| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:19 pm Post subject: Torture/Neocons |
| Torture/Neocons
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_T\
ype1&c=Article&cid=1086863805803&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724
Jun. 10, 2004. 10:44 AM
Dane claims he witnessed killing of prisoners
Unnamed individual worked as translator for U.S. forces in
Afghanistan
JAN M. OLSEN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
COPENHAGEN, Denmark - Denmark said today it opened an investigation
into claims by a translator for Danish and U.S. troops in Afghanistan
that he witnessed incidents of torture and killing of prisoners in
American custody two years ago.
Denmark's military prosecutors will determine whether the claims can
be substantiated, said Cmdr. Torben Martinsen, a spokesperson for the
Defence Command, the country's top military authority.
Martinsen refused to release details about the Danish translators
claims, including the number of alleged victims. The man was not
identified by name nor was it known if he was a military man or
civilian working with the 100 Danish soldiers on assignment in
Afghanistan in 2002.
The allegation came days after the U.S. government ordered a snap
review of its military's handling of prisoners in Afghanistan. The
scandal over abuse of Iraqi prisoners has drawn new attention to
allegations of mistreatment in Afghanistan, including the deaths of
three prisoners in custody.
The translator worked in Kandahar, the main U.S. military base in
southern Afghanistan, where he "assisted the Americans' questioning
of prisoners," Danish Defence Minister Soeren Gade said.
The U.S. Embassy in Copenhagen declined to comment on the report.
In May, a Danish medic working in Iraq claimed that British troops in
September 2003 had beaten two Iraqis during a field interrogation,
including one who allegedly died.
Gade said Britain's Royal Military Police will send an investigator
to Denmark to gather information as part of a British probe.
Denmark's nearly 500 troops in southern Iraq are under British
command.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31577-2004Jun10?language=printer
CACI Denies Iraq Abuse Allegations
Reuters
Thursday, June 10, 2004; 2:34 PM
NEW YORK -- U.S. defense contractor CACI International Thursday
denied allegations in a lawsuit that it conspired with U.S. officials
to torture and abuse prisoners in Iraq.
CACI and Titan Corp. were charged in the suit with engaging in
"heinous and illegal acts" to show they could get intelligence from
detainees, thereby positioning themselves to get more government
contracts.
"CACI rejects and denies the allegations of the suit as being
malicious recitation of false statements and intentional
distortions," the company said in a statement.
Philadelphia-based lawyer Susan Burke and New York-based Center for
Constitutional Rights filed the lawsuit Wednesday.
Employees from CACI and Titan, which provided interrogation and
translation services in Iraq, were named by U.S. Army investigator
Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba in a report in May on prison abuse in Iraq.
A number of U.S. military investigations into the abuse and torture
of Iraqi prisoners were launched after graphic photographs leaked to
the media showed naked prisoners simulating sex acts for prison
guards and being tortured in other ways.
The lawsuit said plaintiffs were hooded and raped, subjected to
repeated beatings and stripped naked. The suit said one was forced to
watch his father tortured and abused so badly that he later died.
The suit also charged that CACI and Titan created a joint enterprise
with a third party that became known as "Team Titan," which was hired
by the United States to provide interrogation services in Iraq.
"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 to anyone," CACI said
in its statement.
On Wednesday, Titan spokesman Wil Williams called the lawsuit
"frivolous" and said the company would aggressively defend itself
against the charges. He said the Titan employee named in the Taguba
report, Adel Nahkla, had since left the company.
The lawsuit charged that Stephen Stefanowicz and John Israel of CACI
Inc. and Nahkla "directed and participated in illegal conduct" at the
Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad.
Attorney Burke said evidence given to lawyers by former Iraqi inmates
did not directly link employees from Titan or CACI to their abuse,
adding this came from the Taguba report.
However, inmates distinguished between uniformed interrogators and
those in civilian clothing and provided names, descriptions and
nicknames of abusers.
Nine plaintiffs were named on the lawsuit, including Sami Abbas Al
Rawi, Mwafaq Sami Abbaas al Rawi as well as individuals who gave only
their first names and others who were not named because of the
graphic nature of their complaints and fear of retribution, lawyers
said.
Higher-Ranking Officer Is Sought to Lead the Abu Ghraib Inquiry
By ERIC SCHMITT
Published: June 10, 2004
WASHINGTON, June 9 — The commander of American forces in the Middle
East asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this week to replace
the general investigating suspected abuses by military intelligence
soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison with a more senior officer, a step that
would allow the inquiry to reach into the military's highest ranks in
Iraq, Pentagon officials said Wednesday.
The request by the commander, Gen. John P. Abizaid, comes amid
increasing criticism from lawmakers and some military officers that
the half dozen investigations into detainee abuse at the prison may
end up scapegoating a handful of enlisted soldiers and leaving many
senior officers unaccountable.
snip
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/10/politics/10ABUS.html?ex=1087837699&ei=1&en=c00\
1c6c37bae300a
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32213-2004Jun10?language=printer
Pentagon Iraq Abuse Probe to Examine Top Commander
Reuters
Thursday, June 10, 2004; 5:31 PM
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon plans to widen a probe into the
abuse of Iraqi prisoners to include actions of the top U.S. commander
in Iraq and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will require autopsies
after the death of detainees, officials said on Thursday.
Rumsfeld wrote in a memo released by the Pentagon that he must be
notified personally of the death of an enemy prisoner of war,
civilian internee or anyone else in military custody.
In a move apparently aimed at preserving evidence, he also directed
that remains not be washed before being placed in a clean body bag,
and that any objects with the body other than weapons or ammunition
be "left undisturbed."
Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commands U.S.-led forces in Iraq, asked
to be removed as the officer who reviews the ongoing investigation by
Maj. Gen. George Fay in order to allow his own conduct to be
scrutinized, defense officials said.
The Fay investigation was one of several launched by the Pentagon in
the wake of the physical and sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the
Abu Ghraib jail outside Baghdad.
Lawrence Di Rita, chief Pentagon spokesman, said a four-star officer
likely will be named to join the investigation, whose completion had
been expected in June but now will be delayed. Under Army
regulations, Fay, a two-star general, was barred from questioning
officers above his rank such as Sanchez, a three-star general.
Di Rita said Fay was "absolutely not" being fired, but the probe was
being "augmented" to allow a more senior officer to "pick up those
portions of the Fay investigation that would involve Sanchez and his
staff activities."
'ALL THE RIGHT THINGS'
"It's Sanchez saying, 'I want to be investigated. I want to make sure
that I'm not missed,"' Di Rita said, but stopped short of saying
Sanchez wanted to clear his own name. "To clear his own name suggests
that he's concerned his name needs to be cleared."
Di Rita said that "it appears that Sanchez followed this thing
carefully and did all the right things."
Fay, Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence, opened an
examination in April of interrogation practices by intelligence
officers at U.S.-run prisons in Iraq.
Sanchez last year ordered military intelligence to take control of
Abu Ghraib, but has denied knowledge of the abuse before the chain of
command was notified in January.
The Pentagon said Rumsfeld instituted new rules for investigations of
deaths of prisoners in U.S. military custody. The Army said last
month it was investigating the deaths of 32 prisoners in Iraq and
another five in Afghanistan since August 2002. A number of the deaths
were deemed to be homicides, but autopsies were performed in only 23
cases.
The new rules require the commander of a military unit with custody
of a prisoner to immediately report any death to the investigative
agencies of the service involved, which will then inform the Office
of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, which conducts autopsies and
will be responsible for finding the cause of death.
Under past practice, some prisoner deaths were never reported to the
medical examiner's office.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0609iraq-prison09.html
Interrogator: White House sought info from Abu Ghraib
R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post
Jun. 9, 2004 12:00 AM
snip
http://english.daralhayat.com/comment/06-2004/Article-20040605-f5da53dc-c0a8-01e\
d-0009-acb55bacc62b/story.html
Westminster Notes (America's Gulag)
Sir Cyril Townsend Al-Hayat 2004/06/5
Alexander Solzhenitsyn's book The Gulag Archipelago likened the
former Soviet Union's secret system of detention camps to a chain of
islands strung out through the USSR. In a recent edition of the New
Statesman Stephen Grey likened America's secret system of detention
camps world wide, for those whom America claims are international
terrorists, to a modern American Gulag.
This concept has been taken up by others in the United Kingdom and
the United States. On the 19th May BBC TV's Panorama Special spent
an hour, at prime time, carefully exploring the known facts of the
abuse and torture of prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere. The programme
was fronted by Jane Corbin, a good friend of the Arab world, who is
the wife of a previous Shadow Foreign Secretary, John Maples, MP.
The Bush Administration believes that the world was drastically
changed by the tragic events of 11th September 2001 - heinous crimes.
Certainly it was changed, but not to the extent that Administration
suggests. Thus international law, morality and responsibility, and
the crucial role of the United Nations, were not flicked aside in the
twinkling of an eye; on the contrary it can be argued they have all
become more important. President George Bush chose to launch a war
on international terrorism, for which other nations were invited to
sign up, and it was to be the Americans who would decide the new
rules for international action in the context of that war.
President Bush had previously rejected the new International Criminal
Court, a great stride forward, on the grounds that American
servicemen could face unreasonable prosecutions. The Geneva
Conventions, that had been painfully put together at the highest
international level, and which laid down admirable and sensible
regulations for the treatment of prisoners of war for decades, were
abandoned by the Americans.
Many thousands of prisoners came into American hands during the
campaign in Afghanistan. Special camps were hastily created at
Bagram air base and elsewhere, and Washington ruled that those
captured would be kept for an indefinite period and they would not
have access to the law or lawyers. This was justified on the grounds
that it was a short-term response to the threat posed by Al Qaeda.
So numerous were the prisoners that a further special camp was
created for them at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the results of which the
world is only too aware. Here the prisoners come under U.S. Defense
Law and could face the death penalty. The Supreme Court will shortly
rule on matters raised by Guantanamo. In reality most prisoners there
have little, if any, important intelligence to reveal. The British
prisoners released were never charged with any crimes and were sent
home quickly following their arrival in Britain. They claim to have
been tortured.
Reports in the international media suggest the Americans, after
releasing some prisoners from Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, may still be
holding over 10,000 other prisoners. The exact number is not
available. Some of the detention camps being used are still secret.
There are known to be others in Iraq apart from Abu Ghraib. Diego
Garcia, a British possession in the Indian Ocean, with an American
naval support facility, has been mentioned in the British press as a
possible secret detention centre, but this is denied by the Foreign
Office.
A particularly alarming matter is the flying of prisoners from one
country to another. It was alleged, for example, that a senior figure
in Al-Qaeda was taken secretly from Quetta to Cairo and then on to
Bagram. Such cases greatly alarm the Red Cross as individual
prisoners disappear from the records, and one suspects the countries
concerned are not fully informed on whom the American military is
flying in and out.
