War Without End

Top

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.

This who you support COWBOY?

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".

Alpha

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

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

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

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

Another article which conveys that the JINSA/PNAC Neocon cabal at the Pentagon is trying to have General Sanchez take the fall for their agenda:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55703-2004May25?language=printer

Here is another article:

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."

Alpha · Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 9:40 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

Justice Dept. Memo Says Torture 'May Be Justified'

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 13, 2004; 6:30 PM

Today washingtonpost.com is posting a copy of the Aug. 1, 2002, memorandum
(PDF) "Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C.
2340-2340A," from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for
Alberto R. Gonzales, counsel to President Bush.

The memo was the focus of a recent article in The Washington Post.

The memo was written at the request of the CIA. The CIA wanted authority to
conduct more aggressive interrogations than were permitted prior to the
terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The interrogations were of suspected
al Qaeda members whom the CIA had apprehended outside the United States.
The CIA asked the White House for legal guidance. The White House asked the
Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel for its legal opinion on the
standards of conduct under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The Office of Legal Counsel is the federal government's ultimate legal
adviser. The most significant and sensitive topics that the federal
government considers are often given to the OLC for review. In this case,
the memorandum was signed by Jay S. Bybee, the head of the office at the
time. Bybee's signature gives the document additional authority, making it
akin to a binding legal opinion on government policy on interrogations.
Bybee has since become a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Another memorandum, dated March 6, 2003, from a Defense Department working
group convened by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to come up with new
interrogation guidelines for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
incorporated much, but not all, of the legal thinking from the OLC memo.
The Wall Street Journal first published the March memo.

At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, senators asked Attorney
General John D. Ashcroft to release both memos. Ashcroft said he would not
discuss the contents of the Justice and Pentagon memos or turn them over to
the committees. A transcript of that hearing is also available.

President Bush spoke on the issue of torture Thursday, saying he expected
U.S. authorities to abide by the law. He declined to say whether he
believes U.S. law prohibits torture. Here is a link to the transcript of
the president's press conference, which included questions and answers on
torture.

The Post deleted several lines from the memo that are not germane to the
legal arguments being made in it and that are the subject of further
reporting by The Post.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Top

Cowboy

Jefferson Davis · Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2004 6:35 am Post subject:

and God forbid the Public should hear the truth or hear the lies during an election year.

After all they only pay the bills.

"We the People" don't mean shit in Israel does it Cowboy?[/b]

Cowboy · Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2004 7:01 am Post subject:

Alpha

Paul Bergrin (who is the attorney for MP Javal Davis) will be on '60 Minutes 2' this coming Wednesday (at 8 PM in most cities, but check your local listing to confirm) as he had an excellent interview with Dan Rather earlier today (Monday).

New Articles added to the following URL:

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

AP gets Stefanowicz testimony

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0614prisonabuse-contractor14-ON.html

