Former US commander in Iraq approved banned interrogation methods

[Dreamer128]

Newly Released Army Documents Point To Agreement Between Defense Department And CIA On "Ghost" Detainees, ACLU Says

March 10, 2005 -- The latest chapter in the torture and abuse of detainees held in U.S. custody includes a report of a formal agreement between the Army and the CIA to hide “ghost detainees” and an atmosphere of “release-a-phobia” that prevented innocent detainees from being freed.
The American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union released the 800-plus pages of documents today as a Senate Committee convened this morning to hear a report from Vice Admiral Albert T. Church III on detainee abuses that is largely expected to absolve top officials of responsibility.

“It seems the military can only look down the chain of command, not up, when it comes to holding people accountable,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “An outside special counsel is the only way to ensure that all civilians who violated, or conspired to violate, the laws are held responsible for their crimes.”

The documents were released in response to a federal court order that directed the Defense Department and other government agencies to comply with a year-old request under the Freedom of Information Act filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case.

Included in the documents the ACLU released today are previously classified annexes to an August 2004 report by Major General George Fay that blamed top Pentagon officials and senior military commanders for creating conditions that led to “acts of brutality and purposeless sadism” at Abu Ghraib. The report references some of the incidents described in the annexes. The annexes, however, were not released until today.

The ACLU has posted the new government documents on its website, along with the more than 20,000 pages it has received to date, at www.aclu.org/torturefoia. Among the facts disclosed in the documents released today are:

Memorandum of Understanding Between Military and CIA on “Ghost Detainees.”

Two separate sworn statements refer to an arrangement regarding these detainees, who were kept “off the records” for CIA interrogation. According to one statement, Col. Thomas Pappas met with CIA and Task Force 21 officials and “the memorandum on procedures for dropping ghost detainees was signed.” In a deposition, Brig. Gen. Karpinski also confirms orders to hide a prisoner “and to not allow the [International Committee of the Red Cross] to see him.” The text of the Fay report states, in reference to ghost detainees, that “no memorandum of understanding on detainee accountability or interrogation practices between the CIA and CJTF-7” was created. The documents released today do not include the Memorandum of Understanding.

Death of Ghost Detainees in Custody.

Several statements refer to “ghost detainees” who died in custody, including one who died after being chained up in a shower area. Interrogators packed the body in ice and “paid a local taxi driver to take him away.” (Note: this report may refer to Manadel a-Jamadi, whose death in Abu Ghraib has been widely reported in the news media.)

Majority of Detainees “Of No Intelligence Value” or Innocent.

One statement refers to “a lot of pressure to produce reports regardless of intelligence value.” Brig. Gen. Karpinski’s deposition also cited the comments of another official, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, who told her, “I don’t care if we’re holding 15,000 innocent civilians! We’re winning the war!” A former commander of the 320th Military Police Battalion notes in a sworn statement, “It became obvious to me that the majority of our detainees were detained as the result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and were swept up by Coalition Forces as peripheral bystanders during raids. I think perhaps only one in ten security detainees were of any particular intelligence value.”

“Releasaphobia” Keeps Innocent Detainees Jailed.

One member of the Detainee Assessment Board said people were afraid to recommend release of detainees, “even when obviously innocent.” Similarly, Brig. Gen. Karpinski spoke of “releaseaphobia” on the part of a review board. According to another report, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez allegedly said of the detainees, “Why are we detaining these people, we should be killing them.” The unidentified solider who reported the comment added that it “contributed to a command climate” where “deeds not consistent with military standards would be tolerated if not condoned.”

Use of Dogs on Juveniles.

According to the statement of an Army interrogator with the 2nd Military Intelligence Battalion, a dog handler entered the cell of two juveniles and allowed the animal to “go nuts on the kids, barking and scaring them.” The interrogator said he heard the dog handler say “he had a competition with another Handler to see if they could scare detainees to the point that they would defecate. He mentioned that they had already made some urinate, so they appeared to be raising the competition.” (As referenced in the Fay report.)

Brutal Interrogation Techniques.

Reports include a Military Intelligence soldier “choking and beating a detainee.” Another account describes how MPs threw a detainee to the ground “and pour [sic] dirt all over him. He said he was diabetic and was trying to tell the MPs and he went into diabetic shock.”

“These documents provide a horrifying account of the dehumanizing treatment of thousands of innocent civilians swept up and imprisoned indiscriminately by U.S. forces in Iraq,” said ACLU attorney Amrit Singh. “They also demonstrate the collaboration between the military and the CIA in torturing detainees while hiding them from the Red Cross.”