Brutality against detainees has been reported widely. Last November
the Red Cross warned the Americans that abuses against Iraqis,
particularly during interrogation, were not isolated incidents but
"systematic". They stated prisoners were "at high risk" of being
given harsh treatment sometimes "tantamount to torture." It appears
prisoners in Afghanistan are treated in much the same way.
It is not known how many prisoners have died in American detention.
Perhaps we will never know. A figure of between 10-20 is mentioned in
the British press. This, in fact, is far more serious than the grim
and ghastly pictures that have come out of Abu Ghraib and which have
been given so much damaging publicity.
American's Gulag will haunt Americans for years to come. It can only
encourage further acts of international terrorism. It means America
forfeits any high ground it gained after the removal of Saddam
Hussein. To use Saddam Hussein's main torture centre for purposes of
further torture was an horrendous mistake. America's reputation has
been destroyed in the eyes of many millions of people around the
world.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/06/09/the_\
torturers_among_us/
The torturers among us
By Robert Kuttner | June 9, 2004
WHAT HAVE we learned so far about officially sponsored torture by the
US government?
ADVERTISEMENT
First, it is unambiguously clear that the torture of prisoners in
Afghanistan, at Guantanamo, and at Abu Ghraib was official policy.
Lawyers for the Pentagon and the White House, reporting directly to
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush, wrote contorted
legal briefs trying to define a category of person immune to both due
process of law and the Third Geneva Convention. As recently disclosed
Pentagon memos divulge, one explicit purpose was to justify torture
as a technique of interrogation.
Second, the grotesque abuses at Abu Ghraib were therefore not the
work of a few renegade freaks. Official policy was that coercion
should be used to pry information out of prisoners. The torture
techniques were at first wielded by military and CIA interrogation
specialists and limited to "high value" captives.
But as torture moved down the chain of command, it further
degenerated from a twisted and illegal means of interrogation into a
sadistic sport for ordinary soldiers to apply to ordinary prisoners.
This deterioration is predictable. It has happened under every
totalitarian regime, from Stalin to Hitler to Torquemada. When
torture is official policy, ordinary soldiers and police let their
frustrations and imaginations run wild. This is why civilized nations
ban torture categorically.
Third, as details of the freestyle tortures at Abu Ghraib reached
Rumsfeld and other top officials, they treated it mainly as a
potential public relations problem, not as a sign that the entire
policy was flawed and illegal. Indeed, even as the then-secret report
by General Taguba on Abu Ghraib was being discussed internally, the
government's lawyers continued to contend that the Third Geneva
Convention on prisoners of war did not apply to alleged terrorists
and that even US citizens, if accused of certain crimes, could be
treated outside the law.
For nearly three years, the Bush administration has resorted to the
most preposterous fictions to define either locales or categories of
people to whom the law does not apply. If you connect the dots, the
torture at Abu Ghraib is part of a larger slide toward tyranny as the
Bush administration tries to exempt itself from the rule of law.
White House lawyers have contended in court briefs that the US base
at Guantanamo, which the United States governs in perpetuity under a
treaty, is actually under Cuban sovereignty. They contend that the
president's powers as commander in chief override both international
and domestic laws and even constitutional due process protections for
US citizens as well as aliens accused of "terrorism."
These legal claims are complete fabrications. The Third Geneva
Convention is airtight. Its language allows for no special cases
where torture is permitted and no gradations of acceptable forms of
torture. Prisoners are not required to give their captors information
beyond name, rank, and serial number, period. Captors are not allowed
to resort to coercion, either physical or psychological. There is no
category of alleged crime beyond the rule of law.
Moreover, the legal protections of the US Constitution do not speak
of citizens; they speak of "persons." And even if there were some
special justification for torturing alleged terrorists -- and there
is none -- most prisoners in Iraq are not "illegal combatants" but
POWs from a defeated army, exactly those whom the Geneva Convention
was intended to protect. Indeed, the United States demands that any
American captive abroad be treated with scrupulous respect. (This is
the whole point of a universal agreement to ban torture -- it covers
everyone.)
US officials darkly mention war crimes prosecutions whenever there
are hints that American captives have been abused. Yet the US
government, in every official forum, tries to negotiate special
exemptions so that US personnel abroad are exempt from any such
prosecutions. By definition, we are the good guys; so by definition,
Americans cannot be guilty of war crimes.
After Abu Ghraib, even America's allies are no longer willing to
grant Washington special exemptions. Major human rights groups have
scheduled a national conference for June 21 on the question of how
international human rights standards must be applied to the United
States. This is overdue, but how shameful that America has fallen to
a state where we need international constraints to protect our own
liberties and rule of law.
It is appalling that a few grunts are taking the fall for torture
that was official government policy. Donald Rumsfeld should not just
be impeached. He should be tried as a war criminal. As for Bush, he
can be dispatched by the electorate while we are still a democracy.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. His column
appears regularly in the Globe.
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/latimes185.htm
A Tough Time for 'Neocons'
Once, they exulted in the Iraq war. Now, with the setbacks in the
region and the Chalabi spy probe, neoconservatives are feeling
embattled.
By Paul Richter
Times Staff Writer
8:35 PM PDT, June 9, 2004
WASHINGTON — As U.S. tanks surrounded Baghdad 14 months ago, an
ardent group of war supporters in Washington toasted the success of
an invasion they had done much to inspire, as commentators spoke of
their virtual takeover of the Bush administration's foreign policy.
Today, that same group, the neoconservatives, is itself under siege.
Many fellow conservatives have joined liberals in criticizing their
case for the war. Rivals in the State Department and the Pentagon
have taken charge of the U.S. effort in Iraq. And in a grave threat
to their reputation, Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi, a longtime
favorite of neoconservatives, is enmeshed in an FBI investigation of
intelligence leaks that supplied secrets to Iran.
"As these events have come one after the other, they've been feeling
more and more embattled," said a Republican Senate aide.
"Neocons" — best known for advocating aggressive foreign and military
policies — are in the painful zone between distinction and disfavor
in Washington. They are losing battles on Capitol Hill. Their
principles have stopped appearing in new U.S. policies. And where
neoconservatives were once seen as having a future in Republican
administrations, the setbacks in Iraq could make it difficult for the
group's leading members to win Senate confirmation for top posts in
the future
Fourteen months ago, Kenneth Adelman was one of the prominent
neoconservatives who took part in a now-storied victory celebration
at the home of Vice President Dick Cheney that was described in Bob
Woodward's book "Plan of Attack."
Since then, Adelman acknowledged, the group's influence has declined,
because "Iraq didn't turn out to be as promising as it was billed."
Adelman, a former Reagan administration official, said that although
he supports the rationale for the war, he is torn about what has
happened since. "I still have to sort it all out. I'm just not
settled yet," he said.
Other neocons worry that the real trouble for them could begin if
President Bush is not reelected and, among conservatives, the finger
pointing begins — in their direction.
"Bush could end up looking like the worst president since Jimmy
Carter because of Iraq, and people are going to say, 'You got us into
this mess,' " said one Washington source who considers himself a
neoconservative and asked to remain unidentified. "It's going to be
nasty and bitter and brutal."
While definitions vary, "neoconservative" generally refers to
formerly moderate policy advocates who favor a hawkish and assertive
foreign policy to implant democracy and American values abroad.
Neocons contrast with more traditional conservatives who are willing
to deal with undemocratic regimes without necessarily changing them.
Neoconservatives have been especially focused on the Middle East, and
they have argued that building democracy in the heart of the Arab
world could foster reform throughout a troubled region.
Although Bush campaigned in 2000 on a platform that opposed
nonessential nation-building missions, he moved sharply toward the
neocon view after the Sept. 11 attacks. His administration includes a
number of officials considered neocons, including Deputy Defense
Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz; Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of
Defense for policy; and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of
staff.
Cheney shares many views with the neocons, but many analysts argue
that because of his background and views, he is a traditional
conservative.
Neoconservatives had been pushing the United States to oust Saddam
Hussein for years, and they exulted in his fall. But they grew
concerned when officials in charge of the U.S.-led occupation in Iraq
took steps the neocons did not favor.
One group of neoconservatives, including onetime Reagan Defense
official Richard Perle, was unhappy that the White House didn't move
more quickly to turn sovereignty over to Iraqis and put the country
in control of dissidents such as Chalabi.
Other neocons, including William Kristol, former chief of staff to
Vice President Dan Quayle and editor of the journal Weekly Standard,
believed that the Pentagon under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
had allowed security problems to spread by deploying too few troops.
In general, neocons felt as if "they had created a brilliant
screenplay, and it had fallen into the hands of the wrong director,"
said one self-described neoconservative, borrowing a line from
political satirist Bill Maher.
As the postwar problems deepened, many neocons found themselves in
the strange position of criticizing the White House, while being
blamed in various quarters around the world for provoking the war. An
antiwar group in Brussels created a shadow international tribunal
that convicted the Project for the New American Century, a
neoconservative think tank founded by Kristol, for war crimes.
"It's not fun to be accused of war crimes," said Gary Schmitt, the
center's executive director.
Some neoconservatives see an element of anti-Semitism among their
critics, because many prominent adherents are Jewish. Neocons also
discount views that they are a "cabal" that wields improper influence
over the administration.
"It's very popular in Washington to believe that the president's mind
is an empty vessel that's been filled by an unholy cabal," said
Danielle Pletka, vice president of the American Enterprise Institute,
a think tank associated with neoconservatism.
But problems in Iraq have made administration neocons lightning rods
for criticism. Without significant improvements in U.S. efforts
there, many of them would be unlikely to remain for a second Bush
term, neoconservatives and congressional Republicans said.
Last year, Wolfowitz, a former senior State Department official, was
frequently mentioned as a leading candidate to replace Secretary of
State Colin L. Powell in a second Bush term. Now, congressional
officials and neoconservatives agree there is little chance that
Wolfowitz, seen as a primary advocate of the war, could survive a
Senate confirmation.
"No way," said a senior Republican congressional aide.
Feith, the No. 3 Pentagon official, has been struggling to put to
rest what he regards as unfair charges that he was trying to create a
separate intelligence network in the Pentagon to guide administration
decisions, and that he was an "intimate" of Chalabi. Feith met with
Chalabi fewer than 10 times, said a spokesman.
Feith also has drawn criticism for shortcomings in the postwar
planning. A spokesman said there is no truth to persistent rumors
that Feith plans to leave government.
The allegations against Chalabi most threaten the reputation of
neoconservatives, coming after the former financier was accused of
putting forward defectors who offered phony evidence before the war
on Hussein's alleged arsenals of banned weapons.
But the allegations have also exposed a deep rift between the
neoconservatives and others in the administration.
Perle and others have angrily charged that "wildly implausible"
allegations against Chalabi were part of an effort by the CIA to try
to discredit a longtime foe. "This is completely clumsy," Perle said
of the alleged CIA effort in an interview. The CIA has not publicly
commented on the leak investigation.
Pletka, of the American Enterprise Institute, said "the intended aim
of this entire operation" against Chalabi was to reduce the neocons'
influence.
No matter how the allegations turn out, the influence of the
neoconservatives is likely to continue to wane.