t r u t h o u t - Another Eyewitness to Torture Comes Forward

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/061104B.shtml

Go to Original Calif. Guardsman Alleges Abuse in Iraq
The Associated Press Wednesday 09 June 2004 Click to view Leaked Torture Memo: Full Text San Francisco - A California National Guardsman says three fellow soldiers brazenly abused detainees during interrogation sessions in an Iraqi police station, threatening them with guns, sticking lit cigarettes in their ears and choking them until they collapsed. Sgt. Greg Ford said he repeatedly had to revive prisoners who had passed out, and once saw a soldier stand on the back of a handcuffed detainee's neck and pull his arms until they popped out of their sockets. "I had to intervene because they couldn't keep their hands off of them," said Ford, part of a four-member team from the 223rd Military Intelligence Battalion that questioned detainees last year in Samarra, north of Baghdad. He said the abuse took place from April to June. Ford's commanding officers deny any abuse occurred, and say investigations within their battalion and by the Army's Criminal Investigation Division determined they had done nothing wrong. "All the allegations were found to be untrue, totally unfounded and in a number of cases completely fabricated," said the battalion commander, Lt. Col. Drew Ryan. Ford's allegations are being further investigated by the CID, which would not comment on the probe. Ford told The Associated Press that when he reported the problems last June to his commanding officers, they pressured him to drop his claims. "Immediately, within the same conversation, the command said, 'Nope, you're delusional, you're crazy, it never happened.' They gave me 30 seconds to withdraw my request for an investigation," Ford said. "I stood my ground." When he insisted on an official investigation, they ordered him to see combat stress counselors, who sent him out of Iraq, he said. Ford said he did not hear from investigators until the release of photographs of mistreatment inside the Abu Ghraib prison provoked worldwide outrage and prompted a review of other allegations of abuse. Ford, 49, said has worked for 18 years as a state prison guard and has more than 30 years of military experience. He was sent out of Iraq last June and, after about six months in Fort Lewis, Wash., returned home to the Sacramento suburb of Fair Oaks. He said his three fellow team members were not properly trained to do interrogations and got carried away with their power. "You weren't supposed to stand on their neck or put lit cigarettes in their ears. Twice I had to pull burning cigarettes out of detainees' ears," Ford said. "I said, 'Look, this is not going to go over well with the community of Samarra.' Our people basically ignored all the warnings." Ford said the soldiers routinely brought guns into the interrogation room, and he once saw his team leader pointing a pistol at a detainee's head. The three accused soldiers were not available for comment, a California National Guard spokesman said. Ford was one of about 100 members of the San Francisco-based 223rd who arrived in Iraq last spring and spread out in teams of three to six interrogators, Arabic linguists and counterintelligence officers. The battalion returned home in March. Whenever a prisoner collapsed, his team's leader would emerge and say, "Greg, I think we've got another accident," said Ford, who has medical training. "Then I'd have to bring them out and revive them." Ford said he told the team leader that if one of the Iraqis died, he would testify against him in a court-martial. "He basically laughed it off. At that point, I was persona non-grata," the sergeant said. So Ford asked to be relieved from his position, prompting a visit by his commander, Capt. Vic Artiga, and Lt. Col. Ryan, who "were too busy threatening me to do any proper investigation," Ford said. Ryan and Artiga would not discuss the details of Ford's allegations but denied pressuring Ford to drop his claims. They said they did an immediate investigation, which cleared all the soldiers. "I'm very confident that my soldiers acted professionally, ethically and within the law, as did I," Artiga said. But Ford said nobody interviewed him while he was in Iraq and he does not think anyone has interviewed the Iraqi detainees. Artiga also said he does not believe Iraqis were interviewed for the battalion's investigation. After leaving Iraq, Ford underwent psychiatric evaluations at military installations in Germany and San Antonio, and said those evaluations found nothing wrong with him.

Go to Original Higher-Ranking Officer Is Sought
to Lead the Abu Ghraib Inquiry
By Eric Schmitt
