US treatment of prisoners (actual video footage)

[Dreamer128]

Pentagon Approved Tougher Interrogations
By Dana Priest and Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, May 9, 2004; Page A01

In April 2003, the Defense Department approved interrogation techniques for use at the Guantanamo Bay prison that permit reversing the normal sleep patterns of detainees and exposing them to heat, cold and "sensory assault," including loud music and bright lights, according to defense officials.

The classified list of about 20 techniques was approved at the highest levels of the Pentagon and the Justice Department, and represents the first publicly known documentation of an official policy permitting interrogators to use physically and psychologically stressful methods during questioning.

The use of any of these techniques requires the approval of senior Pentagon officials -- and in some cases, of the defense secretary. Interrogators must justify that the harshest treatment is "militarily necessary," according to the document, as cited by one official. Once approved, the harsher treatment must be accompanied by "appropriate medical monitoring."

"We wanted to find a legal way to jack up the pressure," said one lawyer who helped write the guidelines. "We wanted a little more freedom than in a U.S. prison, but not torture."

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said: "These procedures are tightly controlled, limited in duration and scope, used infrequently and approved on a case-by-case basis. These are people who are unlawful combatants, picked up on the battlefield and may contribute to our intelligence-gathering about events that killed 3,000 people."

Defense and intelligence officials said similar guidelines have been approved for use on "high-value detainees" in Iraq -- those suspected of terrorism or of having knowledge of insurgency operations. Separate CIA guidelines exist for agency-run detention centers.

It could not be learned whether similar guidelines were in effect at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, which has been the focus of controversy in recent days. But lawmakers have said they want to know whether the misconduct reported at Abu Ghraib -- which included sexual humiliation -- was an aberration or whether it reflected an aggressive policy taken to inhumane extremes.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the U.S. military and the CIA have detained thousands of foreign nationals at the prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, as well as at facilities in Iraq and elsewhere, as part of an effort to crack down on suspected terrorists and to quell the insurgency in Iraq. The Pentagon guidelines for Guantanamo were designed to give interrogators the authority to prompt uncooperative detainees to provide information, though experts on interrogation say information submitted under such conditions is often unreliable.

The United States has stated publicly that it does not engage in torture or cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners. Defense officials said yesterday that the techniques on the list are consistent with international law and contain appropriate safeguards such as legal and medical monitoring. "The high-level approval is done with forethought by people in responsibility, and layers removed from the people actually doing these things, so you can have an objective approach," said one senior defense official familiar with the guidelines.

But Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said the tactics outlined in the U.S. document amount to cruel and inhumane treatment. "The courts have ruled most of these techniques illegal," he said. "If it's illegal here under the U.S. Constitution, it's illegal abroad. . . . This isn't even close."

According to two defense officials, prisoners could be made to disrobe for interrogation if they were are alone in their cells. But Col. David McWilliams, a spokesman for the U.S. Southern Command, said stripping prisoners was not part of the permitted interrogation techniques. "We have no protocol that allows us to disrobe a detainee whatsoever," he said. Prisoners may be disrobed in order to clean them and administer medical treatment, he said.

Several officials interviewed for this article, including two lawyers who helped formulate the guidelines, declined to be identified because the subject matter is so sensitive.

With the proper permission, the guidelines allow detainees to be subjected to psychological techniques meant to open them up, disorient or put them under stress. These include "invoking feelings of futility" and using female interrogators to question male detainees.

Some prisoners could be made to stand for four hours at a time. Questioning a prisoner without clothes is permitted if he is alone in his cell. Ruled out were techniques such as physical contact -- even poking a finger in the chest -- and the "washboard technique" of smothering a detainee with towels to threaten suffocation. Placing electrodes on detainees' bodies "wasn't even evaluated -- it was such a no-go," said one of the officials involved in drawing up the list.

[ 05-09-2004, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

[Timber Loftis]

Haven't had time to thoroughly review the above articles, but I just wanted to chime in that the news this weekend showed problems with British soldiers, too. And, TB knew about them 3 months ago, just like Rummie and Bush.

As for transparency, I think it's good enough. The Government saw the problem, and investigated it, and is taking measures to correct it and punish those responsible. Not leaking the news until the investigations were complete is not a big "lie" in my view.

In my view, the Pentagon approving "tougher interrogations" is not wrong -- so long as it is still ordering things that comply with the Geneva Conventions.

All around -- it's a mar on the process. However, by dealing with it appropriately, our nations can exhibit a degree of compassion not seen for many decades in Iraq.