James Mann, author of "Rise of the Vulcans," which describes the long
personal ties between members of Bush's war Cabinet, said that the
neocons' influence has been greatest on Iraq policy, but that it has
declined steadily over the last year as the problems in Iraq have
deepened.
"Some people have assumed that they're running the administration,"
Mann said. "That's never been true."
In fact, Mann said the Bush administration has not followed neocon
recommendations regarding Russia, North Korea, China or even Iraq's
neighbors of Syria and Iran. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz
vaguely threatened force against Syria last year, but they have not
done so lately. "Nobody's talking about force any more," Mann said.
Despite the gloom of recent weeks for neocons, many of them see signs
of a turnaround that could help restore the reputation of the U.S.
effort — and theirs. A new interim government in Baghdad could help
do so by earning Iraqi public support and beefing up security.
In addition, many note that Bush has strongly emphasized his
commitment to the neocon goal of building democracy. Schmitt, of the
Project for a New American Century, was encouraged by Bush's words.
"His speeches are no less neocon than ever," said Schmitt.
http://www.juancole.com/
6/10/04
Political Obituary for the Neocons
Paul Richter of the Los Angeles Times has done another political
obituary of the neoconservative movement, which has fallen on hard
times. He notes that it is highly unlikely that Congress would now
confirm Paul Wolfowitz or Douglas Feith for higher office (Wolfowitz
had once been rumored as a candidate for Secretary of State in a
second Bush term). Richard Perle's credibility is shot both because
of a financial scandal and because of his close association with
Ahmad Chalabi, who has now been disgraced as an Iranian intelligence
asset.
The other scarey thing about the Neocons is their warmongering. David
Wurmser and Scooter Libby would have dragged us into wars with Syria
and Iran if they could have. If American supporters of the Likud want
to take down Bashar al-Asad, they should get Ariel Sharon to do it
with Israeli troops, not put American soldiers at risk for no good
reason. Al-Asad is not a threat to the United States, and he is not
even a threat to Israel (Israel could be in Damascus tomorrow if it
wanted to).
Richter also notes that the Neocons cry 'anti-semitism' about all
this. What a crock. There are many prominent Jewish Americans in the
Bush administration who are not philosophically aligned with the
neocons and whom I have never seen attacked in the press. Marc
Grossman, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, for
instance, is from all accounts an excellent diplomat and has received
no unfavorable press of the sort Wolfowitz and Feith and Perle have.
I conclude that critics are objecting to the political philosophy of
the neocons, not to their Jewishness. Moreover, it isn't even exactly
their political philosophy that is attacked, though Doug Feith's
hatred of the Palestinians and desire to ensure they never get a
state is odious. It is their sneaky methods, of propaganda,
disinformation and manipulation of intelligence. And here the
guiltiest party of all is Dick Cheney. So it is nothing to do with
ethnicity at all.
The American Likudniks are attempting to hitch a ride on political
correctness and trying to equate criticism of Likud party policies in
Israel with anti-semitism. It would be as though Pinochet supporters
implied that his critics hate Latinos, or as though supporters of
Chinese President Hu Jintao tried to paint his critics as anti-Asian.
It is a stupid argument and no one is going to fall for it, so they
may as well just give it up.
There is, by the way, a throwaway line in Richter's piece from a
Neocon lamenting that Bush may come to be seen as the worst president
since Carter. That is ridiculous. Jimmy Carter was a far better
president than W. can ever hope to be. Carter made peace between
Israel and Egypt. He resolved the Panama Canal issue to everyone's
satisfaction, and we've never heard any more about it because there
haven't been subsequent problems. He avoided a potentially disastrous
US attempt to prevent or roll back the Islamic Revolution in Iran. He
used the foreign aid carrot to begin the process of pushing the Latin
American military regimes to democratize (a process that has been
wildly successful). He raised human rights as a foreign policy issue.
Carter is a quick study and a bright engineer. He was president at a
time of post-Vietnam and post-Watergate doldrums, at a time when Iran
and Afghanistan spun out of control, at a time of high petroleum
prices, continued stagflation, and high inflation. I am not entirely
sure what he could have done about any of these problems, most of
which were beyond his control (and most of which remained beyond the
control of his successors).
Reagan did not overturn Khomeini, rather he sold him arms. Although
Reagan got the Soviets out of Afghanistan, he did it at the cost of
creating a radical Islamist international and destabilizing Pakistan
and Afghanistan--i.e. Afghanistan continued to spin out of control,
with fateful consequences. The price of petroleum declined from $40 a
barrel in 1980 to less than $10 a barrel in 1986, helping Reagan
quite a lot, but it had nothing to do with any policy pursued by
Reagan. (Europe cut its energy consumption by a third after the 1970s
oil shock, and OPEC has a tendency to overproduce over time). After
Carter retired, he spent his time building houses for disadvantaged
people. He also was key to the elimination of a painful and
debilitating parasite in Africa, improving the lives of millions. The
vilification of Carter and the hero worship of W. is a sign of how
morally warped the American Right really is. Carter's political and
economic environment made it impossible for him to be a great
president, but he was a damn sight better than W. any day of the
week. | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 12:39 am Post subject: Email to Military Lawyer Representing MP Soldier in Iraq |
| Forwarded:
Dear Captain Dunn,
I know that you have been defending (for JAG) at least one or more of the MP soldiers charged in association with the Abu Ghraib prison torture/abuse scandal. However, it is obvious that orders for the torture/abuse went to the highest level of the JINSA/PNAC Neocon cabal at the Pentagon (and perhaps as high as President Bush as well after learning about the memo by White House Counsel Al Gonzales) which Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is the front man for:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0517-09.htm
You can read more about the JINSA/PNAC Neocon cabal in the following article by Pat Buchanan (I do not agree with Pat Buchanan on all that he mentions politically, but he is right on the mark with this article that appeared in the 'American Conservative' magazine):
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
Do you have an email address for General George Fay (who is currently conducting an investigation into intelligence operations at Abu Ghraib) as I would like to forward the following to him as well if possible.
I had provided material to esteemed journalist/correspondent Robert Fisk which resulted in the article below (for the London Independent newspaper) that is now linked in the left margin (under May 26th, 2004) at www.counterpunch.org and at the upper right at www.robert-fisk.com as well . Please also access the additional material which is referenced after the following.
I think you would find what is at the following URL to be of interest as John B. Israel (who is mentioned as being a major player in the Taguba report) is living in the Canyon Country (Santa Clarita) area which is about a 40 minute freeway drive north of downtown Los Angeles:
http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/story.jsp?story=524859
The things Bush didn't mention in his speech
The re-writing of Iraqi history is now going on at supersonic speed
By Robert Fisk
26 May 2004
I can't wait to see Abu Ghraib prison reduced to rubble by the Americans -
at the request of the new Iraqi government, of course. It will be turned to
dust in order to destroy a symbol of Saddam's brutality. That's what
President Bush tells us. So the re-writing of history still goes on.
Last August, I was invited to Abu Ghraib - by my favourite US General Janis
Karpinski, no less - to see the million-dollar US refurbishment of this
vile place. Squeaky clean cells and toothpaste tubes and fresh pairs of
pants for the "terrorist" inmates. But now, suddenly, the whole kit and
caboodle is no longer an American torture centre. It's still an Iraqi
torture centre, and thus worthy of demolition.
The re-writing of Iraqi history is now going on at supersonic speed.
Weapons of mass destruction? Forget it. Links between Saddam and al-Qa'ida?
Forget it. Liberating the Iraqis from Saddam's Abu Ghraib life of torture?
Forget it. Wedding party slaughtered? Forget it. Clear the decks for both
"full (sic) sovereignty" and "chaotic events". This is, at any rate,
according to Mr Bush. When I heard his hesitant pronunciation of Abu Ghraib
as "Abu Grub" on Monday night, I could only profoundly agree.
But we're in danger again of missing the detail. Just as the unsupervised
armed mercenaries being killed in Iraq are being described by the
occupation authorities as "contractors" or, more mendaciously, "civilians"
- so the responsibility for the porno interrogations at Abu Ghraib is being
allowed to slide into the summer mists over the Tigris river. So let's go
back, for a moment, to the long weeks in which the Department of Bad Apples
allowed its jerks to put leashes around Iraqi necks, forced prisoners to
have sex with each other and raped some Iraqi lasses in the jail.
And let's cast our eyes upon that little, all-important matter of
responsibility. The actual interrogators accused of encouraging US troops
to abuse Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib jail were working for at least one
company with extensive military and commercial contacts with Israel. The
head of an American company whose personnel are implicated in the Iraqi
tortures, it now turns out, attended an "anti-terror" training camp in
Israel and, earlier this year, was presented with an award by Shaul Mofaz,
the right-wing Israeli defence minister.
According to Dr J P London's company, CACI International, the visit of Dr
London - sponsored by an Israeli lobby group and including US congressmen
and other defence contractors - was "to promote opportunities for strategic
partnerships and joint ventures between US and Israeli defence and homeland
security agencies".
The Pentagon and the occupation powers in Iraq insist that only US citizens
have been allowed to question prisoners in Abu Ghraib - but this takes no
account of Americans who may also hold double citizenship. The once secret
torture report by US General Antonio Taguba refers to "third country
nationals" involved in the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq.
General Taguba mentions Steven Staphanovic and John Israel as involved in
the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Staphanovic, who worked for CACI - known to the
US military as "Khaki" - was said by Taguba to have "allowed and/or
instructed MPs (military police), who were not trained in interrogation
techniques, to facilitate interrogations by 'setting conditions' ... he
clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse". One of
Staphanovic's co-workers, Joe Ryan - who was not named in the Taguba report
- now says that he underwent an "Israeli interrogation course" before going
to Iraq.
We know the Pentagon asked Israel for its "rules of engagement" in the
occupied West Bank and Gaza. Israeli officers have briefed their US
opposite numbers and, according to the Associated Press, "in January and
February of 2003, Israeli and American troops trained together in southern
Israel's Negev desert ... Israel has also hosted senior law enforcement
officials from the United States for a seminar on counter-terrorism".
Staphanovic of CACI, who may also be Australian, was accused by Taguba's
army report of making "a false statement to the investigation team
regarding ... his knowledge of abuses". Another outside interrogator, Adel
Nakhla,who may be of Egyptian origin, was a witness to the "stacking" of
naked prisoners in Abu Ghraib. John Israel "misled" investigators by
denying he had witnessed misconduct and did not have "security clearance".
Israel, according to Titan - two of whose employees were mentioned in
Taguba's report - works for one of the company's "sub-contractors". Titan
refused to name the "sub-contractor".
Why? Among the company's former directors is ex-CIA director James Woolsey,
one of the architects of the US invasion of Iraq, a friend of Ahmed Chalabi
and a prominent pro-Israeli lobbyist in Washington. Dr London says CACI
"does not condone or tolerate or endorse in any fashion (sic) any illegal,
inappropriate behaviour on the part of its employees in any circumstances
at any time anywhere".