Last Tuesday, the ACLU and Human Rights First filed a lawsuit charging Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with direct responsibility for the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody. The action was the first federal court lawsuit to name a top U.S. official in the ongoing torture scandal in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ACLU has also filed separate lawsuits naming Brig. Gen. Karpinski, Col. Thomas Pappas and Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez. Details about the Rumsfeld lawsuit are online at www.aclu.org/rumsfeld.

The lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C. Other attorneys in the case are Singh, Jameel Jaffer, and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Arthur N. Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Barbara Olshansky and Jeff Fogel of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

(Nyclu.org)

[shamrock_uk]

Ah well, no surprises here. The BBC story seems to have completely vanished, but made it more clear that this General had directly signed the approval of methods like using (muzzled) dogs to "exploit the Arab fear of dogs".

However, he did argue that advanced approval and confirmation was needed from him each time for these methods to be deployed in the field, and he was never asked.

It's mildly amusing that the figure of 1 in 10 prisoners actually being genuine arrived at in the report is almost exactly the same as the Red Cross estimate a year or so ago which got them publicly attacked by senior US army figures. Looks like they weren't so far off after all.

But yeah, even if his defence of not having actually authorised individual abuses stands, it still illustrates quite frankly the 'climate' that exists with regards to treatment of detainees - clearly this is a problem throughout every level of the military which makes scapegoating troopers somehow more annoying.

[Morgeruat]

Use of Dogs on Juveniles. According to the statement of an Army interrogator with the 2nd Military Intelligence Battalion, a dog handler entered the cell of two juveniles and allowed the animal to “go nuts on the kids, barking and scaring them.” The interrogator said he heard the dog handler say “he had a competition with another Handler to see if they could scare detainees to the point that they would defecate. He mentioned that they had already made some urinate, so they appeared to be raising the competition.” (As referenced in the Fay report.)

OK this one sounds very weak, and has always sounded so to me, they didn't release the dogs to attack the "detainees", nor does it sound like they really did anything to directly harm them with the dogs. In islam dogs are unclean animals slightly better than pigs, bringing one within ten feet of a prisoner could be construed as "terrorizing them with dogs" especially if they are as psychotically devoted that being in contact with one risks their "72 virgins" Hell I'd crap myself too if I thought touching a dog could send me to hell, and a guy patrolled regularly with dogs, and had fun at my expense by letting it bark.

“Releasaphobia” Keeps Innocent Detainees Jailed. One member of the Detainee Assessment Board said people were afraid to recommend release of detainees, “even when obviously innocent.” Similarly, Brig. Gen. Karpinski spoke of “releaseaphobia” on the part of a review board. According to another report, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez allegedly said of the detainees, “Why are we detaining these people, we should be killing them.” The unidentified solider who reported the comment added that it “contributed to a command climate” where “deeds not consistent with military standards would be tolerated if not condoned.”

And numerous Gitmo detainees who have been released have made their way back to the fighting, and either been reapprehended, or killed in action. Either deprogram them or keep them locked up where they won't hurt anyone.

Death of Ghost Detainees in Custody. Several statements refer to “ghost detainees” who died in custody, including one who died after being chained up in a shower area. Interrogators packed the body in ice and “paid a local taxi driver to take him away.” (Note: this report may refer to Manadel a-Jamadi, whose death in Abu Ghraib has been widely reported in the news media.)

Wow, a very stupid move, if true. Those responsible should be tried. (although a scapegoat is likely to take the brunt of the blame, and a colonel may have to retire)

[Albromor]

I trust the ACLU as much as I trust Elvis sightings.

[Azred]

Any story of possible torture at the hands of American military forces tends to be overblown, because many people in the world want to find such stories whether or not the stories are true. I'm not saying that such instances haven't happened, but the tone of such stories make it seem like US forces walk around wild-eyed looking for someone to hurt just so they can inflict some pain.

On the other hand, based on the outcomes of previous cases the gropos (soldiers on the ground or ground-pounders) have usually been pointed out as the source of the problem with the command staff saying "we didn't know about this; they are rogues". Don't the officers realize that if they continue to offer up soldiers as scapegoats then morale will take a serious negative hit?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Azred: Don't the officers realize that if they continue to offer up soldiers as scapegoats then morale will take a serious negative hit?

Ummm.... hate to point this out, but that's only true if the soldiers who committed torture were in fact NOT rogues (e.g., simply following orders or doing what everyone does).

[Aragorn1]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Azred: Don't the officers realize that if they continue to offer up soldiers as scapegoats then morale will take a serious negative hit?

Ummm.... hate to point this out, but that's only true if the soldiers who committed torture were in fact NOT rogues (e.g., simply following orders or doing what everyone does). [/QUOTE]They exectuted many a German for doing just that.

