I have talked to Col. Papus [sic] and he said it was good to go," Smith told an investigator on Jan. 23.

Neither Smith nor Cardona has been charged in connection with the abuse at Abu Ghraib. "It's all under investigation," said Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman.

The men could not be reached yesterday to comment. Two officers at the U.S. Army Trial Defense Service said that a military lawyer has been assigned to Cardona and that a message seeking a comment would be relayed to the attorney. The officers said they did not know whether a lawyer from the Army's defense service had been assigned to represent Smith.

In Army memos regarding interrogation techniques at the prison, the use of military working dogs was specifically allowed -- as long as higher-ranking officers approved the measures. According to one military intelligence memo obtained by The Post, the officer in charge of the military intelligence-run interrogation center at the prison had to approve the use of dogs in interrogations. There is no explanation in the memo of what parameters would have to be in place -- for example, whether the dogs would be muzzled or unmuzzled -- or what the dogs would be allowed to do. The Army previously has said that the commanding general of U.S. troops in Iraq -- Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez -- would have had to approve the use of dogs.

Human rights experts said the use of dogs at Abu Ghraib violates longstanding tenets regulating the treatment of prisoners and civilians under the control of an occupying force, including the Army's field manual, which prohibits "acts of violence or intimidation" by American soldiers.

"Using dogs to frighten and intimidate prisoners is a violation of the Geneva Convention," said Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First, an international organization based in New York. "It's a violation of U.S. policy as stated in the Army field manual, and it's a violation of the prohibition against cruel treatment."

The dog teams at Abu Ghraib were part of a security detail that also searched for weapons, explosives and contraband. The general in charge of military prisons in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib, said the dog teams were under the control of military intelligence but had no training or experience in helping with interrogations.

Cardona's dog, a tan Belgian Malinois named Duco, was trained to be part of a narcotics and patrol team. Cardona told investigators he also helped military intelligence with two interrogations and later was summoned by military police to draw information out of a detainee on Tier 1 of the prison, site of the worst documented abuse.

Smith said military intelligence personnel asked him to instill fear in detainees. He said that he would bring his dog, a black Belgian shepherd named Marco, to the tier specifically to scare prisoners after they were pulled out of their cells. At the behest of interrogators, he said, in some cases he would bring the barking dog to within six inches of the prisoners.

"Is using the dog in this manner an allowable tool by the MI interrogators?" an investigator asked Smith.

"Yes," he replied.

The dog handlers arrived at Abu Ghraib in late November, sometime after the abuse of detainees had been captured in photographs, including the images of the naked human pyramid and forced masturbation.

Master-at-Arms 1st Class William J. Kimbro, a Navy dog handler, said he was summoned to Tier 1 one night in November to help search a cell for explosives using his dog, Nicky, a black and tan Belgian Malinois. Earlier that night -- records indicate it was Nov. 24 -- a prisoner had allegedly been found with a weapon. When Kimbro and Nicky concluded the search, they were called to the second floor of the cellblock to search another cell.

"There was a bunch of yelling going on in the cell and my dog started going ape," Kimbro told investigators, adding that interrogators were yelling at a detainee in the corner. "I remember one of the males saying to the detainee, if the detainee did not provide the information the guy was asking about, then he would have me let . . . my dog go on him."

Kimbro said he was surprised by the comment and tried to calm Nicky down. He soon left, he said, upset that interrogators had tried to use his dog as an interrogation tool.

"I was leaving because this is not what my dog is trained for," Kimbro said in one of three statements he provided to investigators. "We do not use our dogs for interrogation purposes."

Kimbro was singled out for praise in Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba's report about abuse at the prison for refusing "to participate in improper interrogations despite significant pressure from the MI personnel at Abu Ghraib."

Smith and Cardona said they complied with the MI requests because they believed the tactics had been approved by Pappas, the military intelligence officer in charge of the prison. They told investigators that they spent time on the cellblocks, allowing their dogs to bark at the detainees.

They said a non-commissioned officer from military intelligence approached them in mid-December.

"He asked us if we could use our dogs for interrogation purposes," Cardona said in a statement. "They were trying to get it cleared. We went outside and saw Col. Pappas. He told us MI wanted to use the dogs for interrogations and he told us that they had received permission to use dogs in an interview."

Smith recalled the same conversation, saying he spoke with Pappas in the parking lot the night after Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was captured -- Dec. 14. He said he was told that the use of the dogs was permitted.

Later that night, the two dog handlers took their dogs to an interrogation booth holding a detainee. Interrogators told them the dogs did not need to be muzzled, they said.

"When we got to the room the detainee was sitting in the doorway, with his feet in the doorway and the door was open," Smith said. "My dog and Sgt. Cardona's dog were both barking at the detainee and we never got closer than 18 inches. Neither dog had a muzzle on."

Also in mid-December, the dog handlers said they were asked by one of the MPs, Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II, for help in dealing with an uncooperative detainee. Part of what followed was captured in photographs that have come to define the abuse at Abu Ghraib: A naked prisoner was up against a wall, two dogs squaring off against him.

The detainee, identified in the documents as Ballendia Sadawi Mohammed, said he was suddenly snatched from his bed in cell No. 5 one night and sent into the hallway handcuffed.

"They sent the dogs toward me. I was scared," Mohammed told investigators. "The first dog bit my leg and injured me there and this was bad luck. The bite from the first dog caused me to have 12 stitches from the doctor of my left leg as a result I lost a lot of blood."

Spec. Sabrina D. Harman, a member of the 372nd Military Police Company, said she saw the incident and said the detainee was bitten after he tried to run from the dog and was cornered. Cardona, whose dog apparently bit the detainee twice, once on each leg, justified letting his dog go to the end of its leash because he believed the detainee was fighting with Spec. Charles A. Graner Jr.

Military investigative records show that Frederick and Graner were key participants in the abuse. Harman, who said she saw two other inmates with dog bites around late December, also has been charged.

In early January, Cardona said, he used his dog during an interrogation at the "Wood" facility at Abu Ghraib, a collection of wooden interrogation booths set up behind the prison. Cardona said a non-commissioned military intelligence officer asked him to bring his dog into a booth and make it bark to scare the prisoner.

"I asked him if he wanted Duco to be in a muzzle and he said no," Cardona told investigators. "We went into the booth and there was a detainee in the booth with a bag over his head. Duco barked at him for about two or three minutes and they were asking the detainee questions."

On Jan. 13, Spec. John Harold Ketzer, a military intelligence interrogator, saw a dog team corner two male prisoners against a wall, one prisoner hiding behind the other and screaming, he later told investigators.

"When I asked what was going on in the cell, the handler stated that he was just scaring them, and that he and another of the handlers was having a contest to see how many detainees they could get to urinate on themselves," Ketzer said.

Research editor Margot Williams contributed to this report.