[Memnoch]

Yes, let's spread the largesse around, eh. Apparently three British soldiers have been recommended to be charged, according to the London Times. Story below.

Three British soldiers face charges for abusing prisoners: paper By Peter Fray, Herald Correspondent in London, and agencies May 10, 2004 The Royal Military Police is reportedly recommending that up to three soldiers from the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers be prosecuted after photographic evidence of the alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners was investigated. It would be the first prosecution of British soldiers in Iraq and comes after the release of shocking - and disputed - images of soldiers from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment purportedly beating and abusing Iraqis. The Sunday Times said that the photographs, now held by the Ministry of Defence, showed Fusiliers forcing Iraqi prisoners to perform oral and anal sex on each other. Army prosecutors will decide whether to proceed with charges. Soldiers in the Lancashire Regiment have been ordered by senior officers to hand over all photographs they took while in Iraq. The regiment is at the centre of a Royal Military Police investigation after the publication in the Daily Mirror of pictures of soldiers apparently beating up and urinating on an Iraqi PoW. Doubt has been cast on the authenticity of the pictures, although the Daily Mirror has stuck to its story and has published further allegations. Officers have demanded the photographs to prevent potentially damaging images falling into the hands of the media, and to compare them with the Mirror pictures to determine their authenticity. The order was disclosed by a member of the regiment in a mobile phone message to a family member. The British Government was under intense pressure yesterday after admitting it knew about alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners in February. Opposition parties demanded answers after the Prime Minister's office revealed that the Red Cross showed ministers a copy of a report detailing abuses weeks before the current storm. In another development, a British television station reported that a TV cameraman had reported an incident in Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad in which a young Iraqi girl held was stripped naked and beaten while her brother heard her scream from another cell. ITV quoted Suhaib al-Baz, 24, a cameraman for the Arab satellite TV network Al-Jazeera, as saying he saw the abuse while he was being held at the prison. The Telegraph, London; AFP; Press Association

And here's the latest pic - it ain't pretty.

[The Hierophant]

What I want to know is why the hell people took pictures of these incidents.
First of all, that you want to have a few keepsake snapshots of this sort of thing says alot about your mental state. I mean damn! I wouldn't exactly call these Kodak moments! But that's just me, maybe I'm weird...

And secondly, way to provide perfect incriminating evidence against yourselves for your court-marshalls, morons!

[ 05-10-2004, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[Memnoch]

I was actually actually just thinking the same thing. It's nuts - like sending pornographic material through office email systems. Maybe it really does highlight the "no-accountability" culture that developed in that place.

[Timber Loftis]

Yeah, I don't get it AT ALL. In my profession, it is well known that there are things you simply DO NOT DOCUMENT. Come time to go to the grand jury, 9 times out of 10 it is your own statements, writing, or pictures that will hang you.

[Chewbacca]

Link

**********************

U.S. missed chances to stop abuses

By Dave Moniz, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Pentagon and White House officials missed numerous opportunities to head off abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, according to interviews, testimony and public documents that have emerged since the scandal erupted last month.

From red flags raised months ago by prison guards at other facilities in Iraq to letters from lawmakers and non-government groups, the Pentagon and the Bush administration received a variety of complaints many months before the abuses began last fall.

Seven Army soldiers face criminal charges and seven others have been reprimanded in connection with abuse at Abu Ghraib in October, November and December of last year. The scandal, which has spawned six military investigations into misconduct, has damaged American credibility around the world and threatens to undermine the war effort in Iraq.

The missed warnings include reports by the International Committee of the Red Cross and at least one letter from a U.S. senator, concerns raised by military law specialists and commanders, and letters and phone calls from the relatives of U.S. troops serving at other prisons in Iraq.

• Last May, eight high-ranking military lawyers voiced concerns to Pentagon officials and the New York State Bar Association that new interrogation policies developed after the Sept. 11 attacks could lead to prisoner abuses. Scott Horton, former head of the New York Bar's committee on international law, said Thursday that the Army and Navy lawyers told him the new interrogation rules were "frightening" and might "reverse 50 years of a proud tradition of compliance with the Geneva Conventions." Horton said the lawyers came to him because they had been locked out of policy debates while the secret rules were being drafted. "It was a five-alarm fire," Horton said.

• Family members of guards at the Camp Bucca prison in southern Iraq told CBS' 60 Minutes II that they called Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's office repeatedly last year and wrote letters to the White House complaining of conditions at the prison..

