| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2004 11:22 pm Post subject: Neocons Ordered Abu Ghraib Torture... |
| Email to General Janis Karpinski formerly of Abu Ghraib
General Karpinski,
You and General Sanchez are apparently being set up to take the fall for the neocons at the Pentagon (and perhaps for President Bush as well) if they can get away with doing such. Read the following to see what the latest is if you haven't already seen such... Do you have email address for General Fay and General Sanchez?
Subj: Tony, You are Mentioned in this Article below as Well
Date: 6/12/04 1:26:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Hi Tony,
Do you happen to have an email address for General Sanchez as it looks like the neocons are trying to stick him with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal based on the following (notice the article after it as well) so it does go all the way up to them (and perhaps all the way up to President Bush as well based on the memo by White House Counsel Al Gonzales):
General Granted Latitude At Prison
Abu Ghraib Used Aggressive Tactics
By R. Jeffrey Smith and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, June 12, 2004; Page A01
Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior U.S. military officer in Iraq,
borrowed heavily from a list of high-pressure interrogation tactics used
at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and approved
letting senior officials at a Baghdad jail use military dogs, temperature
extremes, reversed sleep patterns, sensory deprivation, and diets of
bread and water on detainees whenever they wished, according to newly
obtained documents.
The U.S. policy, details of which have not been previously disclosed, was
approved in early September, shortly after an Army general sent from
Washington completed his inspection of the Abu Ghraib jail and then
returned to brief Pentagon officials on his ideas for using military
police there to help implement the new high-pressure methods.
The documents obtained by The Washington Post spell out in greater detail
than previously known the interrogation tactics Sanchez authorized, and
make clear for the first time that, before last October, they could be
imposed without first seeking the approval of anyone outside the prison.
That gave officers at Abu Ghraib wide latitude in handling detainees.
Unnamed officials at the Florida headquarters of the U.S. Central
Command, which has overall military responsibility for Iraq, objected to
some of the 32 interrogation tactics approved by Sanchez in September,
including the more severe methods that he had said could be used at any
time in Abu Ghraib with the consent of the interrogation officer in charge.
As a result, Sanchez decided on Oct. 12 to remove several items on the
list and to require that prison officials obtain his direct approval for
the remaining high-pressure methods. Among the tactics apparently dropped
were those that would take away prisoners' religious items; control their
exposure to light; inflict "pride and ego down," which means attacking
detainees' sense of pride or worth; and allow interrogators to pretend
falsely to be from a country that deals severely with detainees,
according to the documents.
The high-pressure options that remained included taking someone to a less
hospitable location for interrogation; manipulating his or her diet;
imposing isolation for more than 30 days; using military dogs to provoke
fear; and requiring someone to maintain a "stress position" for as long
as 45 minutes. These were not dropped by Sanchez until a scandal erupted
in May over photographs depicting abuse at the prison.
The Army has never said whether any of the particularly tough tactics
that were authorized were used on detainees at Abu Ghraib or the other
U.S.-run detention camps in Iraq before October, in the five-month period
after the end of major combat operations in May 2003.
Officials have said that Sanchez approved the use of only one of the more
severe techniques -- long-term isolation -- on 25 occasions after Oct. 12
and before the third set of rules was issued this May. The officials have
described the abusive acts committed by Army personnel at Abu Ghraib
before and during this time as aberrant activities conducted outside the
rules.
One of the documents, an Oct. 9 memorandum on "Interrogation Rules of
Engagement," which each military intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib was
asked to sign, sets out in detail the wide range of pressure tactics
approved in September and available before the rules were changed on Oct.
12. They included methods that were close to some of the behavior
criticized this March by the Army's own investigator, who said he found
evidence of "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuse" at the prison.
The document states that the list of tactics in the memorandum is derived
from a Sept. 10, 2003, "Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy"
approved by Combined Joint Task Force-7, which Sanchez directs. While the
document states that "at no time will detainees be treated inhumanely nor
maliciously humiliated," it permits the use of yelling, loud music, a
reduction of heat in winter and air conditioning in summer, and "stress
positions" for as long as 45 minutes every four hours -- all without
first gaining the permission of anyone more senior than the
"interrogation officer in charge" at Abu Ghraib.
Although the October document calls attention to the strictures of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, it neither quotes from that statute nor
makes any reference to the Geneva Conventions' rules against cruelty and
torture involving detainees.
Wendy Patten, a lawyer and U.S. advocacy director for Human Rights Watch,
said two provisions in the Oct. 9 document are particularly troubling.
First, she noted its reference to "dietary manipulation -- minimum bread
and water, monitored by medics" as a technique permitted with the
approval of the interrogation officer in charge. "This seems a clear
violation of the Geneva Conventions, which require daily food rations to
have enough quantity, quality and variety to maintain good health,
prevent weight loss and prevent nutritional deficiencies," Patten said.
She also expressed concern about the policy's blanket approval of
"incentive item removal -- regarding religious items" as a tactic that
may be used on civilian detainees, which she said appears to conflict
with a Geneva Conventions requirement that detainees enjoy "complete
latitude in the exercise of their religious duties."
Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman did not defend these tactics.
He said "there are a number of investigations that are looking not only
into interrogation procedures and processes, but how they were
implemented. The baseline standard for all interrogation as well as the
security procedures for holding detainees has always been humane treatment."
The list of interrogation options in the document closely matches a menu
of options developed for use on detainees held by the U.S. military at
Guantanamo Bay and approved in a series of memos signed by top Pentagon
officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. In January
2002, for example, Rumsfeld approved the use of dogs to intimidate
prisoners there; although officials have said dogs were never used at
Guantanamo, they were used at Abu Ghraib.
Then, in April 2003, Rumsfeld approved the use in Guantanamo of at least
five other high-pressure techniques also listed on the Oct. 9 Abu Ghraib
memo, none of which was among the Army's standard interrogation methods.
This overlap existed even though detainees in Iraq were covered,
according to the administration's policy, by Geneva Convention
protections that did not apply to the detainees in Cuba.
The documents obtained by The Post, which include memos from Abu Ghraib
and statements made by prison officials for the Army's investigation,
make clear that this overlap was no accident. No formalized rules for
interrogation existed in Iraq before the policy imposed on Sept. 10, one
day after Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller -- who was then in charge of the
Guantanamo site -- departed from Iraq. He was accompanied on the Iraq
visit by at least 11 senior aides from Guantanamo, including officials
from the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency.
While that list of options was subsequently truncated on Oct. 12, some
military personnel at the jail told Army investigators that they lacked
awareness or understanding of the changes.
For example, Spec. Luciana Spencer, a member of the 66th Military
Intelligence Group who was removed from interrogations because she had
ordered a detainee to walk naked to his cell after an interview, told
investigators that the military police did not know their boundaries.
"When I began working the night shift I discussed with the MPs what their
SOP [standard operating procedure] was for detainee treatment," Spencer
said in a statement. "They informed me they had no SOP. I informed them
of my IROE [interrogation rules of engagement] and made clear to them
what I was and wasn't allowed to do or see."
A civilian contractor, Adel Nakhla, an interpreter for military
intelligence, told investigators he was briefed on interrogation rules
only after being implicated in an abusive event.
Yelling at detainees, a technique approved in September that appears to
have been dropped in October, was nonetheless used throughout the last
quarter of 2003, Army investigators were told. "It's not common but it
happens sometimes," Roman Krol, a military intelligence interrogator,
told investigators on Jan. 31. "We asked them [military police] if they
could come in and randomly yell at the detainee."
Moreover, when intelligence officers arranged for military police to help
impose some of the more severe tactics, they often failed to specify how
to do so, leaving wide latitude for potentially abusive behavior. Steven
Anthony Stefanowicz, a civilian interrogator at Abu Ghraib, said, for
example, that "the MPs are allowed to do what is necessary to keep the
detainee awake in the allotted period of time. . . . I've referred to the
MPs to give the detainee his special treatment . . . hence the MPs are
not directed when and how this is to be administered."
Capt. Donald J. Reese, a member of the 372nd Military Police Company who
assigned MPs to work in the isolation tiers, told investigators "it
appeared that the MI [military intelligence] tactics were very aggressive
and then appeared to taper in intensity as time went along."
But the atmosphere at Abu Ghraib was hardly one of strict adherence to
the rules, other officials said. A photograph of the pyramid of naked
Iraqi detainees -- one of the most notorious portraits of abuse -- was
used as a screen saver on a computer in the isolation area where
intelligence officers worked, according to Spencer's statement.
Some of the rules for U.S. military personnel at the prison made it easy
for people to duck responsibility for their actions, a factor that may
also have opened the door to abuse.
The acronym MI "will not be used in the area," according to an undated
prison memo titled "Operational Guidelines," which covered the
high-security cellblock. "Additionally, it is recommended that all
military personnel in the segregation area reduce knowledge of their true
identities to these specialized detainees. The use of sterilized uniforms
is highly suggested and personnel should NOT address each other by true
name and rank in the segregation area."
General Is Said To Have Urged Use of Dogs
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 26, 2004; Page A01 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. military 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, according to 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 Wojdakowski, or by Pappas 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 Miller 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.