But it is clear the torture trail at Abu Ghraib has to run much further
than a group of brutal US military cops, all of whom claim "intelligence
officers" told them to "soften up" their prisoners for questioning. Were
they Israeli? Or South African? Or British? Are we going to let the story
go?
Check out this Must read article about Abu Ghraib:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2591
Another example of Fisk's excellent writing is included at the following URL:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles114.htm
Forwarded:
Senator Akaka (of Hawaii) asked General Miller during the recent Senate hearing who the third country nations ('John Israel' and others mentioned in the Taguba Report) were, and General Miller refused to answer... One answer is so obviously Israel:
http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen05102004.html
May 10, 2004
The Israeli Torture Template
Rape, Feces and Urine-Dipped Cloth Sacks
By WAYNE MADSEN
With mounting evidence that a shadowy group of former Israeli Defense Force and General Security Service (Shin Bet) Arabic-speaking interrogators were hired by the Pentagon under a classified "carve out" sub-contract to brutally interrogate Iraqi prisoners at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, one only needs to examine the record of abuse of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners in Israel to understand what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld meant, when referring to new, yet to be released photos and videos, he said, "if these images are released to the public, obviously its going to make matters worse."
According to a political appointee within the Bush administration and U.S. intelligence sources, the interrogators at Abu Ghraib included a number of Arabic-speaking Israelis who also helped U.S. interrogators develop the "R2I" (Resistance to Interrogation) techniques. Many of the torture methods were developed by the Israelis over many years of interrogating Arab prisoners on the occupied West Bank and in Israel itself.
Clues about worse photos and videos of abuse may be found in Israeli files about similar abuse of Palestinian and other Arab prisoners. In March 2000, a lawyer for a Lebanese prisoner kidnapped in 1994 by the Israelis in Lebanon claimed that his client had been subjected to torture, including rape. The type of compensation offered by Rumsfeld in his testimony has its roots in cases of Israeli torture of Arabs. In the case of the Lebanese man, said to have been raped by his Israeli captors, his lawyer demanded compensation of $1.47 million. The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel documented the types of torture meted out on Arab prisoners. Many of the tactics coincide with those contained in the Taguba report: beatings and prolonged periods handcuffed to furniture. In an article in the December 1998 issue of The Progressive, Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb reported on the treatment given to a 23-year old Palestinian held on "administrative detention." The prisoner was "cuffed behind a chair 17 hours a day for 120 days . . . [he] had his head covered with a sack, which was often dipped in urine or feces. Guards played loud music right next to his ears and frequently taunted him with threats of physical and sexual violence." If additional photos and videos document such practices, the Bush administration and the American people have, indeed, "seen nothing yet."
Although it is still largely undocumented if any of the contractor named in the report of General Antonio Taguba were associated with the Israeli military or intelligence services, it is noteworthy that one, John Israel, who was identified in the report as being employed by both CACI International of Arlington, Virginia, and Titan, Inc., of San Diego, may not have even been a U.S. citizen. The Taguba report states that Israel did not have a security clearance, a requirement for employment as an interrogator for CACI. According to CACI's web site, "a Top Secret Clearance (TS) that is current and US citizenship" are required for CACI interrogators working in Iraq. In addition, CACI requires that its interrogators "have at least two years experience as a military policeman or similar type of law enforcement/intelligence agency whereby the individual utilized interviewing techniques."
Speculation that "John Israel" may be an intelligence cover name has fueled speculation whether this individual could have been one of a number of Israeli interrogators hired under a classified contract. Because U.S. citizenship and documentation thereof are requirements for a U.S. security clearance, Israeli citizens would not be permitted to hold a Top Secret clearance. However, dual U.S.-Israeli citizens could have satisfied Pentagon requirements that interrogators hold U.S. citizenship and a Top Secret clearance. Although the Taguba report refers twice to Israel as an employee of Titan, the company claims he is one of their sub-contractors. CACI stated that one of the men listed in the report "is not and never has been a CACI employee" without providing more detail. A U.S. intelligence source revealed that in the world of intelligence "carve out" subcontracts such confusion is often the case with "plausible deniability" being a foremost concern.
In fact, the Taguba report does reference the presence of non-U.S. and non-Iraqi interrogators at Abu Ghraib. The report states, "In general, US civilian contract personnel (Titan Corporation, CACI, etc), third country nationals, and local contractors do not appear to be properly supervised within the detention facility at Abu Ghraib."
The Pentagon is clearly concerned about the outing of the Taguba report and its references to CACI, Titan, and third country nationals, which could permanently damage U.S. relations with Arab and Islamic nations. The Pentagon's angst may explain why the Taguba report is classified Secret No Foreign Dissemination.
The leak of the Taguba report was so radioactive, Daniel R. Dunn, the Information Assurance Officer for Douglas Feith's Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Policy (Policy Automation Services Security Team), sent a May 6, 2004, For Official Use Only Urgent E-mail to Pentagon staffers stating, "THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT IS CLASSIFIED; DO NOT GO TO FOX NEWS TO READ OR OBTAIN A COPY." Considering Feith's close ties to the Israelis, such a reaction by his top computer security officer, a Certified Information System Security Professional (CISSP), is understandable, although considering the fact that CISSPs are to act on behalf of the public good, it is also regrettable..
The reference to "third country nationals" in a report that restricts its dissemination to U.S. coalition partners (Great Britain, Poland, Italy, etc.) is another indication of the possible involvement of Israelis in the interrogation of Iraqi prisoners. Knowledge that the U.S. may have been using Israeli interrogators could have severely fractured the Bush administration's tenuous "coalition of the willing' in Iraq. General Taguba's findings were transmitted to the Coalition Forces Land Component Command on March 9, 2004, just six days before the Spanish general election, one that the opposition anti-Iraq war Socialists won. The Spanish ultimately withdrew their forces from Iraq.
During his testimony before the Senate Armed Service Committee, Rumsfeld was pressed upon by Senator John McCain about the role of the private contractors in the interrogations and abuse. McCain asked Rumsfeld four pertinent questions, ". . . who was in charge? What agency or private contractor was in charge of the interrogations? Did they have authority over the guards? And what were the instructions that they gave to the guards?"
When Rumsfeld had problems answering McCain's question, Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, the Deputy Commander of the U.S. Central Command, said there were 37 contract interrogators used in Abu Ghraib. The two named contractors, CACI and Titan, have close ties to the Israeli military and technology communities. Last January 14, after Provost Marshal General of the Army, Major General Donald Ryder, had already uncovered abuse at Abu Ghraib, CACI's President and CEO, Dr. J.P. (Jack) London was receiving the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah's Albert Einstein Technology award at the Jerusalem City Hall, with right-wing Likud politician Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism party Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski in attendance. Oddly, CACI waited until February 2 to publicly announce the award in a press release. CACI has also received grants from U.S.-Israeli bi-national foundations.
Titan also has had close connections to Israeli interests. After his stint as CIA Director, James Woolsey served as a Titan director. Woolsey is an architect of America's Iraq policy and the chief proponent of and lobbyist for Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. An adviser to the neo-conservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs, Project for the New American Century, Center for Security Policy, Freedom House, and Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, Woolsey is close to Stephen Cambone, the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, a key person in the chain of command who would have not only known about the torture tactics used by U.S. and Israeli interrogators in Iraq but who would have also approved them. Cambone was associated with the Project for the New American Century and is viewed as a member of Rumsfeld's neo-conservative "cabal" within the Pentagon.
Another person considered by Pentagon insiders to have been knowledgeable about the treatment of Iraqi prisoners is U.S. Army Col. Steven Bucci, a Green Beret and Rumsfeld's military assistant and chief traffic cop for the information flow to the Defense Secretary. According to Pentagon insiders, Bucci was involved in the direction of a special covert operations unit composed of former U.S. special operations personnel who answered to the Pentagon rather than the CIA's Special Activities Division, the agency's own paramilitary group. The Pentagon group included Arabic linguists and former members of the Green Berets and Delta Force who operated covertly in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan. Titan also uses linguists trained in the languages (Arabic, Dari, Farsi, Pashto, Urdu, and Tajik) of those same countries. It is not known if a link exists between Rumsfeld's covert operations unit and Titan's covert operations linguists.
Another Titan employee named in the Taguba report is Adel L. Nakhla. Nakhla is a name common among Egypt's Coptic Christian community, however, it is not known if Adel Nakhla is either an Egyptian-American or a national of Egypt. A CACI employee identified in the report, Steven Stephanowicz, is referred to as "Stefanowicz" in a number of articles on the prison abuse. Stefanowicz is the spelling used by Joe Ryan, another CACI employee assigned with Stefanowicz to Abu Ghraib. Ryan is a radio personality on KSTP, a conservative radio station in Minneapolis, who maintained a daily log of his activities in Iraq on the radio's web site before it was taken down. Ryan indicated that Stefanowicz (or Stephanowicz) continued to hold his interrogation job in Iraq even though General Taguba recommended he lose his security clearance and be terminated for the abuses at Abu Ghraib.
In an even more bizarre twist, the Philadelphia Daily News identified a former expatriate public relations specialist for the government of South Australia in Adelaide named Steve Stefanowicz as possibly being the same person identified in the Taguba report. In 2000, Stefanowicz, who grew up in the Philadelphia and Allentown areas, left for Australia. On September 16, 2001, he was quoted by the Sunday Mail of Adelaide on the 911 attacks. He said of the attacks, "It was one of the most incredible and most devastating things I have ever seen. I have been in constant contact with my family and friends in the US and the mood was very solemn and quiet. But this is progressing into anger." Stefanowicz returned to the United States and volunteered for the Navy in a reserve status. His mother told the Allentown Morning Call in April 2002 that Stefanowicz was stationed somewhere in the Middle East but did not know where because of what Stefanowicz said was "security concerns." His mother told the Philadelphia Daily News that her son was in Iraq but she knew nothing about his current status.
Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and columnist. He served in the National Security Agency (NSA) during the Reagan administration and wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the co-author, with John Stanton, of "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II." His forthcoming book is titled: "Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops, and Brass Plates."
Madsen can be reached at: WMadsen777@aol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is John Israel?