• Numerous high-ranking U.S. officials, including Rumsfeld, visited Abu Ghraib last year before the abuses. Although an Army investigation has noted that guards had failed to follow basic procedures — including requirements that the Geneva Conventions' rules for the treatment of prisoners be displayed throughout the prison in English and Arabic — none of the visitors raised questions.

Other military officers began voicing fears about U.S. policies for handling prisoners earlier.

Walter Schumm, a retired Army Reserve colonel who once commanded a military police battalion, warned in an article that the U.S. military was headed for a catastrophe. In an essay published in 1998 in the influential journal Military Review, Schumm wrote that most military officers know very little about legal requirements for handling prisoners.

Schumm went on to write that most MPs designated to handle enemy prisoners of war were reservists with fewer than 50 days of training per year. In a passage that seemed to foreshadow problems at Abu Ghraib, Schumm wrote, "It only takes one improperly trained soldier among a thousand to commit an offense against the Geneva Conventions that would cause our nation considerable embarrassment."

In the past 12 months, independent groups that monitor treatment of prisoners, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union, complained about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq. The Red Cross characterized problems as more widespread than just at Abu Ghraib.

Last June, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., wrote letters to the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon complaining about the treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan and "other locations outside the United States."

Leahy wrote that prisoners were being subjected to beatings, lengthy sleep- and food-deprivation, and "stress and duress" techniques. Pentagon and CIA officials wrote back to say the United States was not torturing prisoners.

[ 05-14-2004, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: What I want to know is why the hell people took pictures of these incidents. First of all, that you want to have a few keepsake snapshots of this sort of thing says alot about your mental state. I mean damn! I wouldn't exactly call these Kodak moments! But that's just me, maybe I'm weird... And secondly, way to provide perfect incriminating evidence against yourselves for your court-marshalls, morons!

My theory:

The idea is too use the photos as a threat to gain information. Classic Psy-ops- shit no reservist MP is going to dream up. Understanding the psycological make up of the Arab male, with the shame and humilation they would suffer in front of family and peers if the photo's got out of them in the such a weak postion and using that understanding get gather info.

The very incriminating pictures were themselves part of the torure.

[Memnoch]

Another update:


Danish doctors say Britons beat Iraqis

Jenny Booth
Friday May 14, 2004
The Guardian

A pair of Danish army doctors say that they saw two Iraqi men brought into a British military hospital badly injured after they had been beaten up by British troops.
One of the wounded Iraqis was so badly hurt he died of his injuries, it was claimed. The fresh allegations were revealed by the Danish defence minister, Soeren Gade, last night.

Mr Gade said that the incident took place in Basra last September, but that it had only been reported to the Danish defence ministry yesterday. He had decided to make it public immediately.

A spokeswoman for the UK Ministry of Defence said that it was believed the Danes were referring to the incident in which the hotel receptionist Baha Mousa, 27, a father of two, died after being arrested by members of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment.

"That case has been the subject of an investigation by the Royal Military Police, which began almost straight away," said the spokeswoman.

"Their report is being considered by the army legal services to decide what further action needs to be taken."

Denmark supported the US-led invasion of Iraq and has about 500 troops serving under British command in southern Iraq. It has been strongly critical of the abuse of prisoners by US soldiers in Abu Ghraib prison, however.

The medics revealed the incident to a Danish army lawyer in Basra, who raised it with the British authorities in Iraq and wrote the report that has just reached Mr Gade's desk.

Mr Mousa's death was mentioned by Amnesty International and the Red Cross in critical reports on the behaviour of British troops in Iraq.

The allegations emerged as a French lawyer announced plans to file a war crimes suit against Britain at the international criminal court in The Hague on behalf of the families of Iraqi prisoners.

Jacques Verges, who once defended the Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie and says he has been asked to act for Saddam Hussein, said he was unable to file a complaint against the US because it does not recognise the court's jurisdiction.


Source: www.guardian.co.uk

[Timber Loftis]

The allegations emerged as a French lawyer announced plans to file a war crimes suit against Britain at the international criminal court in The Hague on behalf of the families of Iraqi prisoners.

Funny -- they never thought to use the ICC when Hussein was in town. *slaps forehead* [img]graemlins/doh.gif[/img] that's right, they were making money off Hussein. Silly me.

Jacques Verges, who once defended the Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie and says he has been asked to act for Saddam Hussein, said he was unable to file a complaint against the US because it does not recognise the court's jurisdiction.

Nyah, Nyah to you Verges. Nana-nana-boo-boo, can't catch us. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]