[Iraq] Documents Tell of Brutal Improvisation by GIs

[Grojlach]

Documents Tell of Brutal Improvisation by GIs
Interrogated General's Sleeping-Bag Death, CIA's Use of Secret Iraqi Squad Are Among Details

Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush was being stubborn with his American captors, and a series of intense beatings and creative interrogation tactics were not enough to break his will. On the morning of Nov. 26, 2003, a U.S. Army interrogator and a military guard grabbed a green sleeping bag, stuffed Mowhoush inside, wrapped him in an electrical cord, laid him on the floor and began to go to work. Again.

It was inside the sleeping bag that the 56-year-old detainee took his last breath through broken ribs, lying on the floor beneath a U.S. soldier in Interrogation Room 6 in the western Iraqi desert. Two days before, a secret CIA-sponsored group of Iraqi paramilitaries, working with Army interrogators, had beaten Mowhoush nearly senseless, using fists, a club and a rubber hose, according to classified documents.

The sleeping bag was the idea of a soldier who remembered how his older brother used to force him into one, and how scared and vulnerable it made him feel. Senior officers in charge of the facility near the Syrian border believed that such "claustrophobic techniques" were approved ways to gain information from detainees, part of what military regulations refer to as a "fear up" tactic, according to military court documents.

The circumstances that led up to Mowhoush's death paint a vivid example of how the pressure to produce intelligence for anti-terrorism efforts and the war in Iraq led U.S. military interrogators to improvise and develop abusive measures, not just at Abu Ghraib but in detention centers elsewhere in Iraq, in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mowhoush's ordeal in Qaim, over 16 days in November 2003, also reflects U.S. government secrecy surrounding some abuse cases and gives a glimpse into a covert CIA unit that was set up to foment rebellion before the war and took part in some interrogations during the insurgency.

The sleeping-bag interrogation and beatings were taking place in Qaim about the same time that soldiers at Abu Ghraib, outside Baghdad, were using dogs to intimidate detainees, putting women's underwear on their heads, forcing them to strip in front of female soldiers and attaching at least one to a leash. It was a time when U.S. interrogators were coming up with their own tactics to get detainees to talk, many of which they considered logical interpretations of broad-brush categories in the Army Field Manual, with labels such as "fear up" or "pride and ego down" or "futility."

Other tactics, such as some of those seen at Abu Ghraib, had been approved for one detainee at Guantanamo Bay and found their way to Iraq. Still others have been linked to official Pentagon guidance on specific techniques, such as the use of dogs.

See this and the rest of the article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201941_pf.html

[ 08-04-2005, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[shamrock_uk]

Would this not be solved by simply allowing detainees proper legal representation during interrogation?

The London bombers all have lawyers present during interrogations, yet it's not really impeding our ability to get 'results'.

[Timber Loftis]

So what. He got what he deserved. At least he died rather than cooperate -- I'm sure Allah will reward him for it.

[Zebodog]

Isn't that torture?

Let me see, it's okay to abuse and torture Iraqi's, except if you're Saddam then it's not okay.

To me this is a complete double standard.

[Felix The Assassin]

Hmm, I always thought the term "CURRENT EVENTS" meant just that.

Are we re-washing laundry this week or something?

Update: The four charged are Chief warrant officers 'edited names out' Sergeant first class 'edited' and Specialist 'edited' are charged with murder and dereliction of duty. That was almost a year ago, 4 Oct 04 in fact.

What does this really have to do with current events?
Historical events maybe, but surely not 'current'.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: Hmm, I always thought the term "CURRENT EVENTS" meant just that. Are we re-washing laundry this week or something? Update: The four charged are Chief warrant officers 'edited names out' Sergeant first class 'edited' and Specialist 'edited' are charged with murder and dereliction of duty. That was almost a year ago, 4 Oct 04 in fact. What does this really have to do with current events? Historical events maybe, but surely not 'current'.

"Even though the last paragraph talks of charges being made only the day before the article was written, but the event itself happened a looong time ago, it doesn't fit the forum description so LA LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING."

[ 08-05-2005, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Lucern]

I'll cut and paste this from an old thread:

Torture, as laid out in by the UN Convention against Torture, which the US took a leading role in writing and adopted with the relevent caveats mentioned:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such puposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has commited, or is suspected of having commited, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. The version the US accepted further requires that torture has to happen in the custody or control of the torturer to be torture, and that what would normally classify as torture is not torture if it results from lawful sanctions (ie, the death penalty in the US results from lawful sanctions). [United Nations Convetion Against Torture]


In case anyone was skeptical, this is textbook torture. It's got intent and harm, and even a goal. Unless of course these were the result of 'legal sanctions' that I'm not aware of, akin to what Alberto Gonzales (Torture Memo Guy) has advocated. I know military and civil codes differ, but I should reiterate that the US wrote most of and adopted the above definition. Unfortunately, torture isn't just a historical event.

[ 08-05-2005, 05:21 AM: Message edited by: Lucern ]

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: So what. He got what he deserved. At least he died rather than cooperate -- I'm sure Allah will reward him for it.

Given he was an Iraqi Major-General, it's not likely he was particularly religious. More likely he was just being a good soldier and resisting interrogation by the enemy.

But regardless of his religiosity, the fact that some people have no qualms about torturing a man to death does make the vocal criticism of beheadings ring rather hollow.

This man was a prisoner of war - none of the 'enemy combatant' bullsh*t applies in this case. He was a member of a national army, he fought in uniform, yet gets tortured to death?

Such behaviour is reminiscent of the Japanese in WW2, not the United States of America.

[ 08-05-2005, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]