The New York Times Thursday 10 June 2004 Washington - The commander of American forces in the Middle East asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this week to replace the general investigating suspected abuses by military intelligence soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison with a more senior officer, a step that would allow the inquiry to reach into the military's highest ranks in Iraq, Pentagon officials said Wednesday. The request by the commander, Gen. John P. Abizaid, comes amid increasing criticism from lawmakers and some military officers that the half dozen investigations into detainee abuse at the prison may end up scapegoating a handful of enlisted soldiers and leaving many senior officers unaccountable. General Abizaid's request, which defense officials said Mr. Rumsfeld would most likely approve, was set in motion in the last week when the current investigating officer, Maj. Gen. George R. Fay, told his superiors that he could not complete his inquiry without interviewing more senior-ranking officers, including Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the ground commander in Iraq. But Army regulations prevent General Fay, a two-star general, from interviewing higher-ranking officers. So General Sanchez took the unusual step of asking to be removed as the reviewing authority for General Fay's report, and requesting that higher-ranking officers be appointed to conduct and review the investigation. "General Sanchez did this to ensure that there was a complete, thorough and transparent investigation that leaves no doubt as to the veracity of its findings," said Bryan Whitman, a senior Pentagon spokesman. Mr. Rumsfeld was expected to act on General Abizaid's request soon, Mr. Whitman said. It was unclear Wednesday night who would replace General Fay, who would almost certainly remain an important part of the inquiry that he has headed since his appointment on April 15. One possible candidate is Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the vice chief of staff of the Army, who is expected to replace General Sanchez in Iraq soon after the transfer of authority on June 30 to the new interim Iraqi government. It was unclear whether how this change might delay the delivery of the final report, which had been expected in early July. Some lawmakers have said they would delay their calls for an independent congressional investigation or one modeled after the inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks, until General Fay's report was completed. The sudden turn of events in the investigation came as new details emerged about why General Fay in the last week or so requested and received a 30-day extension to complete his report. Within the last several days, an important figure in the inquiry who had previously refused to cooperate with Army investigators suddenly reversed his position and agreed to work much more closely with investigators, a senior Senate aide and a senior Pentagon official said. That important development prompted General Fay to send some of his 29-person team back into the field to conduct more interviews, the officials said. "A key witness, a key person who'd pled the military equivalent of the Fifth has changed his attitude, and Fay is reopening the investigation," the Senate official said. The officials said they did not know the identity of the witness. Mr. Rumsfeld's anticipated approval of General Abizaid's request would open the way for a new, senior Army investigator to question General Sanchez and other senior generals as part of a broad inquiry into questionable intelligence-gathering practices and procedures at the prison that may have contributed to the prisoner abuses. Senior Army officials insisted Wednesday night that General Sanchez was not a target of the investigation, and that he decided to recuse himself to dispel any perceptions of a conflict of interest. General Sanchez ordered the investigation that General Fay was eventually appointed to conduct. Among the biggest questions for General Sanchez will no doubt be his order last Nov. 19 that, according to another senior Army investigator, Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, put the military police at the prison effectively under the control of the military intelligence soldiers. As a result, military police officers have said they were encouraged by military intelligence soldiers to soften up detainees before the interrogations to elicit more information from them during the formal questioning. General Sanchez has said he only intended for his order to put the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade in charge of the physical security of the prison, and other logistical responsibilities. It was not his intent, he said, to put the military police inside the prison under the operational control of military intelligence soldiers, a practice General Taguba said would violate Army rules. General Sanchez has acknowledged that he visited Abu Ghraib several times last fall, but said he did not witness any prisoner abuses. A spokesman for General Sanchez has said the general "stands by his testimony before Congressional committees" that he did not learn of the abuses until January, months after they began. Army investigators will also likely question General Sanchez on how he and his staff incorporated recommendations to improve detention and interrogation procedures at Abu Ghraib that were offered last fall by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who at the time headed detention operations at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. In addition, General Sanchez will likely be asked about interrogation policies that he issued last year. U.S. to Permit Red Cross Visit
Kabul, Afghanistan - American military officials said Thursday that they would allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to resume visits to a prisoner detention facility on the Kandahar air base in southern Afghanistan. Since 2002, the military has allowed the Red Cross to visit only the main detention center in Bagram, just north of Kabul, and said the Kandahar center was a prisoner transit point. The change comes after complaints from Afghan detainees of sleep deprivation, beatings and sexual abuse prompted the military to launch a countrywide review of its detention system last month.