He could be one of the secret masterminds behind the Abu Ghraib outrage (see the 'Who is John Israel' article which is linked on the right side at the following URL):
http://www.antiwar.com/justin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following URL (link) will take you right to Seymour Hersh's latest article for the New Yorker magazine which is a must read at your earliest convenience:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact
Amy Goodman did an excellent interview with Seymour Hersh this morning on the 'Democracy Now' radio program that she hosts (as you can listen to the interview via clicking on the link for it after accessing the following URL as Hersh discusses his article - the one which is linked above):
Rumsfeld Knew: Iraq Prison Abuse Part of Pentagon-Approved Black Ops Program:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/17/1431219
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks like the Israeli association to the intelligence/torture is completely being white- washed for Israel (read former Republican Congressman Paul Findley's 'They Dare to Speak Out' book to see why) as the following article (URL) also conveys how closely tied the US is to Israeli 'anti-terror' tactics:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=
3446
Israeli link possible in US torture techniques
By Ali Abunimah
Special to The Daily Star
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
In exchange for interrogation training, did Washington award security
contracts?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israeli lessons for the US in Iraq:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C182D988-28E3-4D48-ADFC-F15D6509B0EC.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEOCON PENTAGON OFFICIAL CLASHES WITH GENERAL TAGUBA:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/05/12/officials-clash-on-roles-at-iraq-prison.php
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Israel behind the orders for the tortures in Iraq?:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/05/09/is-israel-behind-the-orders-for-the-tortures-in-iraq.php
Jason Vest had earlier written the 'Men from JINSA and CSP' article
( http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&s=vest ) for 'The Nation' about the JINSA/PNAC Neocon cabal at the Pentagon as he just came out with the following article for 'The Nation' as well which connects the neocons to the torture in the Iraqi prison (s). You can also listen his excellent interview about such on the 'To the Point' national radio program from earlier today on your computer via the following URL:
http://www.moretothepoint.com/cgi-bin/db/kcrw.pl?show_code=tp&air_date=5/18/04&tmplt_type=Show
Jason Vest's latest article can be found on the web at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040531&s=vest2
PENTAGON NEOCON CABAL ORDERED IRAQ PRISON TORTURE:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/05/17/pentagon-neocon-cabal-ordered-iraq-prison-torture.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 12:42 am Post subject: INTEL FIRM DENIES (ABU GHRAIB) TORTURE CONSPIRACY |
| INTEL FIRM DENIES (ABU GHRAIB) TORTURE CONSPIRACY:
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 | | Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 12:44 am Post subject: Will Some Jews' Backing for War in Iraq have Repercussions.. |
| Subj: Will some Jews’ backing for war in Iraq have repercussions for all?
Date: 6/11/04 4:31:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: jblankfort@earthlink.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)
" Even before the war began, Rep. James Moran (D-Va.) suggested that Jewish leaders were
banging the war drums. Moran was stripped of his leadership post in the Democratic caucus
because of the comments.
This week, however, Moran handily triumphed over a challenger in a primary election, leading
some Jewish officials to express concern that significant segments of the public don’t consider
his charges outlandish."
BEHIND THE HEADLINES
Will some Jews’ backing for war
in Iraq have repercussions for all?
By Matthew E. Berger
WASHINGTON, June 10 (JTA) — With each new report of troubles in Iraq, some Jews are
getting nervous.
Even though many Jews opposed the U.S. war in Iraq — and the organized Jewish community
did not vocalize the strong support some had anticipated in the lead-up to the war — a few
leading voices in Washington have portrayed the Jewish community as overwhelmingly in
favor of toppling Saddam Hussein.
The fact that some of the strongest supporters for the war, both in and out of the Bush White
House, are Jewish has led some to equate the political philosophy of neo-conservatism with
support for Israel.
Now that the war has been beset by a series of scandals and setbacks, some Jewish leaders
have expressed concern that Jews may be scapegoated this election year. Anti-war
candidates and advocates already are suggesting that Jewish and pro-Israel voices led the
country into war.
“Certainly, there is a significant portion of the American people who will buy into this,” said
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American
Jewish Organizations. “It’s a warning to us and it’s certainly not something we can dismiss.”
The problematic characterizations of Jews have come from high places.
Last month, Sen. Ernest “Fritz” Hollings (D-S.C.) wrote in a newspaper column in his home
state that he believed the Bush administration went to war to secure Israel and win Jewish
votes. He followed the column with a speech on the Senate floor, chastising the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee for its influence over Middle East policy.
A week later, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, a former presidential envoy in the Middle East,
suggested in an interview with CBS News that hawks in the Bush administration backed the
Iraq war in part to strengthen Israel, and named some prominent Jews in the administration as
the plan’s key architects.
Even before the war began, Rep. James Moran (D-Va.) suggested that Jewish leaders were
banging the war drums. Moran was stripped of his leadership post in the Democratic caucus
because of the comments.
This week, however, Moran handily triumphed over a challenger in a primary election, leading
some Jewish officials to express concern that significant segments of the public don’t consider
his charges outlandish.
He won the Democratic nomination for his district with 59 percent of the vote, defeating Andy
Rosenberg, a Jewish lawyer.
“It does underscore the need not to be complacent about statements made by public figures
that suggest scapegoats,” said Jess Hordes, Washington director for the Anti-Defamation
League.
Moran’s victory had more to do with his 14-year incumbency than with Israel, political analysts
said. Additionally, the tendency to blame the war principally on supporters of Israel is confined
mostly to the political fringe, Moran and Hollings notwithstanding.
Nonetheless, Jewish groups seek a quick retort when such comments enter the public record.
“We rely on the common sense and wisdom of the average American and other public officials
to stand up and say, ‘This is nonsense, this is absurd,’ ” Hordes said.
Over the past year, Jewish views on the war have mirrored those of the general public.
Some Jews backed the war in Iraq, believing a change in regime in Baghdad would make Israel
safer. Bush touted the goals of the war to AIPAC last month, winning rousing applause.
But many other Jews hesitated. Some feared Israel would be used as a scapegoat, while
others believed the evidence against Saddam did not warrant military action.
Still others felt the war should not be carried out without a larger international coalition.
The Israeli government, which favored regime change, stayed quiet, not wanting to spark
allegations that the war was being fought for Israel’s benefit.
No matter their view of the invasion, American Jewish officials want to debunk the idea that
Jews fostered the war or that, if they supported it, benefit to Israel was a primary factor.
“I don’t think we’ve reached the critical mass of people believing these absurd statements,”
Hordes said. “But statements like these need to be challenged, or they have the chance to
seep into mainstream thinking.”
Many of the neo-conservatives who staunchly supported the war are Jewish, making it easier
for detractors to claim they were motivated by their support for Israel.
In their public statements, both Hollings and Zinni named prominent neo-conservatives who are
Jewish. Among those most often noted are Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense;
Richard Perle, the former chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; and Douglas Feith,
undersecretary of defense for policy.
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a hawkish Jewish organization with close
ties to U.S. military officials and a supporter of the war, is taking the initiative in explaining
neo-conservatism — and separating it from any Jewish identification.
Tom Neumann, JINSA’s executive director, points out that many of the neo-conservatives who
pushed the Iraq war, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld, are not Jewish.
“Neo-conservatism is a philosophy, not a theology,” Neumann said. “It doesn’t have to do with
any religion.”
JINSA will hold a symposium this fall on the definition of a neo-conservative. Neumann
describes it as someone who is formerly liberal and maintains liberal views on some issues,
but has developed a stronger bent toward conservatism over time.
That could explain why many of the leading neo-conservatives are Jewish, Neumann says.
“Jews generally start off liberal, and through a process of maturation move to a more
conservative position,” Neumann said. “You can’t be a neo-conservative if you were born a
conservative.” | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 9:31 am Post subject: Newsweek on Torture |
| Subj: Newsweek on Torture
Date: 6/8/04 7:33:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
New Torture Furor
A Defense Dept. memo provides a legal roadmap for prisoner interrogation
Dennis Cook / AP
Attorney General John Ashcroft testifies during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on June 8
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek
Updated: 6:31 p.m. ET June 08, 2004
June 8 - A memo classified by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2003 explores ways of conducting interrogations in the war on terror that would allow guards to evade future prosecutions for torture. In a series of minutely argued points that appear designed to evade restrictions on abusive interrogation techniques, the memo concludes that “excessive force” is illegal only when it is “malicious and sadistic.” It also argues that treatment of prisoners should be defined as torture only when "the infliction of pain" is an interrogator's "precise objective."
advertisement
The March 6, 2003 draft memo from the Defense Department, which was obtained in part by NEWSWEEK, is titled a “WORKING GROUP REPORT ON DETAINEE INTERROGATIONS IN THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM” and explores numerous legal defenses for acts that might be construed as torture. (Click here to read the memo). It was first disclosed by The Wall Street Journal on Monday. Along with several other memos to come out of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel—two them previously disclosed by NEWSWEEK—the 56-page DoD memo is believed to form the main basis for legal arguments justifying intense interrogation methods used at Guantanamo Bay. Some of those methods were later believed to be adopted for use at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
More War Crimes Memos
Click the Links Below to Read Portions of the Defense Dept. Memo
• Read the complete Defense Dept. memo:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
It is not clear to what extent the memo’s arguments eventually became administration policy. But a number of these arguments appear to provide a clear basis for many of the detention and interrogation practices that the Red Cross and witnesses allege were used against the Taliban and Al Qaeda as well as Iraqis. Among these practices were the selective removal of clothes and food, limiting a prisoner’s access to light, and forcing a prisoner into “stress” positions for long periods of time.
Perhaps the most striking part of the memo is its argument that the president, as commander-in-chief, is not bound to observe international laws against torture, or even a 1996 U.S. law enacted to comply with the U.N.-sponsored Convention Against Torture. “In order to respect the President’s inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign, [the U.S. law prohibiting torture] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority,” the memo says. “In light of the President’s complete authority over the conduct of war, without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the President’s ultimate authority in these areas.”
Some legal scholars contacted by Newsweek were appalled by what they called the unsoundness of such arguments. “There is little jurisprudential basis for this,” said Scott Horton, a well-known human-rights lawyer based in New York. “It is arguing the president’s unilateral right to interpret the law, unrestricted by the views of Congress." Philip Heymann of Harvard Law School added: “The country has a right to expect far better from the [government] lawyers who are responsible for keeping the president’s actions legal.” Attorney General John Ashcroft, grilled at a congressional hearing on Tuesday over this and other memos, said, "This administration rejects torture."
The memo also dwells heavily on the legal standard a potential future prosecutor would have to meet in order to prove that guards were engaged in torture. The memo concludes, for example, that because Section 2340 of the U.S. anti-torture law “requires that a defendant act with the specific intent to inflict severe pain, the infliction of such pain must be the defendant’s precise objective,” as opposed to “general intent.”
The memo also spends much time exploring legal arguments that the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment ban on “cruel and unusual punishment,” and the “due process” provisions in the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments, are limited in their applications to interrogations. Citing the stricture against cruel and unusual punishment, for example, the memo argues that guards must show “deliberate indifference” to a prisoner’s fate. It also cites approvingly a court case from 2002 that finds “a prisoner alleging excessive force must demonstrate that the defendant acted ‘maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.’’’
“It is not enough for a prisoner to show that he has been subjected to conditions that are merely ‘restrictive and even harsh,” the memo concludes. It notes that the Supreme Court has established that an Eighth Amendment violation means ‘only those deprivations denying “the minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities.”