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 | | Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 9:23 am Post subject: Interrogation abuses were 'approved at highest levels' |
| Forwarded:
Pretty sickening. John Ashcroft REFUSED to give Congress the memos.
How do you like that? We can REFUSE the people now.
Religious GESTAPO is whjat we have at the Justice Dept.
Interrogation abuses were 'approved at highest levels'
By Julian Coman in Washington
(Filed: 13/06/2004)
New evidence that the physical abuse of detainees in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay was authorised at the top of the Bush administration will emerge in Washington this week, adding further to pressure on the White House.
The Telegraph understands that four confidential Red Cross documents implicating senior Pentagon civilians in the Abu Ghraib scandal have been passed to an American television network, which is preparing to make them public shortly.
According to lawyers familiar with the Red Cross reports, they will contradict previous testimony by senior Pentagon officials who have claimed that the abuse in the Abu Ghraib prison was an isolated incident.
"There are some extremely damaging documents around, which link senior figures to the abuses," said Scott Horton, the former chairman of the New York Bar Association, who has been advising Pentagon lawyers unhappy at the administration's approach. "The biggest bombs in this case have yet to be dropped."
A string of leaked government memos over the past few days has revealed that President George W Bush was advised by Justice Department officials and the White House lawyer, Alberto Gonzalez, that Geneva Conventions on torture did not apply to "unlawful combatants", captured during the war on terror.
Members of Congress are now demanding access to all White House memos on interrogation techniques, a request so far refused by the United States attorney-general, John Ashcroft.
As the growing scandal threatens to undermine President Bush's re-election campaign, senior aides have acknowledged for the first time that the abuse of detainees can no longer be presented as the isolated acts of a handful of soldiers at the Abu Ghraib.
"It's now clear to everyone that there was a debate in the administration about how far interrogators could go," said a legal adviser to the Pentagon. "And the answer they came up with was 'pretty far'. Now that it's in the open, the administration is having to change that answer somewhat."
In the latest revelation, yesterday's Washington Post published leaked documents revealing that Gen Ricardo Sanchez, the senior US officer in Iraq, approved the use of dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns and sensory deprivation for prisoners whenever senior officials at the Abu Ghraib jail wished. A memo dated October 9, 2003 on "Interrogation Rules of Engagement", which each military intelligence officer was obliged to sign, set out in detail the wide range of pressure tactics they could use - including stress positions and solitary confinement for more than 30 days.
The White House has ordered a damage-limitation exercise to try to prevent the abuse row undermining President Bush's re-election campaign. Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, has ordered that all deaths of detainees held in US military custody are to be reported immediately to criminal investigators. Deaths in custody will also be reported to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers, and to Mr Rumsfeld himself.
The Pentagon has also announced an investigation into the condition of inmates at Guantanamo Bay, where more than 600 prisoners suspected of links with al-Qaeda are being held. The inquiry will be led by Vice-Adml Albert Church, who has been ordered to investigate reports that extreme interrogation techniques "migrated" from Guantanamo to Iraq. "This is not going to be a whitewash," said the Pentagon adviser. "The administration is finally realising how damaging this scandal could become."
A new investigator has also been appointed to lead the inquiry into abuse at Abu Ghraib. Gen George Fay, a two-star general, will be replaced by a more senior officer. Gen Fay, according to US military convention, did not have the authority to question his superiors. His replacement indicates that the Abu Ghraib inquiry will now go far beyond the activities of the seven military police personnel accused of mistreating Iraqi detainees.
Legal and constitutional experts have expressed astonishment at the judgments made by administration lawyers on interrogation techniques. In one memo, written in January 2002, Mr Gonzalez told President Bush that the nature of the war on terror "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions".
Scott Silliman, a former US air force lawyer and the director of the Centre for Law Ethics and National Security at Duke University, said: "What you have is a culture of avoidance of law rather than compliance with it."
A separate memo, written by Pentagon lawyers in March 2003, stated that "the infliction of pain or suffering per se, whether it is physical or mental is insufficient to amount to torture. [The pain] must be of such a high level of intensity that it is difficult for the subject to endure".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Firm Responds to Signal Coverage:
http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More apparent setting up Sanchez to take the fall for the neocons at the Pentagon (and perhaps for President Bush as well based on at least one memo involved White House Counsel Al Gonzales).
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biz/e_friend.php3?goto=%2Fusnews%2Fissue%2F040621%2Fusnews%2F21abughraib.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55703-2004May25?language=printer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secret documents show that US interrogators are above the law
Richard Norton-Taylor
Saturday June 12, 2004
The Guardian
On the stage of a London theater on Thursday night, a lawyer held up an official US document, classified by Donald Rumsfeld as "secret" and "not for foreign eyes". Considering its contents, the document has attracted remarkably little attention here since it was leaked this week to the US media. Its significance was raised by Clive Stafford-Smith, director of the US-based group Justice in Exile, at the end of a performance of Guantanamo, the Tricycle Theater's moving indictment of how the US rounded up detainees -- or "unlawful combatants", as it calls them -- and sent them to the US base in Cuba.
Stafford-Smith is acting for some of the Guantanamo prisoners, challenging the conditions in which they are being held. The US Supreme Court is expected to give its ruling before the end of this month. Rumsfeld's classified document, drawn up by US government lawyers, bears directly on the case. It argues that American interrogators can ignore US domestic law banning torture, because it would restrict the president's powers in his "war on terror".
The document, drawn up last year, says that "criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president's ultimate authority" over "the conduct of war". It adds: "In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign, [the prohibition of torture] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogators undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority".
Constitutionally, America's founding fathers entrusted the president with the primary responsibility, and therefore the power, to ensure the security of the US in situations of "grave and unforeseen emergencies". It goes on: "Numerous presidents have ordered the capture, detention, and questioning of enemy combatants during virtually every major conflict in the nation's history, including recent conflicts in Korea, Vietnam and the Persian Gulf". And it continues: "Congress can no more interfere with the president's conduct of the interrogation of enemy combatants than it can dictate strategy or tactical decisions on the battlefield."
The lengths to which Rumsfeld's lawyers are prepared to go to protect the freedom of the president's agents and place them above the law are reflected in other passages.
The document states that US interrogators can use harsh measures as long as they were not "specifically intended" to inflict "severe mental pain or suffering". In another passage, it says that even if an interrogator "knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent."
Interrogators can appeal to the defense of "necessity" -- in other words, they can argue that torturing individuals is needed to prevent greater harm or evil such as threats to the safety of the nation. And the concept of "self-defense" is given the widest possible interpretation, referring to the nation rather than any individual.
The document, on the face of it, is a charter allowing the US president to abuse human rights and ignore domestic as well as international law.
Stafford-Smith yesterday pointed to what he called its most outrageous argument -- namely, that domestic law does not apply to actions inside the US. Torture can be committed inside the US.
The Pentagon's lawyers describe Guantanamo Bay as "included within the definition of the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the US and accordingly is within the US". They add: "Thus, the torture statute does not apply to the conduct of US personnel" at Guantanamo Bay.
The apparent non sequitur is based on the argument that the statute is confined to actions outside the US - in other words, that torture is not banned within the US. Yet this directly contradicts claims made by other US government lawyers who insist Guantanamo Bay detainees have no rights under US law. The naval base, they insist, is not US sovereign territory so the detainees do not have such basic rights as access to a fair trial.
The issue is now before the US Supreme Court. If the detainees win this argument, it could lead the way to at least some kind of judicial process, including the testing of evidence. But whatever Guantanamo Bay's territorial status, according to the Rumsfeld document, detainees there and anywhere else can be tortured at will in Bush's global "war" on terrorism.
"The authorization I issued was that anything we did would conform to US laws and would be consistent with international treaty obligations," Bush said this week. Little comfort there.
T Richard Norton-Taylor is the Guardian's security affairs editor
richard.norton-taylor@guardian.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Granted Latitude At Prison
Abu Ghraib Used Aggressive Tactics
By R. Jeffrey Smith and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, June 12, 2004; Page A01
Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior U.S. military officer in Iraq,
borrowed heavily from a list of high-pressure interrogation tactics used
at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and approved
letting senior officials at a Baghdad jail use military dogs, temperature
extremes, reversed sleep patterns, sensory deprivation, and diets of
bread and water on detainees whenever they wished, according to newly
obtained documents.
The U.S. policy, details of which have not been previously disclosed, was
approved in early September, shortly after an Army general sent from
Washington completed his inspection of the Abu Ghraib jail and then
returned to brief Pentagon officials on his ideas for using military
police there to help implement the new high-pressure methods.
The documents obtained by The Washington Post spell out in greater detail
than previously known the interrogation tactics Sanchez authorized, and
make clear for the first time that, before last October, they could be
imposed without first seeking the approval of anyone outside the prison.
That gave officers at Abu Ghraib wide latitude in handling detainees.
Unnamed officials at the Florida headquarters of the U.S. Central
Command, which has overall military responsibility for Iraq, objected to
some of the 32 interrogation tactics approved by Sanchez in September,
including the more severe methods that he had said could be used at any
time in Abu Ghraib with the consent of the interrogation officer in charge.