Go to Original Guantanamo Detainees' Medical Files
Shared With Interrogators
By Peter Slevin and Joe Stephens
Washington Post Thursday 10 June 2004

...medical files "are being used by interrogators to gain information in developing an interrogation plan."

Military interrogators at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been given access to the medical records of individual prisoners, a breach of patient confidentiality that ethicists describe as a violation of international medical standards designed to protect captives from inhumane treatment.
The files, which contain individual medical histories and other personal information about prisoners, have been made available to interrogators despite continued objections from the International Committee of the Red Cross, according to interviews and documents obtained by The Washington Post. After discovering the practice in mid-2003, the Red Cross refused to send medical monitoring teams to the facility for more than six months, sources said.
There is no universally established international law governing medical confidentiality. But ethics experts said international medical standards bar sharing such information with interrogators to ensure it is not used to pressure prisoners to talk by withholding medicine or by using personal information to torment a detainee.
"I don't think any American medical worker, doctor, nurse should go along with this," said Arthur L. Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. "The role of health care workers in any facility should be solely looking after the health of patients; anybody who is not involved in that should not have access to medical records."
How military interrogators used the information is unknown. But a previously undisclosed Defense Department memo dated Oct. 9 cites Red Cross complaints that the medical files "are being used by interrogators to gain information in developing an interrogation plan." Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the facility at the time, denied the allegations, according to the memo.
Military officers have reported a continuous search for defensible ways to pressure Guantanamo's 600 prisoners to reveal details about terrorist operations and organizations. Early last year, the Defense Department formally authorized interrogators to use "stress and duress" techniques designed to disorient detainees and weaken resistance. With proper permission, the guidelines allow some prisoners to be subjected to techniques designed to "invoke feelings of futility."
A Defense Department spokesman declined to comment on the use of medical files that are generated by medical personnel at Guantanamo Bay or other detention facilities around the world. A Pentagon official, who refused to be named, said public discussion about the files could violate a Defense Department policy of not commenting on interrogation techniques.
But specialists in international humanitarian law said that by making the files available to nonmedical personnel, U.S. authorities crossed a line that separates the medical needs of prisoners from the government's interest in interrogating them.
"That is a violation of ethical standards that are quite old and accepted," said Leonard S. Rubenstein, executive director of Physicians for Human Rights, a Boston-based advocacy organization. "I don't think you would find any medical person who would say this is okay."
Steven H. Miles, a professor of bioethics at the University of Minnesota, said that using the information in interrogations of detainees would be a "clear-cut violation" of the Geneva Conventions.
"This is an enormously serious breach," said Miles, past president of the American Association of Bioethics. "You just can't do that."
Miles said use of information in the prisoners' medical records also would violate the ethics code of the World Medical Association, which prohibits doctors from providing information that could aid "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" or "diminish the ability of the victim to resist such treatment."
A separate code developed by the International Council of Prison Medical Services requires that medical personnel who work in prisons "respect the confidentiality of any information obtained in the course of our professional relationship with incarcerated patients."
The previously unreported use of the medical records comes as Congress is questioning the Bush administration's treatment of foreign prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba. Criminal investigations are underway into unexplained deaths of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, and into practices condemned by human rights groups. The harassment and sexual humiliation of prisoners inside Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison was described last fall in a Red Cross report as "tantamount to torture."
Extraordinary secrecy surrounds the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which primarily houses prisoners captured in Afghanistan. Except for the six captives facing military tribunals, detainees - some of whom have been there two years or more - are not allowed to meet with lawyers or relatives. Red Cross monitors are the only outsiders many are permitted to see.
Red Cross officials would not comment on the issue of medical records. But last October, the head of the organization's Washington office, Christophe Girod, made a rare public complaint that the Guantanamo Bay facility was "an investigation center, not a detention center." Girod said he was frustrated by the indefinite confinement of prisoners at the facility.
Brig. Gen. Rick Baccus, who commanded the Guantanamo Bay facility from March 2002 to October 2002, said that after new detainees were processed and given a medical review, their records were routinely shared with military intelligence personnel. Military doctors and medics were available to advise interrogators about the new detainees' health, Baccus said, in an effort to determine whether the prisoners were strong enough to withstand questioning.
Baccus said he knew of no prohibition on interrogators reviewing the files over time, but he added that he was unsure how often that occurred or how the information might have been used. He said no one, including the Red Cross, raised concerns about use of the records during his time at the facility. If he had determined the practice violated rules or international codes, Baccus said, "I would have stopped the process."
Baccus was succeeded by Miller, who worked to improve intelligence gathering. U.S. authorities considered Miller's work such a success that in late August they dispatched him to Iraq with orders to improve interrogation efforts at Abu Ghraib.
An account pieced together from confidential documents and sources familiar with the matter shows that a Red Cross team discovered the sharing of the medical records in a visit to the Guantanamo Bay medical facility in mid-2003, during Miller's tenure there.
The Red Cross team's task, repeated at prisons throughout the world, was to assess how the complex's medical facility functioned. The medical team studied equipment and treatment options, speaking with detainees and U.S. military medical staff. Other Red Cross experts monitored other aspects of prison life.
The team's mission was not to treat detainees, but to ensure that they received adequate care. If a prisoner had persistent headaches, was he able to see a doctor? If he suffered from psychological problems - 21 captives have tried to kill themselves at Guantanamo Bay - was he receiving treatment?
U.S. military doctors told Red Cross medics that interrogators had access to prisoners' medical records, according to two people knowledgeable about the issue who demanded anonymity because details of the interrogations and Red Cross monitoring are kept secret. As one source said, the doctors "were very honest about that" and "some people expressed concern."
Daryl Matthews, a civilian psychiatrist who visited Guantanamo Bay in May 2003 at the invitation of the Pentagon as part of a medical review team, described the prisoners' records generated by military physicians as similar to those kept by civilian physicians. Matthews said they contain names, nationalities, and histories of physical and psychological problems, as well as notes about current complaints and prescriptions.
Matthews said an individual's records would routinely list psychologists' comments about conditions such as phobias, as well as family details, including the names and ages of a spouse or children.
Such information, he said, would give interrogators "tremendous power" over prisoners. Matthews said he was disturbed that his team, which issued a generally favorable report on the base's medical facility, was not told patient records were shared with interrogators.
Asked what use nonmedical personnel could make of the files, he replied: "Nothing good."
The practice made some military medical workers at Guantanamo Bay uncomfortable. "Not everyone was unified on this," said one person aware of the situation. "It creates a tension. You have people with many different opinions."
The Red Cross team considered the breach of patient confidentiality a grave problem and protested. "Doctors in the ICRC did not want to play this game," said the source. When U.S. authorities made clear that the policy would continue, the Red Cross responded with a decision that no medical team would return to Guantanamo Bay.
The Oct. 9 Defense Department memo recounts a meeting between Red Cross monitors and military officials. It quotes Vincent Cassard, a Red Cross team leader, as saying that "there is a link between the [military] interrogation team and the medical team. This is a breach of confidentiality between a physician and a patient. Only medical personnel are supposed to have access to these files."
The memo says Miller, the commander, disputed the claim and asked the Red Cross to recheck its facts. In response, Cassard complained that Miller "was not taking the discussion seriously."
After the dispute, the Red Cross continued to monitor other activities at the prison. But with the issue still unresolved, the organization has only recently agreed to send a medical specialist to the detention facility. The medical visit is the first since last summer, and officials intend to keep confidential any prisoner information they learn to prevent further personal details from being recorded in military files.
Red Cross officials, bound by confidentiality rules that call for findings to be delivered only to host governments, would not discuss when or where they lodged complaints about the issue of medical records. When the Red Cross has discovered problems at Guantanamo Bay in the past, it has reported them to the prison commander and, if necessary, to a Pentagon committee that oversees detainee policy.