Only in a last section called “Considerations Affecting Policy” does the memo note that the Army Field Manual 30-15, setting out basic doctrine on intelligence questioning, states that interrogation techniques are to conform to international law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 9:56 am Post subject: US Fails to Block UN Anti-Torture Vote |
| http://www.rense.com/general52/anati.htm
Flashback - US Fails
To Block UN
Anti-Torture Vote
Japan Today
7-25-2
UNITED NATIONS -- The United States failed to block a U.N. vote Wednesday on a plan to strengthen a treaty on torture, and was widely criticized by allies for trying to do so. The United States argued that the measure, known as a protocol, could pave the way for international and independent visits to U.S. prisons and to terror suspects being held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. The objective of the protocol is "to establish a system of regular visits undertaken by independent and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment." The protocol to the treaty passed late Wednesday by a vote of 35-8 with 10 abstentions in the U.N. Economic and Social Council. The United States abstained. A U.S. proposal to reopen 10 years of negotiations on the document was voted down 29-15 with the rest abstaining. The protocol now moves to the General Assembly where it would need to be approved by a majority of the 190 member states. Then, it will require 20 ratifications before it can go into force. However, if the United States chooses not to sign the document it will not be bound by it. Denmark, which read a statement on behalf of the European Union, accused the United States of intentionally stalling in order to kill the proposal. Costa Rica, which sponsored the plan, "urged all delegations to vote against," the American request to reopen negotiations. Human rights advocates and diplomats argued that the protocol was essential to enforce the international convention on torture passed 13 years ago and since ratified by about 130 countries, including the United States. Countries are supposed to enforce the convention on their own, but rights groups argue that that isn't working everywhere. People were tortured or ill-treated by authorities in 111 countries last year, according to an Amnesty International report. Technically, the protocol seeks visits to prisons as a way to help enforce the anti-torture convention, which the United States has ratified. But the United States said elements of the plan were incompatible with the U.S. constitution. Privately, U.S. diplomats said allowing outside observers into state prisons would infringe on states' rights. "The United States greatly regrets being put in the position of abstaining," U.S. Ambassador Sichan Siv said after the debate. The protocol was widely supported among Western European and Latin American countries. The United States was supported by some countries accused by Amnesty International of torture, including Nigeria and Iran. Other U.S. support came from Japan, China, Cuba, Cyprus, India, Pakistan and Egypt. The text was accepted in an April vote by the Human Rights Commission in Geneva. The United States didn't participate in that vote because it lost its seat on the commission last year. Activists had feared that if the United States succeeded in reopening the negotiations, it would mean a "death sentence" for the protocol. Joanna Weschler of Human Rights Watch, said: "This is actually a great vote because the U.S. tried and failed." Decisions by the Bush administration to back out of a protocol on climate control and talks on biological weapons have greatly frustrated its relationships at the United Nations. On Monday, the administration cut support for the U.N. Population Fund, accusing the agency of sending money to Chinese agencies that carry out coercive programs involving abortion. The agency denies the accusation and a U.S. government fact-finding mission found no evidence that agency money was being used in such a way. (Compiled from news reports) All rights reserved. Copyright © 2000, 2004 http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&id=224232 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 10:28 am Post subject: General is Said to Have Urged Use of Dogs |
| Subj: General is Said To Have Urged Use of Dog's
Date: 6/10/04 8:54:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
http://uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=5040
General Is Said To Have Urged Use of Dogs
by R. Jeffrey Smith Washington Post Staff Writer, Washington Post
May 26th, 2004
General Is Said To Have Urged Use of Dogs
By R. Jeffrey Smith Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 26, 2004; Page A01 <
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55703-2004May25.html
A U.S. Army general dispatched by senior Pentagon
officials to bolster the collection of intelligence
from prisoners in Iraq last fall inspired and promoted
the use of guard dogs there to frighten the Iraqis,
according to sworn testimony by the top U.S.
intelligence officer at the Abu Ghraib prison.
According to the officer, Col. Thomas Pappas, the idea
came from Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, who at the time
commanded the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, and was implemented under a policy approved by
Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the top U.S. military
official in Iraq.
"It was a technique I had personally discussed with
General Miller, when he was here" visiting the prison,
testified Pappas, head of the 205th Military
Intelligence Brigade and the officer placed in charge
of the cellblocks at Abu Ghraib prison where abuses
occurred in the wake of Miller's visit to Baghdad
between Aug. 30 and Sept. 9, 2003.
"He said that they used military working dogs at Gitmo
[the nickname for Guantanamo Bay], and that they were
effective in setting the atmosphere for which, you
know, you could get information" from the prisoners,
Pappas told the Army investigator, Maj. Gen. Antonio M.
Taguba, said a transcript provided to The Washington
Post.
Pappas, who was under pressure from Taguba to justify
the legality and appropriateness of using guard dogs to
frighten detainees, said at two separate points in the
Feb. 9 interview that Miller gave him the idea. He also
said Miller had indicated the use of the dogs "with or
without a muzzle" was "okay" in booths where prisoners
were taken for interrogation.
But Miller, whom the Bush administration appointed as
the new head of Abu Ghraib this month, denied through a
spokesman that the conversation took place.
"Miller never had a conversation with Colonel Pappas
regarding the use of military dogs for interrogation
purposes in Iraq. Further, military dogs were never
used in interrogations at Guantanamo," said Brig. Gen.
Mark Kimmitt, spokesman for U.S. forces in Iraq.
Pappas's statements nonetheless provide the fullest
public account to date of how he viewed the
interrogation mission at Abu Ghraib and Miller's impact
on operations there. Pappas said, among other things,
that interrogation plans involving the use of dogs,
shackling, "making detainees strip down," or similar
aggressive measures followed Sanchez's policy, but were
often approved by Sanchez's deputy, Maj. Gen. Walter
Wodjakowski, or by himself.
The claims and counterclaims between Pappas and Miller
concern one of the most notorious aspects of U.S.
actions at Abu Ghraib, as revealed by Taguba's March 9
report and by pictures taken by military personnel that
became public late last month. The pictures show
unmuzzled dogs being used to intimidate Abu Ghraib
detainees, sometimes while the prisoners are cowering,
naked, against a wall.
Taguba, in a rare classified passage within his
generally unclassified report, listed "using military
working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and
frighten detainees" as one of 13 examples of "sadistic,
blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" inflicted by U.S.
military personnel at Abu Ghraib.
Experts on the laws of war have charged that using dogs
to coerce prisoners into providing information, as was
done at Abu Ghraib, constitutes a violation of the
Geneva Conventions that protect civilians under the
control of an occupying power, such as the Iraqi
detainees.
"Threatening a prisoner with a ferocious guard dog is
no different as a matter of law from pointing a gun at
a prisoner's head and ordering him to talk," said James
Ross, senior legal adviser at Human Rights Watch.
"That's a violation of the Geneva Conventions."
Article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention bars use of
coercion against protected persons, and Common Article
Three bars any "humiliating and degrading treatment,"
Ross said. Experts do not consider the presence in a
prison of threatening dogs, by itself, to constitute
torture, but a 1999 United Nations-approved manual
lists the "arranging of conditions for attacks by
animals such as dogs" as a "torture method."
But Pappas, who was charged with overseeing
interrogations at Abu Ghraib involving those suspected
of posing or knowing about threats to U.S. forces in
Iraq, told Taguba that "I did not personally look at
that [use of dogs] with regard to the Geneva
Convention," according to the transcript.
Pappas also said he did not have "a program" to inform
his civilian employees, including a translator and an
interrogator, of what the Geneva Conventions stated,
and said he was unaware if anyone else did. He said he
did not believe using force to coerce, intimidate or
cause fear violated the conventions.
Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski, who commanded the prison
guards at Abu Ghraib's cellblocks 1A and 1B until Nov.
19, when Pappas assumed control, said in an interview
that Navy, Army and Air Force dog teams were used there
for security purposes. But she said military
intelligence officers "were responsible for assigning
those dogs and where they would go."
Using dogs to intimidate or attack detainees was very
much against regulations, Karpinski said. "You cannot
use the dogs in that fashion, to attack or be
aggressive with a detainee. . . . Why were there guys
so willing to take these orders? And who was giving the
orders? The military intelligence people were in charge
of them."
Taguba never interviewed Miller or any officer above
Karpinski's rank for his report. Nor did he conduct a
detailed probe of the actions of military intelligence
officials. But he said he suspected that Pappas and
several of his colleagues were "either directly or
indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib."
In a Feb. 11 written statement accompanying the
transcript, Pappas shifted the responsibility
elsewhere. He said "policies and procedures established
by the [Abu Ghraib] Joint Interrogation and Debriefing
Center relative to detainee operations were enacted as
a specific result of a visit" by Miller, who in turn
has acknowledged being dispatched to Baghdad by
Undersecretary of Defense Stephen A. Cambone, after a
conversation with Secretary of Defense Donald H.
Rumsfeld.
Cambone told lawmakers recently that he wanted Miller
to go because he had done a good job organizing the
detention center at Guantanamo Bay and wanted him to
help improve intelligence-gathering in Iraq.
Some senators, however, have noted that the Bush
administration considers Guantanamo detainees exempt
from the protections of the Geneva Conventions, and
wondered if Miller brought the same aggressive
interrogation ideas with him to Iraq, where the
conventions apply.
When asked at a May 19 Senate hearing if he and his
colleagues had "briefed" military officers in Iraq
about specific Guantanamo interrogation techniques that
did not comply with the Geneva Conventions, Miller said
no.
He said he brought "our SOPs [standard operating
procedures] that we had developed for humane detention,
interrogation, and intelligence fusion" to Iraq for use
as a "starting point." He added that it was up to the
officers in Iraq to decide which were applicable and
what modifications to make.
But Pappas said the result of Miller's visit was that
"the interrogators and analysts developed a set of
rules to guide interrogations" and assigned specific
military police soldiers to help interrogators -- an
approach Miller had honed in Guantanamo.
After calling the use of dogs Miller's idea, Pappas
explained that "in the execution of interrogation, and
the interrogation business in general, we are trying to
get info from these people. We have to act in an
environment not to permanently damage them, or
psychologically abuse them, but we have to assert
control and get detainees into a position where they're
willing to talk to us."
Pappas added that it "would never be my intent that the
dog be allowed to bite or in any way touch a detainee
or anybody else." He said he recalled speaking to one
dog handler and telling him "they could be used in
interrogations" anytime according to terms spelled out
in a Sept. 14, 2003, memo signed by Sanchez.
That memo included the use of dogs among techniques
that did not require special approval. The policy was
changed on Oct. 12 to require Sanchez's approval on a
case-by- case basis for certain techniques, including
having "military working dogs" present during
interrogations.
That memo also demanded -- in what Taguba referred to
during the interview as its "fine print" -- that
detainees be treated humanely and in accordance with
the Geneva Conventions.
But Pappas told Taguba that "there would be no way for
us to actually monitor whether that happened. We had no
formal system in place to do that -- no formal
procedure" to check how interrogations were conducted.
Moreover, he expressed frustration with a rule that the
dogs be muzzled. "It's not very intimidating if they
are muzzled," Pappas said. He added that he requested
an exemption from the rule at one point, and was turned
down.