As a result, Sanchez decided on Oct. 12 to remove several items on the
list and to require that prison officials obtain his direct approval for
the remaining high-pressure methods. Among the tactics apparently dropped
were those that would take away prisoners' religious items; control their
exposure to light; inflict "pride and ego down," which means attacking
detainees' sense of pride or worth; and allow interrogators to pretend
falsely to be from a country that deals severely with detainees,
according to the documents.
The high-pressure options that remained included taking someone to a less
hospitable location for interrogation; manipulating his or her diet;
imposing isolation for more than 30 days; using military dogs to provoke
fear; and requiring someone to maintain a "stress position" for as long
as 45 minutes. These were not dropped by Sanchez until a scandal erupted
in May over photographs depicting abuse at the prison.
The Army has never said whether any of the particularly tough tactics
that were authorized were used on detainees at Abu Ghraib or the other
U.S.-run detention camps in Iraq before October, in the five-month period
after the end of major combat operations in May 2003.
Officials have said that Sanchez approved the use of only one of the more
severe techniques -- long-term isolation -- on 25 occasions after Oct. 12
and before the third set of rules was issued this May. The officials have
described the abusive acts committed by Army personnel at Abu Ghraib
before and during this time as aberrant activities conducted outside the
rules.
One of the documents, an Oct. 9 memorandum on "Interrogation Rules of
Engagement," which each military intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib was
asked to sign, sets out in detail the wide range of pressure tactics
approved in September and available before the rules were changed on Oct.
12. They included methods that were close to some of the behavior
criticized this March by the Army's own investigator, who said he found
evidence of "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuse" at the prison.
The document states that the list of tactics in the memorandum is derived
from a Sept. 10, 2003, "Interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy"
approved by Combined Joint Task Force-7, which Sanchez directs. While the
document states that "at no time will detainees be treated inhumanely nor
maliciously humiliated," it permits the use of yelling, loud music, a
reduction of heat in winter and air conditioning in summer, and "stress
positions" for as long as 45 minutes every four hours -- all without
first gaining the permission of anyone more senior than the
"interrogation officer in charge" at Abu Ghraib.
Although the October document calls attention to the strictures of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, it neither quotes from that statute nor
makes any reference to the Geneva Conventions' rules against cruelty and
torture involving detainees.
Wendy Patten, a lawyer and U.S. advocacy director for Human Rights Watch,
said two provisions in the Oct. 9 document are particularly troubling.
First, she noted its reference to "dietary manipulation -- minimum bread
and water, monitored by medics" as a technique permitted with the
approval of the interrogation officer in charge. "This seems a clear
violation of the Geneva Conventions, which require daily food rations to
have enough quantity, quality and variety to maintain good health,
prevent weight loss and prevent nutritional deficiencies," Patten said.
She also expressed concern about the policy's blanket approval of
"incentive item removal -- regarding religious items" as a tactic that
may be used on civilian detainees, which she said appears to conflict
with a Geneva Conventions requirement that detainees enjoy "complete
latitude in the exercise of their religious duties."
Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman did not defend these tactics.
He said "there are a number of investigations that are looking not only
into interrogation procedures and processes, but how they were
implemented. The baseline standard for all interrogation as well as the
security procedures for holding detainees has always been humane treatment."
The list of interrogation options in the document closely matches a menu
of options developed for use on detainees held by the U.S. military at
Guantanamo Bay and approved in a series of memos signed by top Pentagon
officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. In January
2002, for example, Rumsfeld approved the use of dogs to intimidate
prisoners there; although officials have said dogs were never used at
Guantanamo, they were used at Abu Ghraib.
Then, in April 2003, Rumsfeld approved the use in Guantanamo of at least
five other high-pressure techniques also listed on the Oct. 9 Abu Ghraib
memo, none of which was among the Army's standard interrogation methods.
This overlap existed even though detainees in Iraq were covered,
according to the administration's policy, by Geneva Convention
protections that did not apply to the detainees in Cuba.
The documents obtained by The Post, which include memos from Abu Ghraib
and statements made by prison officials for the Army's investigation,
make clear that this overlap was no accident. No formalized rules for
interrogation existed in Iraq before the policy imposed on Sept. 10, one
day after Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller -- who was then in charge of the
Guantanamo site -- departed from Iraq. He was accompanied on the Iraq
visit by at least 11 senior aides from Guantanamo, including officials
from the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency.
While that list of options was subsequently truncated on Oct. 12, some
military personnel at the jail told Army investigators that they lacked
awareness or understanding of the changes.
For example, Spec. Luciana Spencer, a member of the 66th Military
Intelligence Group who was removed from interrogations because she had
ordered a detainee to walk naked to his cell after an interview, told
investigators that the military police did not know their boundaries.
"When I began working the night shift I discussed with the MPs what their
SOP [standard operating procedure] was for detainee treatment," Spencer
said in a statement. "They informed me they had no SOP. I informed them
of my IROE [interrogation rules of engagement] and made clear to them
what I was and wasn't allowed to do or see."
A civilian contractor, Adel Nakhla, an interpreter for military
intelligence, told investigators he was briefed on interrogation rules
only after being implicated in an abusive event.
Yelling at detainees, a technique approved in September that appears to
have been dropped in October, was nonetheless used throughout the last
quarter of 2003, Army investigators were told. "It's not common but it
happens sometimes," Roman Krol, a military intelligence interrogator,
told investigators on Jan. 31. "We asked them [military police] if they
could come in and randomly yell at the detainee."
Moreover, when intelligence officers arranged for military police to help
impose some of the more severe tactics, they often failed to specify how
to do so, leaving wide latitude for potentially abusive behavior. Steven
Anthony Stefanowicz, a civilian interrogator at Abu Ghraib, said, for
example, that "the MPs are allowed to do what is necessary to keep the
detainee awake in the allotted period of time. . . . I've referred to the
MPs to give the detainee his special treatment . . . hence the MPs are
not directed when and how this is to be administered."
Capt. Donald J. Reese, a member of the 372nd Military Police Company who
assigned MPs to work in the isolation tiers, told investigators "it
appeared that the MI [military intelligence] tactics were very aggressive
and then appeared to taper in intensity as time went along."
But the atmosphere at Abu Ghraib was hardly one of strict adherence to
the rules, other officials said. A photograph of the pyramid of naked
Iraqi detainees -- one of the most notorious portraits of abuse -- was
used as a screen saver on a computer in the isolation area where
intelligence officers worked, according to Spencer's statement.
Some of the rules for U.S. military personnel at the prison made it easy
for people to duck responsibility for their actions, a factor that may
also have opened the door to abuse.
The acronym MI "will not be used in the area," according to an undated
prison memo titled "Operational Guidelines," which covered the
high-security cellblock. "Additionally, it is recommended that all
military personnel in the segregation area reduce knowledge of their true
identities to these specialized detainees. The use of sterilized uniforms
is highly suggested and personnel should NOT address each other by true
name and rank in the segregation area."
Other articles appear at the following URLs:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/05/26/fisk-israeli-mossad-shin-bet-associated-with-prison-torture.php
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/06/11/torture-neocons.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 10:34 am Post subject: ISRAEL’S SLAP IN THE FACE |
| ISRAEL’S SLAP IN THE FACE
Top Israeli leaders Ignored Reagan’s State Funeral
By Wayne Madsen
Whether one liked Ronald Reagan, despised him, or were ambivalent about his eight-year presidency, state funerals for Presidents of the United States are the closest thing America has to the pomp and circumstance that surrounds major royal functions in Europe. Presidential funerals offer a rare opportunity for Americans to see their living ex-Presidents gather to honor America’s political and cultural heritage. In December 1972 and January 1973, the United States held back-to-back funerals for Harry S. Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson, respectively. American state funerals also provide a glimpse of how various nations thought of past U.S. administrations. Nations that send their top past or present leaders signal to Washington the importance they place on close ties with the United States. In Reagan’s case, past or present leaders of Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy, Russia, South Korea, Poland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark and other nations all made the pilgrimage to Washington. And considering Reagan’s impact on the world stage, one would expect nothing less. As with Reagan, it was unnecessary to goad or prod U.S. allies from flying to Washington to pay their last respects. For example, without a second thought President Charles DeGaulle quickly flew to the funerals of Kennedy and Eisenhower. Such are the marks of a mature bilateral relationship. Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s wife Mary and former Prime Minister Edward Heath represented Britain at Johnson’s state funeral. America’s Presidents have reciprocated in kind. Richard Nixon attended the funerals of French leaders DeGaulle and Georges Pompidou. Johnson went to the ceremonies for German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. Reagan sent three ex-Presidents, Carter, Ford, and Nixon, to represent him at Anwar Sadat’s funeral.
With that in mind, Israel’s failure to send any important leaders to Reagan’s funeral was a diplomatic, political, and cultural slap in the face that should not go unnoticed by the Bush administration, the Republican and Democratic parties, the John Kerry campaign, and the American media. Israel was merely represented by its ambassador to Washington, Danny Ayalon. Except for Israel, America’s major allies sent delegations that reflected in spirit and deed their traditional alliances with the United States.