[Northraven]

Not that I am coming out in support of torturing prisoners but how come whenever a story comes out about US/Allied soldiers torturing prisoners there is an uproar and world-wide outpouring of anti-american rage? I am a bit of a military history buff and just finished reading Bravo Two Zero which is the story of Andy McNab's ill-fated SAS patrol. They were captured and tortured by the Iraqi military in the first gulf war. This is a first-hand account by a man who does not seem given to exageration and some of the things the Iraqi interogators did to them were pretty horrible. I am NOT saying this justifies torturing Iraqi prisoners but news coverage and public opinion does seem to focus far more on alleged American violations. I would elaborate on some of the things that the Iraqi secret police are documented to have done to prisoners but I'm afraid it might get me a yellow card. Suffice to say that threatening a man with a barking dog so that he craps his pants dosen't even come close...

[ 04-13-2005, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Northraven ]

[shamrock_uk]

Ah yes, I've read that, great book.

The reason there is much more outcry when American troops do it is four-fold:

1) We expect that kind of thing in Saddam's regime. It is the norm in the 2nd and 3rd world and thousands have to suffer it every day. It's like the starving in Africa, it's just not considered newsworthy.

2) America has deliberately set itself up as the country that wants to reshape the Middle-East and project American values of freedom and democracy upon everyone else. The fact is that if you get on a soapbox and preach morality then you have to be whiter than white - just ask any politician.

3) The rest of the world knows that America's stated foreign policy aims are largely hypocritical because we have all had to live with the reality of American intervention. Bar the occasional exception, this has been about protecting American trade, securing access to energy resources and creating a worldwide network of military bases to allow her to intervene anywhere with ease.

Not saying it's not rational, Britain did much the same thing when she was a superpower (albeit less effectively), but it doesn't mean that people don't notice. Arabs and Persians aren't stupid and they therefore automatically see the worst about every American military intervention in the Middle-East.

When American troops commit atrocities it gives every anti-Western radical the excuse to stand up and say "I told you so, the American's have come here to kill and torture Arabs". And if you're a moderate person who has been brought up with an anti-Western education and you see those pictures, it looks like proof of what the radicals have been saying and therefore it's easy to understand why there is an outcry.

4) And finally of course, the American's supposedly went to Iraq to free the Iraqi people from tyranny. If other Arabs see Iraqi's being tortured by American troops then they think 'invasion' not 'liberation'. The easily persuaded in the West who believed that freedom was the primary reason also are outraged for the very same reasons.

It may not be fair that greater coverage gets given to America but given the special position that America has put herself in, its understandable IMO.

Re. Andy McNabb in particular:
1) The government couldn't complain about it because he shouldn't have been there. The UK violated Iraqi territory and thus were in the wrong to start with.
2) At the time, Saddam was official still the 'good guy' and an ally against Iran.
3) No independent evidence. It's not like his torture was recorded and subsequently broadcast around the world. A picture is more emotive by far than the words in a book which, after all, are likely embellished for dramatic effect.

[Lucern]

Few understand how common torture is in the world (and that's neither acusatory or targetted). Well over 100 countries are demonstrably guilty of it.

but when a country:


Took a leading role in writing the Convention Against Torture,

Has none-too-grey-area laws about what is and is not torture. We adopted this version of it:

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]

Put forth the most money to the UN Voluntary Fund on Torture overall (providing $3M in 1999), which is where most of the money came from to run the non-profit agency I volunteered with - a treatment center for survivors of torture.

Whose leaders talk (as a side note really) about the the torture of a regime one has toppled, implying a moral authority on that point (if such a thing can exist),

and is a country that exists in a system of nation-states that are by no means equal, wherein said country is the world's only superpower,


It stinks that much more when it more and more frequently seems to be testing the waters of torture and clear human rights violations, ideally, clearly even under its own definitions of torture. I bemoan peoples' ignorance regarding the global problem of torture more than my own country seemingly getting singled out, and make no mistake: such knowledge would certainly put the second in context. Yep, there are worse, and I've heard much worse from victims, say, Zambia and Cameroon than I heard about Iraq as far as torture goes. Does Iraqi torture deserve our scorn less for it? You have a good point about degrees of severity, but how much do we want to victimize a country that tortured people under its own definitions?

As I see it, torture is more heinous and it kills more people than terrorism ever did. Cells of extremists may scare us, but governments all over the world making their own citizens disappear and torturing them seems a bit worse to me. I would hope this is the end of the road, as far as my country chooses to take torture.

And on a practical note, is it not a 'bigger' media story when the United States or Britain might be torturing people than when Cambodia or Columbia are? It's simultaneously more surprising and scandalous to a general audience. Or at least it used to be...

Edit: Man, you always hope that someone doesn't beat you to the punch...by an hour lol. I shouldn't have taken that break..

[ 04-13-2005, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Lucern ]