In the interview transcript, Taguba's disdain for using
dogs is clear. He asked Pappas if he knew that after a
prison riot on Nov. 24, 2003, five dogs were "called in
to either intimidate or cause fear or stress" on a
detainee. Pappas said no, and acknowledged under
questioning that such an action was inappropriate.
Taguba also asked if he believed the use of dogs is
consistent with the Army's field manual. Pappas replied
that he could not recall, but reiterated that Miller
instigated the idea. The Army field manual bars the
"exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any
kind."
At least four photographs obtained by The Washington
Post -- each apparently taken in late October or
November -- show fearful prisoners near unmuzzled dogs.
One MP charged with abuses, Spec. Sabrina D. Harman,
recalled for Army investigators an episode "when two
dogs were brought into [cellblock] 1A to scare an
inmate. He was naked against the wall, when they let
the dogs corner him. They pulled them back enough, and
the prisoner ran . . . straight across the floor. . . .
The prisoner was cornered and the dog bit his leg. A
couple seconds later, he started to move again, and the
dog bit his other leg."
Staff writer Josh White contributed to this report | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 10:47 am Post subject: Bush Seeks Israeli Advice on 'Targeted Killings' |
| http://www.rense.com/general34/seeks.htm
Bush Seeks Israeli Advice
On 'Targeted Killings'
By Ori Nir
Staff Writer - Forward.com
2-7-3
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has been seeking Israel's counsel on creating a legal justification for the assassination of terrorism suspects, the Forward has learned. Legal experts from the United States and Israel have met in recent months to discuss the issue, and are considering widening the consultation circle to include representatives of America's closest allies in the war against terrorism. Israeli sources who are intimately familiar with the talks said that American representatives were anxious to learn details of the legal work that Israeli government jurists have done during the last two years to tackle possible challenges ÷ both domestic and international ÷ to its policy of "targeted killings" of terrorist suspects. On Monday, Israel's attorney general's office submitted a document to Israel's Supreme Court in defense of the "targeted killing" policy. The document, submitted in response to an appeal by human rights groups, for the first time provides a comprehensive set of legal arguments justifying the assassination of terrorism suspects. Last year, Israeli media reported that the American military and Central Intelligence Agency sought operation expertise from Israel's military on how to carry out such operations. Unlike Israel, which went public in November 2000 with its assassinations policy, the Bush administration, like previous administrations, officially is opposed to such assassinations and does not acknowledge that it engages in such actions. The administration repeatedly has condemned Israel's policy of assassinating suspects in the West Bank and Gaza. According to credible press reports quoting American officials, however, the Bush administration has resorted to such methods in pursuing terrorism suspects. Last November, a missile reportedly launched from an unmanned drone over Yemen killed six suspected members of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, including Ali Qaed Senyan al-Harthi, whom the United States has linked to the attack on the warship USS Cole off Aden in October 2000. Unnamed American officials confirmed to the press at the time that the CIA carried out the attack. Last week, in his State of the Union address, President Bush came close to confirming the administration's involvement in such operations, saying that terrorism suspects who were not caught and brought to trial have been "otherwise dealt with." All told, the president said, "more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries, and many others have met a different fate." It is not clear how many terrorism suspects the United States has killed in such targeted operations. Israel, in the past two years, has assassinated more than 80 suspects, according to Western human rights organizations. Michael Sfard, a Tel Aviv lawyer who submitted an appeal to Israel's Supreme Court against the policy on behalf of the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, said that according to his data, the number is higher than 100. "That number, of course, does not include the dozens of innocent bystanders who are regarded 'collateral damage' by the authorities," Sfard said. In the document submitted Monday to Israel's Supreme Court in response to the appeal by Sfard and human rights groups and obtained by the Israeli daily Ma'ariv, the attorney general's office says that "targeting identified terrorists, who are directly involved in severe terrorism attacks, as carried out by Israel's security forces, is utterly legal and legitimate." Since September 2000, according to the document, Israel is conducting "an armed conflict" in the West Bank and Gaza, which merits actions under "warfare laws" and not in accordance with "self-defense laws." Kenneth Roth, executive director of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, told the Forward that although he has not read the Israeli government document, he disagrees with its premise. War powers, which merit such actions, are not to be used where law enforcement is possible, Roth said. In the case of Israel, which rules over the West Bank and Gaza, law-enforcement actions are possible, and suspects can be caught and brought to justice, Roth said. According to official Israeli data, in more than two years of armed conflict with the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, Israeli forces arrested more than 200 terrorism suspects, which shows that "you can do it if you want to," Sfard said. Roth said that in this sense there is a fundamental difference between Israel's and America's pursuit of terrorists. "The core of the issue is when it is appropriate to treat somebody as an enemy-combatant rather than as a criminal suspect," Roth said. "If you're an enemy combatant, you can be shot. That's what war is about. So the real question is when it is appropriate to characterize someone as such." Based on that yardstick, Roth explained, Human Rights Watch did not object to the killing of al-Harthi in Yemen in November, because of two main reasons: his alleged association with al-Qaeda made him an enemy-combatant, and neither the United States nor the Yemeni government had any effective control in the area where he was found, which did not allow for a reasonable law-enforcement alternative. Indeed, 18 Yemeni soldiers were reportedly killed when they previously tried to arrest al-Harthi. http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.02.07/news5.html | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 11:25 am Post subject: Three On Torture |
| http://www.rense.com/general47/three.htm
Three On Torture
By John Bryant
johnbryant@joimail.com
1-1-04
I. Torture With the so-called War on Terrorism currently in full bloom, our country has been receiving calls for the employment of torture from at least two of America's Big Jews, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and CCNY philosopher Michael Levin. It is not an accident that these Jews call for the serious consideration of torture, because the only non-Third-World country to employ torture openly is Israel, that 'shitty little country' established on the basis of nazi persecution which is now the principal upholder and repository of nazi principles and behavior. There are several basic arguments in favor of the use of torture, as follows: * Torture is justified in those few cases in which there is some great benefit to be had by it, eg, the saving of many lives by using torture to find out where a bomb is planted. The problem with this argument is that once the camel's nose is under the tent, there is not much to stop the whole ball of wax going the whole nine yards. And there is certainly nothing to stop one's enemy from using torture, once you yourself have started to use it. * Another and perhaps stronger argument is that torture is justified when men are desperate for their own survival, whether survival of the small group doing the torturing, or some larger group in whose interest the torturers are acting. Needless to say, the torturers again risk bringing down torture on their own heads, tho if they are truly desperate this argument may not carry much weight. * A third argument is that men are justified in using torture when they are relatively powerless in relation to their enemies. Here again, however, is a case where torturers may become torturees. The principal argument against torture in general is that great risk accrues from using it. The risk is both to the torturers, who may themselves be tortured for their crimes, and to the people whom they represent, who may have their own terrible weapon turned against them simply because they choose to step over one of those lines which separates civilization from barbarism. But if intellectual arguments for and against torture seem somewhat hollow, this is perhaps because the issue of torture is not so much forged with the intellect as with the emotions. Human beings are naturally empathetic to others of their own species as well as to animals, and thus to see someone (or something) tortured -- unless it involves some personal animosity -- is itself a sort of torture to the perpetrator or viewer, and is an experience which may have important (if delayed) psychological consequences. Indeed, the very reason we call torture 'inhuman' is because anyone who tortures another is likely to be deficient in an essential element of the human psyche -- a deficiency which characterizes the barbarian and is most often seen in the world's greatest reservoir of barbarism, Africa. Personally, I do not condemn the Israelis for using torture as such, because I know the Arabs are a brutal people whose system of laws have not evolved by accident, but rather in response to this nature: A society of brutal people cannot survive without brutal laws, and the chopping of heads, feet and hands surely ranks among the world's most brutal law enforcement practices. In contrast, however, I do condemn the Big Jews for trying to bring their mideast practices to America, and indeed for encouraging the multiculturalism which has brought Western civilization to the point of collapse by producing a tsunami of Turd-Worlders which have washed up on American and European shores. Perhaps we really will need to employ torture someday; but if so, it will only be because The Dersh and his ethnic brethren have imported enuf of the Turd-world hordes to change us from America the Beautiful to America the Brutal. II. Harvard Tort By 'Tom Paine' (Pain?) "Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz OKs torture in USA" --Jan 2002 news item Please torture Dershowitz, not me -- I'll tell you all I know Of freedom-hating terrorists And poisoned H2O. Here's what I'll say without delay So you can skip the rack No shock machines: I'll spill the beans And never answer back. I'll finger all conspirators Turn in my mom and fadda I'll even point my finger joint At Alan of al Q'adda. For might this guy be but a spy? Is Al our source of trouble? Could Harvard's hunk be but a skunk That turned the Tow'rs to rubble? At first I'm sure he'll claim he's pure, But truth's not far to seek: It soon will come right from his lips Between each curdling shreek! How long do you suppose it takes A man whose balls are fryin' To fess up to the Holocaust Or Protocols of Zion? The Inquisition was no peer For Mossad and Shin Bet Who've now refined and redesigned The treatment young Pals get. So torture Dershowitz, not me; I choke upon such diet; And if the Dersh loves torture so Let him be first to try it! III. Letter to Michael Levin, August 15, 2001 At the following URL http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/ml_torture.html Jewish professor Michael Levin defends torture -- an interesting position for a lewrockwell.com libertarian -- but my guess is that his REAL interest is in defending ISRAEL. His basic argument is that if we are confronted with (say) a terrorist from whom we need to obtain info in order to save innocent lives, then we are justified in using torture. Levin, however, does not seem to have thought of the following argument: (1) Cases like terrorism where Levin argues that torture is justified usually involve men who are acting MORALLY BY THEIR OWN LIGHTS; (2) the cases where torture is 'justified' are rare; (3) because cases where torture is 'justified' are rare and often involve acts which are moral from the perpetrator's point of view, and because of the consideration that torture in rare cases opens the possibility of torture in MANY cases, it follows that TORTURE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AFTER ALL. I am inviting Levin to answer this argument on these pages, but I am pretty sure he won't, since he has not deigned to answer other devastating critiques of his positions which I have presented him with. Note: There is in fact an argument in favor of using torture which is both stronger and weaker than Levin's, to wit, that if your enemy uses it, then you are justified in doing so. However, in the case of Israel, it has behaved so badly toward the Pals that we might wonder whether ANYTHING it does is justified. Yr turn, Mikey. [Levin responds:] 1) The piece you cite was written during the Carter administration, when left-liberals postured against our allies but were mum about communists and communist-supported groups. I wasn't thinking about Israel one way or another. 2) Legitimate doubts can be raised about the wisdom of institutionalizing torture. Nonetheless, there are clear cases in which it is permissible. This sort of case suggests that in the crunch we are all utilitarians of one sort of another. Hard cases make bad law, but they provoke thinking about basics. 