The remote Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean, which receives a miniscule fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars of aid the United States has lavished on Israel, sent President Kessai Note. Tiny Liechtenstein, nestled in the Alps, sent its Deputy Prime Minister. From cash-strapped Africa came the Presidents of South Africa, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Uganda and the Prime Minister of Cameroon. Grenada, the country Reagan invaded in 1983 to depose its Marxist government, showed its appreciation by sending one of the largest delegations that included its current and a past Governor General and its Prime Minister. Cyprus, which is a virtual stone’s throw from Israel, sent President Tassos Papadopoulos. Arab nations, which have been irritated by Ariel Sharon’s hijacking of American foreign policy (including support for its apartheid “Berlin Wall” separating Israelis from Palestinians), were, nevertheless, magnanimous in honoring Reagan. Arab dignitaries included King Abdullah of Jordan, the Presidents of Algeria and Yemen, the personal envoys of the Sultan of Oman and the Emir of Kuwait, the Foreign Minister of Bahrain, and the interim president of Iraq. They all found the time to fly to Washington to honor America’s 40th President. Republican members of Congress, who were quick to step all over themselves in praising Reagan, should keep this in mind the next time they divvy up the foreign aid pie.
Sharon made the following statement on Reagan’s death, “President Reagan, of blessed memory, was a friend of the State of Israel; during his tenure as U.S. President, bilateral relations were based on cooperation and understanding.” However, the rhetorical niceties were not matched by any Israeli leaders going out of their way to honor Reagan in Washington. Absent from Reagan’s funeral rites was Sharon, who never hesitates to hop on a special El Al flight to Washington in order to extort Congress and the White House to ante up billions in American military and economic aid for such things as apartheid walls, demolition of Palestinian homes, and Israeli squatter settlements on illegally occupied territory. Other no shows at Washington’s National Cathedral included Israel’s ceremonial President, Moshe Katsav, and former Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres.
Israel’s insult of Reagan is even more bizarre when one considers that when the quasi-anti-Semitic Richard Nixon died in 1994, Israel sent its former President Chaim Herzog to attend his state funeral in Yorba Linda, California. Israel also sent high-level emissaries to the funerals of Johnson, Truman, and Kennedy. Even Eisenhower, who refused to back Israel’s 1956 invasion of Egypt, had higher profile Israeli representation at his 1969 state funeral.
Ronald Reagan’s neo-conservative and pro-Israeli cells, operating in the White House and Pentagon, tarnished his image by using Israeli middlemen and intelligence agents to swap American hostages held in Israeli-occupied Lebanon for weapons to Iran’s radical Islamist regime headed by Ayatollah Khomeini. In addition, it was the 1982 Israeli invasion and subsequent destabilization of Lebanon that triggered a series of events that resulted in Reagan dispatching U.S. Marine peacekeepers to Beirut, a decision that was to cost 241 of them their lives in a deadly 1983 truck bombing of their barracks. In effect, Reagan had nothing to thank Israel for but Israel should have been deeply indebted to Reagan. Yet, in a major snub, Israel sent its Ambassador as a sign of its contempt for the United States.
Adding insult to injury, convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, protected by moles within the Reagan Pentagon, severely damaged U.S. national security and intelligence capabilities by handing over to Israel thousands of sensitive documents on U.S. intelligence sources and methods around the world. The neo-conservative cells in the Reagan Pentagon also brought about a huge compromise of classified U.S. communications intelligence (COMINT) capabilities by forcing the National Security Agency (NSA) into joint ventures with the Israeli Defense Force involving NSA contract companies. The programs, code named DINDI and PYREX, resulted in classified COMINT information being leaked to Israeli intelligence and damaged U.S. national security.
The neo-conservatives are trying to glom Reagan’s legacy onto George W. Bush’s presidency. Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, David Wurmser, John Hannah, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen and the other Bush administration officials who carried out Sharon’s and the Likud’s plan to invade and destabilize Iraq should be asked one very important question: If George W. Bush is so much like Ronald Reagan, why did Reagan, First Lady Nancy Reagan, and Chief of Staff Howard Baker in 1987 purge the administration of the neo-cons who damaged him through their involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal? Is this why Israel snubbed Reagan’s funeral? After the neo-cons, like the 17-year cycle Brood X cicadas, re-emerged to infest the Bush II administration and handed him a “Weaponsgate,” “Plamegate,” and “Torturegate” trifecta of Watergate-level scandals, they stand poised to actually bring down this administration. And for future Democratic and Republican administrations, there is an important lesson here. Not only is it time to tag the neo-cons to ensure they never again emerge in a future administration to wreak havoc on American foreign and defense policies, but it is also clearly time to rethink America’s relationship with Israel. Its snubbing of Ronald Reagan indicates a certain arrogance and condescension that should not go unpunished. Perhaps their amen corner in the conservative wing of the Republican Congress should keep this in mind the next time they consider foreign aid and defense appropriations for the Israelis. To paraphrase the late Senator Everett Dirksen, if we lop of a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there, pretty soon it will add up to real money and Israel may finally get the message.
---
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 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 9:49 pm Post subject: Gen. Sanchez OKed torture |
| Subj: Gen. Sanchez OKed torture
Date: 6/13/04 2:15:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: LAdams
Subj: N&V Lt. Gen. Sanchez Granted ordered permission to torture
Date: 6/13/04 1:21:41 PM Central Daylight Time
From: dick_mcmanus@msn.com (Dick McManus)
News and Views you don't have to lose:
Lt. Gen. Sanchez Granted ordered permission to torture
The documents obtained by The Washington Post spell out in greater detail interrogation tactics Sanchez authorized, and make clear for the first time that, that interrogators (or MPs) could be imposed (torture EPOWs) without first seeking the approval of anyone outside the prison. That gave officers at Abu Ghraib wide latitude in handling detainees. Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, is the senior U.S. military officer in Iraq.
These interrogation tactics, listed as Interrogation Rules of Engagement, were the use military dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns, sensory deprivation, and diets of bread and water on detainees whenever they wished, according to newly obtained documents.
The list of interrogation options in the document closely matches a menu of options developed for use on detainees held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay and approved in a series of memos signed by top Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
In January 2002, for example, Rumsfeld approved the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners at Guantanamo; although officials have said dogs were never used. Dogs were used at Abu Ghraib.
Then, in April 2003, Rumsfeld approved the use in Guantanamo of at least five other high-pressure techniques also listed on the Oct. 9 Abu Ghraib memo, none of which was among the Army's standard interrogation methods. This overlap existed even though detainees in Iraq were covered, according to the administration's policy, by Geneva Convention protections that did not apply to the detainees in Cuba.
No formalized rules for interrogation existed in Iraq before the policy imposed on Sept. 10, one day after Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller - who was then in charge of the Guantanamo site - departed from Iraq. He was accompanied on the Iraq visit by at least 11 senior aides from Guantanamo, including officials from the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency
Unnamed officials at the Florida headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, which has overall military responsibility for Iraq, objected to some of the 32 interrogation tactics approved by Sanchez in September (2003), including the more severe methods that he had said could be used at any time in Abu Ghraib with the consent of the interrogation officer in charge.
As a result, Sanchez decided on Oct. 12 to remove several items on the list and to require that prison officials obtain his direct approval for the remaining high-pressure methods. Among the tactics apparently dropped were those that would take away prisoners' religious items; and control their exposure to light according to the documents.
The high-pressure options that remained included taking someone to a less hospitable location for interrogation; manipulating his or her diet; imposing isolation for more than 30 days; using military dogs to provoke fear; and requiring someone to maintain a "stress position" for as long as 45 minutes. These were not dropped by Sanchez until a scandal erupted in May (2004) over photographs depicting abuse at the prison.
Geneva Conventions requirement that detainees enjoy "complete latitude in the exercise of their religious duties."
The Oct. 9 document are particularly troubling. First, she noted its reference to "dietary manipulation - minimum bread and water, monitored by medics" as a technique permitted with the approval of the interrogation officer in charge. "This seems a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, which require daily food rations to have enough quantity, quality and variety to maintain good health, prevent weight loss and prevent nutritional deficiencies,"
Comment: I bet these documents noted above were leaked by Major Gen. Fay. Maj. Gen. George Fay, the No. 2 in Army Military Intelligence, is in charge of the probe into whether his own intel officers directed the MPs to abuse prisoners. Because Fay was appointed by Iraq commander Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, he is also effectively limited from taking his probe beyond Sanchez's command, says Scott Silliman, a former Air Force lawyer who is now a law professor at Duke. "It would be difficult for Fay even to question Sanchez," says Silliman. (A two star can not interview a three star).
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/061304A.shtml
U.S. Wrongly Reported Drop in World Terrorism
By The Associated Press
Friday 11 June 2004 Washington - The State Department acknowledged Thursday that it was wrong in reporting that terrorism declined worldwide last year, a finding the Bush administration had pointed to as evidence of its success in countering terror. Instead, the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department said.
Comments: More lies from Bush and the boys. What else is new?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/061304I.shtml
Book review:
Big Bush Lies edited by Jerry "Politex" Barrett is a compilation of 20
essays identifying the lies (fib is too mild a term) told directly by
George Bush about current issues that impact our nation and the world.