Go to Original
Rumsfeld Told Officers to 'Take Gloves Off' With Lindh
By Andrew Buncombe
The Independent U.K.
Thursday 10 June 2004
John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban, was stripped naked and tied to a stretcher during interrogation after the office of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered intelligence officers to "take the gloves off" when questioning him.
Mr Rumsfeld's legal counsel instructed the officers to push the limits when questioning Lindh, captured in Afghanistan with Taliban and al-Qa'ida forces in late 2001. The treatment of Lindh appears to foreshadow the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
The details of Lindh's interrogation confirm claims made by his lawyer, Tony West, that when he was captured by Northern Alliance forces and handed to CIA operatives near the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif, he asked for a lawyer. Not only was he refused a lawyer and not advised of his rights, but his interrogators were told to get tough to obtain "actionable" intelligence in the pursuit of Osama bin Laden.
Documents seen by the Los Angeles Times, show that when an US Army intelligence officer started to question Lindh he was given instructions that the "Secretary of Defence's counsel has authorised him to 'take the gloves off' and asked whatever he wanted". The documents show that in the early stages, Lindh's responses were cabled to Washington every hour.
Though Lindh initially pleaded not guilty, he later admitted reduced charges and was sentenced to 20 years. He and his lawyers also agreed to drop claims that he had been tortured by US personnel.
A Defence Department spokesperson said the Pentagon "refused to speculate on the exact intent of the statement" from Mr Rumsfeld's office. "Department officials stress that all interrogation policies and procedures demand humane treatment of personnel in their custody," said the spokesperson.
The documents are the latest evidence to emerge revealing the efforts of the Bush administration to sidestep international laws and treaties when dealing with prisoners after the 11 September attacks. Critics say they show the abuses at Abu Ghraib were part of a deliberately pursued and systematic approach for dealing with prisoners without affording them their rights contained within the Geneva Conventions.
A memo this week revealed that in March 2003, administration lawyers concluded that President George Bush had the authority under executive privilege to order any sort of torture or interrogation of prisoners.
Yesterday, Congresswoman Jane Harman of California, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the views the memo contained were "antithetical to American laws and values". She added: "This memo argues that the President is not bound by criminal laws in the context of his role as Commander-in-Chief during war; that the President may be above the law. This is a concept of executive authority that was discarded at Runnymede in the 13th century and has absolutely no place in our constitutional system."
The Attorney General, John Ashcroft, has refused to provide copies of the internal memos on the questioning of prisoners. "This administration rejects torture," Mr Ashcroft said. "I don't think it's productive, let alone justified."
And despite the international outcry over the prisoner abuse cases, US forces will continue to be responsible for running two Iraqi prisons where "security detainees" are held, after the handover to a "sovereign" Iraqi government.
A senior British official said in London that the US military would continue to be responsible for up to 2,000 "fairly hard-core" prisoners at Abu Ghraib and at another jail in southern Iraq. The exact number of such prisoners, deemed a threat to Iraqi safety and security, is not known because although the Americans let many inmates out of Abu Ghraib, many others have been arrested.
Britain is pressing for Iraqis to help run the top-security prisons, but details are still to be worked out. The US military is also holding Saddam Hussein, and other former regime members inside Iraq. They are to be tried by a special Iraqi tribunal starting in the autumn.
A Jordanian lawyer who claims that he is acting for Saddam says that the former Iraqi leader was also tortured during interrogation.
-------

Rumsfeld is the front man for the neocon cabal at the Pentagon which ordered for the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal to take place:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2004/06/14/iraq-war-for-israel-according-to-james-bamford-s-new-book.php

War Without End

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

Interrogation abuses were 'approved at highest levels'