3) So what if terrorists think they are justified? We are the ones who have to decide what to do about them. Many street criminals think they are justified in robbing their victims by force. That hardly means we shouldn't resist them by any means at hand. 4) I am unaware of your sending me other critiques, devasting or otherwise. M. Levin [Birdman replies:] You have danced around my argument, but you have not answered it. You apparently don't really understand it, so -- as a fellow philosopher -- I will analyze it for you: The argument is patterned after a well-known argument in logic and mathematics known as the reductio ad absurdum argument. Such an argument makes the assumption that something is true, and then shows that such an assumption results in a contradiction. My argument is not as straightforward as that, but the same pattern is evident. I assume for the nonce what you assert -- that there are some cases where torture is justified -- and then, with additional information -- argue that this strongly suggests that torture is NOT justified. In arguing against me, all you have done is to mindlessly repeat what you initially asserted, viz, that there are a few extreme cases in which torture is justified (I use the term 'justified', since I am assuming only for the nonce). You ignored my argument, suggesting that 'you just didn't get it'. Beyond the above, you make some mistakes that I would not expect to see in a philosopher. You call torture 'utilitarian', but what you really seem to mean is 'opportunistic'. Furthermore, you ignore the difference between act and rule utilitarianism: The 'act utilitarian' evaluates each act on the ultimate projected utility for society, while the 'rule utilitarian' holds that behavior should follow rules which generally produce the social good, even if the results in some cases are un-utilitarian. One might characterize our disagreement as that between act utilitarianism (you) vs rule utilitarianism (me), but even this doesn't accurately describe the matter because my concern is the long-term social effect of stepping over the line and permitting torture at all. It is the slippery slope, the camel's nose under the tent, the fine edge of the wedge. And to my mind, it is a criterion which separates civilization from barbarism. In passing, there is an argument against torture which I did not raise in my initial critique, but which I think is important. This is the fact that terrorism and other extreme acts for which you would regard torture as justified are not uncaused, but rather are often rooted in some strongly- felt injustice such as the Palestinians -- in my view, rightly -- feel. This, then, suggests that the 'solution' to the 'torture problem' is for people to behave properly -- then they can reduce to near zero the odds of being served an arm-and-leg pizza. Call it revenge, call it karma, call it anything you want; but when you have a whole race of people as mad as hornets at you -- so mad that they are willing to blow up a pizza parlor full of people even when the blower is blown up himself -- then you'd better start re-thinking your morality -- which, after all, is just a set of rules for getting along well with others (For more on this subject, see the Morality section of my webpage). Now if you will excuse a second apostrophe, it should be pointed out that one of the most unpleasant effects of ZOG -- that's "Zionist Occupation Government", which is the bigot's phrase for the situation which Pat Buchanan partially described when he called our Congress "Israeli-occupied territory" -- is that it has made the entire Islamic world angry at America, with the result that we are starting to fear the possibility of something a lot worse than arm-and-leg pizza, namely, chemical and biological warfare. Specifically, the 1999 book Bioterrorism: Secrets for Survival by Duncan Long includes "A Frightening Interview with Former CIA Microbiologist Larry Harris" (Ch 2) in which Harris divulges that Iraqis are smuggling vials of anthrax spores into the United States which are to be unleashed on the population all at once at a predetermined signal, and that there are more than "100 Iraqi cell teams, with 11 members to each team, positioned strategically across the United States in various major cities." (p 16) Is the solution for this problem, then, to start torturing Iraqis to save ourselves from destruction, or is it to free ourselves from the Israeli yoke and cease the policies which brought the threat about? [Levin did not respond] Note: A new Birdman's Weekly Letter is posted every Tuesday and is accessible from the Daily Reads page at www.thebirdman.org - Please send all correspondence to john@thebirdman.org Comment
From J B Campbell
JBC@wealthkeeper.net
1-1-4 Although you apparently are Jew-wise to the extent that you can criticize the Zionists without guilt, you still exhibit a rather amoral attitude to the use of torture by them: "Personally, I do not condemn the Israelis for using torture as such, because I know the Arabs are a brutal people whose system of laws have not evolved by accident, but rather in response to this nature: A society of brutal people cannot survive without brutal laws, and the chopping of heads, feet and hands surely ranks among the world's most brutal law enforcement practices. In contrast, however, I do condemn the Big Jews for trying to bring their mideast practices to America, and indeed for encouraging the multiculturalism which has brought Western civilization to the point of collapse by producing a tsunami of Turd-Worlders which have washed up on American and European shores." The problem with this passage is that you allow the Zionists to torture the victims of their original invasion and occupation of Palestine. You're smart enough not to try to say that, well, they're there, so the Palestinians ought just to accept reality and learn to live with it. But there is no living with it, as we now see. The Palestinians are expected either to get the hell out or be killed. The Zionists will not stop killing them and torturing them until they all leave. And then the Zionists will force other Arabs to leave their countries until it's all Eretz Israel. But you don't like that the big Jews bring their practices here! How hypocritical. It's fine that they torture and kill Palestinians in Palestine, but not in our backyard - right? Well, because of this cowardly attitude, Jews have the upper hand in this country. If it's okay with you that they murder and steal in one guy's country, why shouldn't they do in your country, too? What's the difference? Only where you live. How typically American. We are the most arrogant and ignorant bastards in the world. We don't know or care about what or how other people think. If they don't think the way we do, if they don't act in our interests every step of the way, then screw 'em - right? Torture 'em! Except Israel! Israel can blow our sailors out of the water, fail to notify the marines that a suicide truck is being sent, try to assassinate a president, spy on us, steal and sell nuclear secrets from Los Alamos, a soak up billions of taxed dollars every year just to maintain their totally artificial and unnatural position in Palestine, and you say it's okay for them to torture their victims further. You just don't want them doing that kind of stuff over here, where we might have to see it. Or experience it. What exactly has any Arab done to you or to the United States? What evidence do you have that any Arab has hurt us in any way? (The FBI doesn't have any - do you?) What has any of these guys done to you or us that would justify being tortured? You call them "a society of brutal people" -- because they punish crime harshly. How many atom bombs have the Arabs dropped on innocent civilians? How many blockbusters have they dropped on apartment houses with people in them, hoping to get one enemy? How many American girls have they run over with bulldozers? How many heads of state have Arabs blasted and forced to live in rubble? How many Arab spies have been caught stealing the family jewels here? Isn't the answer a big fat zero? Isn't it rather we who have done nasty things to Arabs? Such as kill a million and a half or so Iraqis since 1991 - for what? Such as make possible the Jewish takeover of Palestine? Such as kill or depose Arab and Persian nationalist leaders who sought independence from us? Haven't we made all of Israel's aggression possible since 1948? So, I don't get your cavalier attitude regarding torture of people who resent living under totalitarian Judaism. You must know, dimly, how bad it is because you don't want the Big Jews bringing their practices here. Well, buddy - we deserve to have them here, because that's what we've done to others. So get ready. J B Campbell Reply from Mr. Bryant Dear Mr Campbell: In reading between the lines of your missive, I find what I believe are several mistakes: * You believe in the old Arab proverb that 'The enemy of mine enemy is my friend'. Not quite. It might be enuf for a temporary alliance, but it isn't enuf for marriage. * Because you see the Arabs as our friends, you think they are just the same as us, as opposed to the 'evil Jews'. Not quite. As I believe I made clear, the Arabs are a brutal people, and this is reflected in their justice system, which has evolved over more than a thousand years, and not as you seem to think, by 'accident'. * As to torture specifically, the principal argument against using it is to keep others from doing so. In this sense it is much the same as the 'rules of war', such as the Geneva conventions. But with Arabs, they DO use it, so the argument against using it in dealing with them collapses. * In comparing Arab and Western brutality, you make two mistakes: (1) You cite the Western atom bomb as 'brutal' when in fact it kills quickly and humanely, at least for the most part. (2) You do not account for the greater technical power of the West: If Arabs had access to our weapons, you can be quite sure they would use them much more brutally than we do. That's why they don't have to fear a suitcase nuke or anthrax in Iran, but we have to fear them in America. * Beyond this, you lack a historical perspective: Arabs almost destroyed Western civ TWICE. The first time, they were turned back at Tours around 800; the second time at Vienna around 1600. The croissant roll was created as a memorial to the latter victory -- remember that the next time you eat one. While it is true that Arab culture was ahead of Western culture for a period, due mainly to the Dark Ages imposed by the Roman church (Arab mathematicians give the West the zero), my view is that Arab culture -- and Arabs, for the most part -- are not worth a Western fingernail. As a general rule, I believe that everyone should be allowed a place in the sun, but I am as fearful of Arabs as I am of Jews, tho for entirely different reasons. I believe this may suffice as an answer to your concerns, tho I realize you may not accept it as such. Response From Mr. Campbell No, sir - you have not answered one question. And where did I say that the Arabs are our friends? You don't kill a million and a half of your friends. I said nothing about Arab proverbs or marriage. In fact, I didn't say or suggest any of the things you want me to have said. You SAY you're just as afraid of the Jews as you are the Arabs. Oh, yeah? What about torturing some Jews about 911? You think that's a good idea? How about the Jews arrested for taping the attack and dancing for joy? Or are we just talking about torturing Arabs? Torture is not useful for anything except terror. The best German air force interrogator during WWII never used torture but rather friendship and good questioning. A good interrogator always gets what he wants without drugs, torture or intimidation. Jews, on the other hand, like to torture their victims, as your correspondence indicates, just because they dig it. The principal argument against torture is not to keep others from doing it, but rather because it is morally wrong and because the victim will tell you what you want to hear. How do you know when you've heard the truth with torture? But you're willing to try - hey? The main thing is that Jews and we have no right to use it, based on our aggression against Arabs. WE ARE THE AGGRESSORS. Now, if we were the good guys and we were being attacked and dispossessed and assassinated daily and etc., then anything goes for self-defense. But that is not the case and that is something you have a hard time accepting. Your typical American position is that we can do anything we damn well please and if we hit resistance to our pleasure, then torture 'em! Whatever it takes to be obeyed. Your ideas about the humaneness of the atom bomb are staggering. Again, you seem to be operating at a totally amoral level. Where is your evidence that Arabs would use atom bombs if they had them? And that's a big "if," isn't it! It's really just your ignorant hatred of Arabs that's driving your argument. I don't quite get your statement about "That's why they don't have to fear a suitcase nuke or anthrax in Iran, but we have to fear them in America." What does that mean? Where's your evidence, besides Mossad propaganda and wild assertions that are never backed up? Are you holding a grudge from the first millennium? And you call them strange? You are very quiet about the million and a half Iraqis we slaughtered with war and sanctions. Are you afraid of Arabs because you have a guilty conscience about what we did to them - totally unprovoked and by way of deception (April Glaspie's bland invitation to invade Kuwait, the incubators, ad nauseum)? How about the lies used to wage the current aggression? Do you really think the Arabs are capable of such behavior as that which we and our Jewish satraps regularly display? Do you understand the difference between aggression and self-defense? You, sir, present the appearance of an amoral, pragmatic individual with no sense of right and wrong - only of what is good for you as you perceive it at the moment. I urge you to rethink your position, which is symbolic of the Bush-Wolfowitz foreign policy. JBC | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