This book is now at Barnes & Noble stores.
Source: Sara DeHart dehart.ss@verizon.net | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:03 am Post subject: Rumsfeld Issued an Order to Hide Detainee in Iraq |
| Another article on John B. Israel appears at the following URL:
http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rumsfeld Issued an Order to Hide Detainee in Iraq
By ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER, The New York Times
WASHINGTON, June 16 - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, acting at the request of George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, ordered military officials in Iraq last November to hold a man suspected of being a senior Iraqi terrorist at a high-level detention center there but not list him on the prison's rolls, senior Pentagon and intelligence officials said Wednesday.This prisoner and other "ghost detainees" were hidden largely to prevent the International Committee of the Red Cross from monitoring their treatment, and to avoid disclosing their location to an enemy, officials said.Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, the Army officer who in February investigated abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison, criticized the practice of allowing ghost detainees there and at other detention centers as "deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and in violation of international law."
This prisoner, who has not been named, is believed to be the first to have been kept off the books at the orders of Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Tenet. He was not held at Abu Ghraib, but at another prison, Camp Cropper, on the outskirts of Baghdad International Airport, officials said.Pentagon and intelligence officials said the decision to hold the detainee without registering him - at least initially - was in keeping with the administration's legal opinion about the status of those viewed as an active threat in wartime.Seven months later, however, the detainee - a reputed senior officer of Ansar al-Islam, a group the United States has linked to Al Qaeda and blames for some attacks in Iraq - is still languishing at the prison but has only been questioned once while in detention, in what government officials acknowledged was an extraordinary lapse."Once he was placed in military custody, people lost track of him," a senior intelligence official conceded Wednesday night. "The normal review processes that would keep track of him didn't."The detainee was described by the official as someone "who was actively planning operations specifically targeting U.S. forces and interests both inside and outside of Iraq."But once he was placed into custody at Camp Cropper, where about 100 detainees deemed to have the highest intelligence value are held, he received only one cursory arrival interrogation from military officers and was never again questioned by any other military or intelligence officers, according to Pentagon and intelligence officials.The Pentagon's chief spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, said Wednesday that officials at Camp Cropper questioned their superiors several times in recent months about what to do with the suspect.But only in the last two weeks has Mr. Rumsfeld's top aide for intelligence policy, Stephen A. Cambone, called C.I.A. senior officials to request that the agency deal with the suspect or else have him go into the prison's regular reporting system.Mr. Di Rita referred questions about the prisoner's fate to the C.I.A.A senior intelligence official said late Wednesday that "the matter is currently under discussion."In July 2003, the man suspected of being an Ansar al-Islam official was captured in Iraq and turned over to C.I.A. officials, who took him to an undisclosed location outside of Iraq for interrogation. By that fall, however, a C.I.A. legal analysis determined that because the detainee was deemed to be an Iraqi unlawful combatant - outside the protections of the Geneva Conventions - he should be transferred back to Iraq.Mr. Tenet made his request to Mr. Rumsfeld - that the suspect be held but not listed - in October. The request was passed down the chain of command: to Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then to Gen. John P. Abizaid, the commander of American forces in the Middle East, and finally to Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the ground commander in Iraq. At each stage, lawyers reviewed the request and their bosses approved it.A senior intelligence official said late Wednesday that the C.I.A. inquired about the detainee's status in January, but was told that American jailers in Iraq could not find him, perhaps as a result of the chaos and confusion of the November and December spike in insurgent violence.The detention was first reported in this week's U.S. News & World Report. But the role played by senior officials in deciding the detainee's status was not known publicly before Wednesday. Pentagon and intelligence officials gave new details on Wednesday about the prisoner and the circumstances that brought him to Camp Cropper, including the fact that his status was decided by Mr. Tenet and Mr. Rumsfeld, and approved by senior officers.While acknowledging mistakes in the prisoner's detention, the senior intelligence official said the detainee posed a significant threat to American forces in Iraq and elsewhere. "He also possessed significant information about Ansar al Islam's leadership structure, training and locations," the official said.At Camp Cropper, some prisoners had been held since June 2003 for nearly 23 hours a day in solitary confinement in small cells without sunlight, according to a report by the international Red Cross.The suspected Ansar official was segregated from the other detainees and was not listed on the rolls. Under the order that had filtered down to General Sanchez, military police were not to disclose the detainee's whereabouts to the Red Cross pending further directives.The prisoner fell into legal limbo as the military police pressed their superiors for guidance, which has still not formally come."Over the course of the next several weeks, the custodians at the prison asked for additional guidance, but there were no interrogations," Mr. Di Rita said.Before this case surfaced, the C.I.A. has said it had discontinued the ghost detainee practice, but said that the Geneva Conventions allowed a delay in the identification of prisoners to avoid disclosing their whereabouts to an enemy.In Washington, the Army announced that Gen. Paul J. Kern, the head of the Army Mat?el Command, would oversee an Army inquiry into the role military intelligence soldiers played in the abuses at Abu Ghraib. General Kern replaces General Sanchez as the senior officer reviewing the findings. General Sanchez removed himself from that role so he could be interviewed by investigators.Copyright © 2004 The New York Times Company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated: 05:52 AM EDT
U.S. Admits Holding Prisoner in Secret
By MATT KELLEY, AP
WASHINGTON (June 17) - In a rare admission of violating the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war, the Pentagon has acknowledged it improperly held an Iraqi prisoner in secret for more than seven months.
The military has held the man in Iraq since October without assigning him a prisoner number or notifying the International Committee of the Red Cross that he is a prisoner, Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said Wednesday night.
Both assigning a prisoner number and notifying the Red Cross are required under the Geneva Conventions, which the Bush administration acknowledges apply to the conflict in Iraq.
The prisoner will be given a number and the Red Cross will be formally notified soon, Whitman said.
"The ICRC should have been notified about the detainee earlier," Whitman said. "We should have taken steps, and we have taken the necessary steps to rectify the situation."
The Iraqi prisoner is so far the only individual Defense Department officials have acknowledged shielding from the Red Cross. Before Wednesday's admission, Pentagon spokesmen would not confirm or deny if anyone was being held in secret.
"We've not talked about the location of specific detainees other than Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba simply because it gets into the classified realm," Air Force Maj. Michael Shavers said in an e-mail response to questions from The Associated Press on Wednesday, before the Iraq admission.
President Bush and members of his administration have said repeatedly that all detainees are treated humanely. Pentagon officials have argued that announcing the numbers or locations of all detainees would indicate the scope of U.S. anti-terrorism efforts to terrorist groups and give them ideas of sites to attack.
The military says detainees at the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are not mistreated, despite the Bush administration's argument that Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners of war do not apply to them.
Maj. David Kolarik, a spokesman for the military's Joint Task Force-Guantanamo, said all prisoners are treated "in accordance with the principles" of the Geneva Conventions "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity."
The secret prisoner in Iraq is believed to be a high-ranking member of Ansar al-Islam, a radical group which had been based in northern Iraq before the U.S. invasion last year. U.S. officials believe the man was involved in attacks on coalition troops, Whitman said.
The CIA asked the military to take custody of the man in October and asked that he not be given a prisoner number or disclosed to the Red Cross while officials determined his status, Whitman said.
The Bush administration contends that terrorist suspects are "enemy combatants" who do not have any protection under the Geneva Conventions. Military officials questioned the arrangement but those objections did not reach the highest levels in the Pentagon until last month, Whitman said.
"Certainly the people that had responsibility for maintaining him in custody knew that they had him, knew their instructions, knew that a disposition hadn't been determined for him and raised concern about it on a couple of occasions," Whitman said.
06/17/04 02:49 EDT
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. The
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040614-646366,00.html
Monday, Jun. 14, 2004
One Expert's Verdict: The CIA Caved Under Pressure
By MICHAEL DUFFY/WASHINGTON
The CIA that George Tenet leaves behind next month is a shadow of its imaginary self, a butt of jokes rather than the envy of the world. It is an agency that has become self-protective and bureaucratic; it is too reliant on gadgets rather than spies to steal secrets. Sometimes the CIA has simply been too blind to see what is hiding in plain sight. Tenet restored the agency's morale, but he leaves behind a string of spectacular intelligence failures. And that may not be the worst of it. In his new book A Pretext for War, intelligence expert James Bamford alleges that the CIA not only failed to detect and deter the secret army of Muslim extremists gathering over the horizon in the late 1990s but also failed to take action when a group of Administration hard-liners, backed by the Pentagon chief and Vice President Dick Cheney, began to advance the case for war with Iraq in secret using data the CIA widely believed weren't supportable or were just plain false. Instead of fighting back, Bamford argues, the CIA for the most part rolled over and went along. The result was a war sold largely on a fiction, confected from unchecked rumor and biased informants.A Pretext for War is probably the best one-volume companion to the harrowing events in the war on terrorism since 1996, chiefly because it focuses on the most difficult to pierce subject: the hidden machinery of U.S. intelligence. Bamford is a veteran chronicler of the spy world whose The Puzzle Palace, published in 1982, is still considered the classic account of the mysterious National Security Agency (NSA), which electronically snoops on friends and enemies overseas. His account of 9/11 and its aftermath is studded with new details, including some about the undisclosed location known as Site R, an underground bunker on the Maryland-Pennsylvania border where the Vice President spent much of his time in 2001. Deep under Raven Rock Mountain, Site R "is a secret world of five buildings, each three stories tall, computer filled caverns and a subterranean water reservoir." It is just 7 miles from Camp David. Bamford maintains that before 9/11, the U.S.'s entire spook network was pretty much out to lunch. It was a community that had done its job well in the cold war and was looking for a reason to exist. By the late 1990s the NSA was becoming obsolete, unable to keep up with the pace of technological change. The NSA netted millions more conversations at its worldwide listening posts than it could translate or interpret. The agency spent billions to eavesdrop on chatter overseas that moved by satellite — only to see the world move to harder-to-steal digitized cellular, e-mail and instant-messaging communications. Meanwhile, at the NSA's sprawling Fort Meade, Md., campus, the agency's director could not send an email to all the NSA's 38,000 employees. Why? The NSA had 68 separate e-mail systems. Things were not much better at the CIA. In a devastating chronology, Bamford reports that even as late as 2000, the agency was stuck in an old cold war way of doing things — training its agents, recruiting spies overseas and keeping headquarters happy. One agent explains that CIA recruiting overseas was about as rigorous as going to an opening-night mixer at a Las Vegas convention: American agents overseas sometimes competed with one another to see who could collect the most business cards at official receptions in foreign capitals. Then they would return to their embassy to determine the night's winner. Each card, the agents told themselves, represented a potential spy for the U.S. In fact, the agent said, "none of these people had anything useful ... It was just numbers. It's all quantity."With tradecraft like that, it is little wonder the CIA "never once even tried to infiltrate" al-Qaeda, according to Bamford. He says agents working at the CIA's vaunted Alec station, the shop inside the agency responsible for tracking and killing Osama bin Laden, seemed more interested in flying to Afghanistan and Paris to meet with various Afghan warlords who promised to provide details of bin Laden's whereabouts in exchange for bags full of cash. Bamford asserts that the CIA's Afghan assets never came through with very much on the Saudi terrorist, but the CIA kept them on the dole anyway. About the only thing going well was the 50-year war between the CIA and the FBI. Alec station's chiefs were so turf conscious about which agency had "the lead" in the hunt for bin Laden that they routinely left their FBI counterparts in the dark about what they were learning from overseas — a habit that turned out to be a fatal error. Sloppy surveillance permitted two of the hijackers to elude the CIA as early as January 2000, but then the agency repeatedly failed to inform the FBI or half a dozen other government officers who could have assisted in the hunt. Indeed, at the CIA, keister covering was in full swing long before the attacks of 9/11. In January 2000 the head of Alec station told his bosses he still had the two men under surveillance when in fact he had lost them in Bangkok. That bureaucratic chore completed, Alec station then dropped its chase altogether. It would be more than a year before a conscientious FBI agent assigned to the CIA re-examined the evidence and realized how badly the agency had blundered. The two names were finally given to the State Department on Aug. 23, 2001.But the intelligence community's shaky performance also made the agency vulnerable to another kind of attack: the one mounted by a group of hard-line neoconservatives who took over at the Pentagon and in the Vice President's office when Bush became President. Long suspicious of the CIA if not openly hostile to it, the neocons came into power asserting internally that the agency couldn't shoot straight and therefore its judgments couldn't be trusted. The Bush hard-liners had long believed that stability could come to the Middle Eastand Israel — only if Saddam Hussein was overthrown and Iraq converted into a stable democracy. Led by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, they were installed at various national-security choke points in the government, and nothing moved without their O.K. Bamford comes very close to stating that the hard-liners were wittingly or unwittingly acting as agents of Israel's hard-line Likud Party, which believed Israel should operate with impunity in the region and dictate terms to its neighbors. Such a world view, Bamford argues, was simply repotted by the hard-liners into U.S. foreign policy in the early Bush years, with the war in Iraq as its ultimate goal. Bamford asserts that the backgrounds, political philosophies and experiences of many of the hard-liners helped to hardwire the pro-Israel mind-set in the Bush inner circle and suggests that Washington mistook Israel's interests for its own when it pre-emptively invaded Iraq last year. The result was a war built on sand — and a CIA that lacked the will to take on its masters. Douglas Feith, a senior Pentagon official, set up several secret offices in the Pentagon that received data from Israel's own intelligence teams and coordinated its findings with them, partly as a way to get around CIA caution in the region. Bamford reveals that the original source of the spurious allegation that Saddam harbored "mobile biological-weapons labs" did not come from the brother of a top aide to Ahmad Chalabi whose code name was Curveball, but from an Israeli tip going back to 1994. Bamford quotes anonymous CIA agents who say that they suspected that much of the hard-liners' intelligence on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was bogus but there was pressure from within and without to shut up about it. Bamford implies that Tenet, the ultimate staff guy, is partly to blame for this failure of nerve. When Secretary of State Colin Powell was putting together his now discredited speech to the U.N. last year about Saddam's WMD program, he stood virtually alone against the hard-liners, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley, all of whom seemed keen to pump up the Secretary's talking points. Cheney's staff handed Powell a 50-page draft of allegations; the Secretary rejected most of them as unsupportable, with the hard-liners, Rice and even Tenet fighting him every step of the way during run-through sessions at CIA headquarters. And as it turned out, Powell didn't fight hard enough. Could Tenet have stopped the rush to war? Bamford suggests he could have. "Off on the sidelines, George Tenet was one of the few who knew the truth," he writes, adding that Tenet preferred to work behind the scenes on minor disagreements about the data "instead of speaking out" against the grand scheme. That's a harsh indictment of the man who kept America's secrets under two Presidents. But one of Tenet's colleagues was even less generous, saying simply, "We caved."
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/06/14/iraq-war-for-israel-according-to-james-bamford-s-new-book.php
Abu Ghraib Prison Torture Scandal Goes to the Highest Level:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/articles/2004/06/13/interrogation-abuses-were-approved-at-highest-levels.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 5:54 am Post subject: MI Personnel Carried Out Wishes of Senior Military/Admin |
| http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/
http://www.absitinvidia.com/mt/archives/000110.html
Like a Sieve: Prisoner Abuse Documents Keep Leaking
• Intelligence personnel swear they carried out the wishes of senior military and administration officials. By Leon Worden
Signal City Editor Saturday, June 19, 2004
One by one, sworn statements from all four military intelligence officers and contractors identified as "responsible" parties in the Taguba report have now been leaked to the press — and each to a different news organization.
Army officials don't know the sources of the leaks but say they must be springing in several places.
"I wish I knew, so I could have a private talk with them," Lt. Col. Pamela Hart told The Signal.
The signed statements are among the estimated 6,000 pages that comprise Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba's investigation of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison.
Technically, the Army still considers the entire report classified — even the widely disseminated 53-page summary that was leaked in late April, around the time CBS broke the initial story on "60 Minutes."
One of the first signed statements from intelligence personnel to be reported was that of John B. Israel, a 48-year-old Iraqi-American translator from Canyon Country.
The New York Times obtained his testimony around May 26. In it, Israel, a private contractor, simply answered, "No I have not," when asked by an Army investigator if he had witnessed any abuses, the newspaper said.
Among the latest to leak was the statement of Lt. Col. Steve L. Jordan, the No. 2 intelligence officer at the prison. USA Today said Thursday it had received a copy.
According to USA Today, Jordan told of "instances where I feel that there was additional pressure" to extract information from detainees.
Jordan named nearly everyone above him as a source of that pressure, and he even described a visit in November from an aide to National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. Jordan said Rice's aide told him "many, many, many times" to make interrogators work harder to "pull the intelligence out" of prisoners.
The aide, Fran Townsend, told USA Today this week that she had gone to Iraq to learn more about the increasing attacks by insurgents, and to make sure intelligence units were sharing information effectively. She said she spent about 15 minutes in the cell blocks at Abu Ghraib and saw no abuse. She termed it "ridiculous" to think she hounded Jordan to squeeze more from detainees.
In his statement, Jordan discussed the intelligence value of a female detainee with ties to Saddam Hussein, who was then at large. Jordan claimed the woman told one of his interrogators that Saddam "had a big white beard, that he was basically living in a hole, that he was driving a taxi." Indeed, when Saddam was found in a hole Dec. 13 he had a long beard, and a taxi was parked nearby.
* * *
Jordan testified that he worked out a "joint venture" with CIA operatives to hide "ghost detainees" from Red Cross inspectors when they visited in October. (Some Arab news organizations have faulted the International Committee of the Red Cross for hiding its findings from the public until they, too, were leaked in early May.)
In his report, Taguba determined that MP guards, acting on behalf of "OGAs" — a common euphemism for the CIA — had indeed shuffled six or eight "ghost detainees" around the facility so Red Cross officials wouldn't find out about them. "This maneuver was deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and in violation of international law," Taguba wrote.
He may not have checked with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld before he denounced the practice.
In a press conference Thursday, Rumsfeld said he made good on a request from former CIA Director George Tenet to hide one such "ghost detainee" last fall. Rumsfeld acknowledged that the detainee, a suspected leader of a Kurdish militant group, was hidden from Red Cross inspectors at a detention center for high-value prisoners near Baghdad International Airport.
"I was requested by the director of Central Intelligence to take custody of an Iraqi national who was believed to be a high-ranking member of Ansar al-Islam, and we did so," Rumsfeld said.
The detainee was held in secret for more than seven months before he was released into the regular prison population. Rumsfeld wouldn't say why Tenet wanted him hidden.
The remaining statements from accused intelligence personnel are those of Thomas M. Pappas, commander of the military intelligence brigade, and Steven A. Stefanowicz, a hired interrogator.
Pappas' statement was "provided to" the Washington Post in late May, the newspaper said, and The Associated Press came up with a copy of Stefanowicz's testimony on Monday. Only The Associated Press has shared its prize on the Internet.
In his testimony, Pappas told Taguba that the peculiar interrogation protocols at Abu Ghraib, including the use of military working dogs as an intimidation tactic, "were enacted as a specific result of a visit" in early September from Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, then-commander of the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Miller, who now heads all U.S. prisons in Iraq, denied through a spokesman that he gave Pappas any such notions.
Pappas further testified that Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, approved the protocols once they were drawn up. Sanchez said last month that he never even saw them.
Meanwhile, Stefanowicz described routines where interrogators would supply MP guards with written and verbal instructions that contravened Army policy, and he outlined sleep and meal deprivation regimens that likely violated Geneva conventions.
* * *
Taguba incorporated some of the men's testimony into his final report but felt they understated their own culpability. Now all four — Pappas, Jordan, Stefanowicz and Israel — are presumed targets of a second Army inquiry that is designed to delve deeper and higher.
Army officials worry that the leaking of the sworn statements, collected by Taguba's people in January, could impinge on the new inquiry.
"Any time you have the investigation being tried in the press, it does have some bearing on the outcome," the Army spokeswoman said. "It can't help but have an influence on the investigators or on the people who may eventually sit on a jury."
Hart said there are "any number of places (the leaks) could come from," but she wouldn't speculate on how many government hands have legitimately passed over the documents.
Unlike the seven MP guards who have been charged with crimes, the four members of the intelligence brigade haven't been charged — so they don't have defense attorneys who could rightfully obtain or distribute their classified testimony.
Nor are the four men themselves the likely source, because they wouldn't have received copies, Hart said.
All the leaks make it "harder and harder to maintain the purity of the case," she said.
HISTORY IN PICTURES] Army Adds Stars to Intelligence Inquiry
• Four-star general to decide who will lead investigation of intelligence personnel at Abu Ghraib prison. By Leon Worden
Signal City Editor Friday, June 18, 2004
Gen. Paul J. Kern will review Maj. Gen. George R. Fay's inquiry into questionable intelligence practices at Abu Ghraib prison and possibly replace him with a higher-ranking officer. US Army photo
O
ut with a three-star general whose veracity has been questioned, in with a four-star general who has stayed away from the fray.
Heeding calls to turn up the heat, the Army has made a mid-course adjustment to its investigation of intelligence practices at Abu Ghraib prison.
Acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee announced Wednesday that he has appointed Gen. Paul J. Kern, head of the Army's procurement system, to oversee the ongoing inquiry of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade. Kern, in turn, is expected to name a new chief investigator.
Two senior officers and two civilian contractors assigned to the 205th, including John B. Israel, an Iraqi-American translator from Canyon Country, are suspected of sharing responsibility for the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib last fall.
The investigation of the 205th is the Army's second full-blown inquiry into the abuse scandal.
The first, conducted by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, focused on the lowest echelon at the prison — the military police brigade that was supposed to secure and protect the prisoners. The inquiry led to criminal charges against seven MP guards, and Taguba recommended a second inquiry to determine the degree to which Israel and other intelligence personnel were culpable.
Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the three-star general who appointed Taguba, put another two-star general, George R. Fay, in charge of the intelligence investigation.
Fay's appointment drew fire both inside and outside the government when fingers started pointing at Sanchez. Fay, an Army reservist who sits on the board of an insurance company in civilian life, was perceived to lack sufficient authority to follow the trail of responsibility up the chain of command.
Last week, Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to approve Sanchez's request to be recused from his duties as the "appointing officer" — the person who appoints the chief investigator.
Kern is Sanchez's replacement. Head of the Army Materiel Command at Ft. Belvoir, Va., Kern will likely remove Fay from the hot seat, although it isn't a certainty.
"Gen. Kern may retain Maj. Gen. George R. Fay as the investigating officer or may appoint another officer after reviewing the current status of the initial investigation," the statement said.
As for Sanchez, the Army is in full retreat from him. On Tuesday the Pentagon announced that Sanchez will be replaced as the commander of coalition forces in Iraq following the June 30 transfer of power to the new Iraqi government. As recently as one month ago, Sanchez was expected to keep his command when Coalition Joint Task Force-7 becomes Multinational Force-Iraq (MNFI) in July.
Sanchez, who put the 205th in charge of operations at Abu Ghraib in November, has come under increasing scrutiny. In Senate testimony May 19 he denied ever seeing, much less authorizing, special interrogation rules for Abu Ghraib. The rules, posted on the prison walls, called for Sanchez's personal approval whenever interrogators wanted to use military dogs, keep prisoners in isolation longer than 30 days, or deprive them of food or sleep.
Sanchez's removal from the investigation clears the way for him to be questioned without a direct conflict of interest.
Pentagon officials anticipate the naming of a new chief investigator who out-ranks Sanchez — possibly another three-star general with higher seniority.
Kern will still lead Army procurement. Reviewing the intelligence investigation is an additional duty, a Pentagon spokesman said.
Kern is a 1967 West Point graduate with a master's degree in engineering from the University of Michigan. He served two combat tours in Vietnam, led a brigade in the 1991 Gulf War, commanded the 4th Infantry Division and was the senior military assistant to former Defense Secretary William Perry
Excellent Documentary on PNAC (Project for the New American Century):
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/27/154222&mode=thread&tid=25
James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book on the Neoconservative warmongers:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/06/14/iraq-war-for-israel-according-to-james-bamford-s-new-book.php
Abu Ghraib Prison Torture Scandal Goes to the Highest Level:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/articles/2004/06/13/interrogation-abuses-were-approved-at-highest-levels.php | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 8:03 am Post subject: Interrogator in Iraq Recalls Conditions |
| A special team was set up at the prison called "the break team," he said,
"to take the difficult people and break them. That shows you the mentality."
+++++
Interrogator in Iraq Recalls Conditions
Fri Jun 18, 8:44 PM ET
By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer
A professional interrogator, Nelson brought his skills to Iraq (news - web
sites) to ask questions and convince prisoners to open up. Now he's the one
doing the talking - helping investigators who are conducting a broad review
of military intelligence operations.
The 35-year-old Nelson went to Iraq and the Abu Ghraib prison as a civilian
contractor, though one with extensive military experience: He spent eight
years in the Army and four with the Utah National Guard, specializing in
interrogations.
He landed in Iraq around Thanksgiving of last year, a few weeks after the
infamous photos of prisoners being menaced and abused were taken. "It was
fairly chaotic from the first day I got there," Nelson said in an interview
with The Associated Press in which he recounted some of his experiences and
observations.
Both the Utah National Guard and CACI International Inc., Nelson's employer
in Iraq, confirmed his time with them. The report on Abu Ghraib by Maj. Gen.
Antonio Taguba cites him as a witness.
Nelson, who lives in Utah and spoke to the AP during a recent trip to
Washington, D.C., ticked off a list of problems at the prison. There was too
much involvement between military police and intelligence gatherers, and the
facilities were badly overcrowded, with poor supervision, he said.
Nelson would not say what he has told military investigators about specific
incidents, though he did know and work with some of the seven low-level
military police who have been charged with abuses.
Housing prisoners in Abu Ghraib was a mistake in the first place, Nelson
said. With busy roads north and south, a farm on one side and an apartment
complex on the other, it was always exposed to attacks.
"We had thousands of guys inside who hated us, and thousands of guys on the
outside who hated us," he said. One detainee, who was smuggled a gun by an
Iraqi prison guard working for Americans, shot a guard. Only the soldier's
body armor saved him, Nelson said.
That incident also was discussed in a hearing for one of the seven soldiers
charged for incidents at Abu Grahib, Sgt. Javal Davis.
The scene at the prison was dramatically different from Guantanamo Bay,
where Nelson served with the Utah National Guard, even though both places
have drawn complaints, he said. At Guantanamo, a small number of detainees
were being held and interrogated in a secure location with adequate troops;
at Abu Ghraib, thousands of detainees were being held by too few troops, who
were steadily under attack.
"My anxiety about the whole affair really started to peak after Dec. 14,
with the capture of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)," Nelson said, who
sensed new pressure as the insurgency escalated.
A special team was set up at the prison called "the break team," he said,
"to take the difficult people and break them. That shows you the mentality."
It also cut against Nelson's belief that coercion and physical pressure are
the exact wrong tactics to get someone to talk.
"Interrogation isn't about breaking someone's will, it's about breaking down
the barriers between you," he said. Most people want to talk, if not
confess; small bits of crucial, relevant information can be gleaned without
any dramatic scenes, he said.
Nelson said he didn't know of any specific orders for military police to
"loosen up" detainees, as the soldiers' lawyers have contended. But
low-level military police were given too much responsibility, Nelson
believes.
"They were open to suggestions by the military intelligence operatives," he
said. "They all felt they were part of the team, working together."
Nelson left Abu Ghraib in early February. After others at the prison learned
he was cooperating with the Taguba investigation, he was ostracized and felt
he could no longer do his job well or safely, he said.
CACI has disputed any allegations of illegal behavior of its employees. The
company, in a release, said its interrogation services is part of its
"tactical intelligence and field services line of business." Its employees
are under direct supervision of the Army, it said.
Nelson wants to keep speaking out about his experience, and feels his
background and status as a witness, but not a suspect, puts him in a good
position to do so. However, he is concerned that some campaign work he did
for former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean (news - web sites)
might be used against him by people who see him as anti-Bush administration.
"For the American people, this needs to be brought as open as possible, as
transparent as possible," he said. "Let's not focus on politics. Let's focus
on a breakdown in the system."
The military and the country need to recognize how critical information is
to any fight against terrorists, he said. That means giving soldiers in
military intelligence better training and more responsibility, while at the
same time making clear the line between good interrogation techniques and
unacceptable threats and abuses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Widens Abuse Probe
Mon May 24, 7:55 AM ET
By Greg Miller and Richard A. Serrano Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON — As the investigation of prisoner abuses in Iraq (news - web
sites) shifts to the role of military intelligence, two intelligence
soldiers identified in the notorious pictures from the Abu Ghraib detention
facility have been ordered to remain in Baghdad as part of the expanding
probe, according to witness statements and commanders of the soldiers'
reserve units.
U.S. Army Spcs. Armin J. Cruz and Israel Rivera, both members of a reserve
unit in Texas, are so far the only military intelligence soldiers known to
be at the scene of the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners in a high-security
cellblock at Abu Ghraib.
Neither Cruz nor Rivera has been charged. But their role in the burgeoning
scandal may be an important link for investigators seeking to determine
whether the abuses were the work of a rogue unit of military police, or were
directed by intelligence officers pushing guards to "soften up" detainees
for interrogation.
More broadly, the photographs from Abu Ghraib have focused attention on U.S.
interrogation practices and raised questions about systemic problems in
military prisons from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Bagram air base in
Afghanistan (news - web sites).
Senior military officials and defense lawyers said additional charges may be
pending, raising the prospect that the criminal probe is poised to expand
beyond the guilty plea of one MP and the planned courts-martial of six
others accused of taking part in the abuse.
Neither Cruz nor Rivera could be reached for comment. Military officials at
the Pentagon (news - web sites) declined to describe their legal status, or
say whether they are represented by attorneys. Both have been ordered to
remain in Baghdad, months after the rest of their unit returned home.
According to witness statements, Cruz was disciplined by commanders at the
prison for violent outbursts toward detainees and his alleged involvement in
an incident in which a prisoner was forced to strip.
This is the first time Rivera's name has been connected publicly with the
scandal. Cruz was first identified in The Times on May 13.
On Sunday, The Times reported that 25 members of the prison's intelligence
units were questioned but none admitted seeing any of the sadistic abuse and
humiliation that was rampant at Abu Ghraib. However, apparently neither Cruz
nor Rivera answered the questionnaires by Army investigators seeking leads
into the prisoner abuse.
"They were involuntarily extended" to remain in Iraq, said Maj. Tom Barbeau,
commander of the 325th Military Intelligence Battalion, a reserve unit based
in Waterbury, Conn. It was unclear whether they were potential targets of an
investigation or potential witnesses.
Barbeau said Rivera and Cruz were transferred from their home unit in Texas
to help fill out the Connecticut battalion before it deployed to Iraq last
year.
Barbeau said that he had not had contact with either man, beyond intervening
to resolve an Army pay glitch, and that he had been given no details on the
case. "The only thing I know was that they didn't get to come home with the
rest of my guys, and that it was somehow related to this investigation,"
Barbeau said.
He added that he was under the impression that "they were assisting with the
investigation but not implicated." The commander of the soldiers' home unit
in Texas provided a similar account.
"They got extended in theater, and it had something to do with providing
testimony," said Lt. Col. Greg Williams, commander of the 321st Military
Intelligence reserve battalion in Austin, Texas. Both commanders described
Rivera and Cruz as eager young recruits who were trained as military
intelligence analysts. Both men were awarded Purple Hearts after sustaining
injuries in a mortar attack on Abu Ghraib last September that also claimed
the lives of two intelligence soldiers, Barbeau said.
"They're two such good kids that I can't imagine them even being in the same
room" with MPs engaged in abuse of prisoners, Barbeau said. "They were both
very good soldiers."
But in sworn testimony in a military hearing in Baghdad this spring, Tyler
Pieron, one of the military investigators involved in the case, said
"Specialist Cruz and Specialist Rivera were identified in one of the
photographs" depicting prisoner abuse. The shot appears to show both men
standing near a pile of detainees shackled together.
Pieron said Cruz "never came forward to report any misconduct" to military
authorities. He did not indicate whether Rivera had done so. Testimony from
other witnesses suggested that Cruz was disciplined for taking part in
abusive interrogations.
Cruz "was known to bang on the table, yell, scream, and maybe assaulted
detainees during interrogations in the booth," Sgt. Samuel J. Provance III,
another intelligence soldier who managed the prison's classified computer
network, said in a sworn statement.
Edward J. Rivas, a chief warrant officer at the prison, testified that Cruz
"was removed [from interrogation duty] because of a situation when a
detainee was stripped naked." Rivas was referring to an incident in which
Cruz and another Army specialist, Luciana Spencer, forced a prisoner to walk
naked past other inmates to humiliate him and punish him for not
cooperating.
Another interrogator, Sgt. Theresa A. Adams, told Army investigators that
the prisoner was completely stripped and then walked to the interrogation
booth "as part of the approach" for getting him to talk.
In an interview last week, Provance said that although Cruz and Rivera were
both analysts, there was such a shortage of interrogators at Abu Ghraib that
it was common for soldiers with no training to be sent into the booth to
question prisoners. " 'Interrogator' is kind of a loose term out at Abu
Ghraib," Provance said.
Military officials who worked at the prison said analysts often accompanied
interrogators into the booth but were not supposed to take part in
questioning prisoners.
The military police officers implicated in the abuse, and their lawyers,
contend that the MPs were told by military intelligence officials to "soften
up" the prisoners prior to interrogation, in the expectation that the
prisoners would then be more forthcoming with information.
In an interview, Houston defense attorney Guy L. Womack, who represents Army
Cpl. Charles A. Graner Jr., said that he expected a wave of charges in
coming weeks against military intelligence officers, who he believed were
directing the abuse of prisoners on Tier 1A at Abu Ghraib.
"There is no way these low-ranking military police officers did this on
their own," he said. "It's like pulling up a tree. There are roots going
everywhere away from these guys. The MPs were not rogues. They were not
criminals acting out some sort of fantasy. They were acting on orders, and
they thought those orders were appropriate."
A defense lawyer representing another guard being court-martialed said Cruz
and Rivera were present on the tier during the torture because they wanted
to make sure the abuse was carried out.
"These guys were actually directing them to do these things," said Harvey
Volzer, who represents Spc. Megan Ambuhl. "They wanted to make sure their
orders were being followed."
Interrogators and military intelligence officers who worked at the prison
disputed that allegation, saying two Army specialists would have had little
authority to direct the activities of higher-ranking MPs.
The interrogators and officers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said
they believed Rivera and Cruz may have wandered into the cellblock and
failed to report what they saw. One interrogator described the two men as
"very young and very green."
Although Rivera and Cruz are the only U.S. Army intelligence troops
identified in the photos so far, others involved in military intelligence
have been caught up in the scandal. Military sources noted that at least one
picture appears to show a contract interrogator, Steven Stephanowicz,
present in the cellblock while detainees were being abused.
Torin Nelson, a civilian interrogator, gave investigators a written
description of how another interrogator dragged a detainee by his handcuffs
as punishment for falling off a truck en route to the prison.
"The detainee told me about this and showed me bruises (yellow and brown) on
his left arm, and the bump on his left forehead, which he said he got when
an interrogator [threw] him into a wall head first," Nelson wrote. "The
detainee is in his early 60s and is considered by medical personnel to be in
less than good health."
Naseef Bakeer, a civilian translator, told investigators that he saw two
instances in which an interrogator forced a detainee to walk naked along the
cellblock and say, "Look at me."
"This was done in an effort to humiliate the detainee prior to
interrogation," Bakeer said. | | | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 2:12 am Post subject: |
| I used to watch 911 news every day nonstop when I was a USA news zombie, being spoon fed Bush's lies.
I remember him say on one of those news stations CNN, FOX, MSNBC that they were making secret prisons overseas and torture methods to get so-called terrorists to give out vital info.
It may be archived on one of their websites, or the Zionists deleted it. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
