WAR CRIMES BY BUSH & CO.-FULL MILITARY REPORT
save-our-democracy
CHENEY, RUMSFELD, AND RICE HAVE TOTALLY DECLARED "THEY DIDN'T KNOW
ANYTHING ABOUT" RE THE MURDER AND MAYHEM THAT ONLY THEY HAD THE POWER
TO AUTHORIZE. NOT SINCE THE NUREMBURG TRIALS HAVE WE HEARD THE SAME
DISGUSTING LIES, TIME AFTER TIME FROM THE "SAME PEOPLE", I.E. THEY
WERE TOTALLY "DEAF, DUMB AND BLIND" AND NOBODY TOLD "THEM A DAMN
THING". WELL THE CRAP IS NOW HITTING THE FAN AND EVEN THE REPUBS ARE
SAYING, "YOU PEOPLE HAVE LIED SO MUCH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE
WORLD NOW, THAT IT IS TIME FOR THE "BUCK TO STOP AT YOUR DOOR"...WE
AREN'T GOING TO PROTECT YOU ANY MORE." WELL....EVEN THE BIGGEST HAWK
ON THE CONGRESSIONAL MILITARY COMMITTEE CHAIR, REPUB. WARNER, (VA) HAS
CLEARLY HAD IT. I GUESS HE IS TIRED OF LOOKING LIKE THE SAME LYING
S.O.B. AS THOSE HE HAS PROTECTED FOR 3 1/2 YEARS, WHEN IT WAS AS
OBVIOUS AS THE NOSE ON HIS FACE, THAT BUSH & CO. HAD A VILE "PERSONAL
AGENDA" OF "WORLD DOMINATION" AND "NOBODY WAS GOING TO STAND IN THEIR
WAY..INCLUDING "CONGRESS AND THE WORLD LEADERS".
I WROTE ABOUT THIS, AT LEAST TWO YEARS AGO, I.E. "WAR CRIMES" AND
POSTED ACTUAL NEWS ARTICLES STATING "WHAT BUSH, CHENEY, RUMSFELD, RICE
AND EVEN POWELL WERE UP AND IT WAS "CRIMINAL"...YET THESE SAME
FASCISTS STATE "THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT "FORGED NIGER
DOCUMENTS", 9-11 GOING TO TAKE PLACE, WHO IT WAS THAT COMMITTED
TREASON BY OUTING A CIA AGENT, ETC. ETC. AND NOW "MURDER AND TORTURE
OF IRAQI PRISIONERS" WHICH GOES BACK TO OCTOBER 2003 AND JUST NOW
BEING "EXPOSED".
I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, WE (AMERICANS) HAVE A FULL-BLOWN FASCIST
GOVERNMENT AND IF CONGRESS REFUSES TO HOLD THEM CRIMINALLY LIABLE, WE,
AMERICANS...CAN THROUGH THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND THAT
SHOULD BE DONE IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH REPUBS "NOW KNOW THEY
HAVE BEEN PROTECTING FASCIST REPUBLICANS" THEY THINK THEY CAN RUN THE
CLOCK OUT UNTIL NOVEMBER 2004 "PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION" AND THIS WILL
ALL BLOW OVER WITHOUT ANYONE GOING TO PRISON, "ESPECIALLY THEM...THE
CONGRESS". CONGRESS CAN "NOT" ALSO USE THIS EXCUSE OF "WE DIDN'T KNOW
WHEN THE PRESS HAD ALREADY REPORTED THIS CRIMINAL ACTION...AND CLEARLY
"WARNER'S FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE...KNOW THAT BUSH "AND
CONGRESS" WAS VIOLATING "INTERNATIONAL LAWS" WHEN THEY VOTED TO ALLOW
BUSH TO ATTACK TWO "SOVEREIGN NATIONS" (AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ) WHEN
NEITHER COUNTRY WAS AN "IMMINENT THREAT" (THE ONLY LEGALLY PERMITTED
REASON TO ATTACK) TO THE U.S. IN FACT, I HAVE STATEMENTS FROM THESE
"SAME PEOPLE" AND TENET, HEAD OF THE CIA LYING THRU THEIR TEETH AND
NOW SAYING "WE NEVER SAID THAT IRAQ WAS AN "IMMINENT THREAT" TO THE
U.S.A.
WELL, HERE IS THE FULL 153/4 PAGE MILITARY REPORT, PRODUCED BY MAJOR
GENERAL TAGUBA, DATED JANUARY 19, 2004, OF REPORTS OF PRISONER ABUSE,
TORTURE AND MURDER THAT WENT BACK TO OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER OF 2003,
I.E. 7 MONTHS AGO..CLEARLY ALL OF THESE FASCISTS "KNEW" THIS WAS
TAKING PLACE AND DID "NOTHING" TO STOP IT. I SAY THAT ONLY A "CIVIL
REVOLUTION" OR "CRIMINAL CHARGES" BROUGHT BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT, WILL STOP THIS..YES, CONGRESS SHOULD BE INCLUDED. THAT
IS, UNLESS YOU JUST "LOVE BEING A SHEEP UNDER THE CONTROL OF
FASCISTS", WHICH...IT APPEARS THAT MANY AMERICANS DO, BECAUSE THEY
"DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT UNTIL THEY ARE HAULED AWAY TO THE SAME
KIND OF PRISONS THAT THE IRAQIS' WERE SENT TO. SYLVIA
----
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment
MSNBC___U.S._Army_report_on_Iraqi_prisoner_abuse_0_.url
.url file
Andrew M. Gray
save-our-democracy wrote:
> I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, WE (AMERICANS) HAVE A FULL-BLOWN FASCIST
> GOVERNMENT AND IF CONGRESS REFUSES TO HOLD THEM CRIMINALLY LIABLE, WE,
> AMERICANS...CAN THROUGH THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Snip...
Sylvia,
The U.S. backed out of the International Court treaty for such a reason,
so that no one could be held liable, even though every other decent and
civilized country subscribes to being members...So this isn't an option!
a Ride in my Fleet of SUV's that I don't Own @baaastan.gov Filthy Rich Scumbag John F*ing Kerry
yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our
only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy
missions, in the burning of villages."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9437672%255E2703,00.html
kevin
Hell is too nice of a place for that sicko Kerry. The thought of having
John "The Poodle" Kerry as President terrifies me.
Gerald Newton
the unalienable right to condemn, prosecute, and sentence those that are
guilty without a trial. You appear as guilty as those you accuse. We are a
Nation of Laws and when laws are broken, we have a justice system to deal
with the alleged crime. I think your naming Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell
as guilty of abusing prisoners before the facts are in is an act of fascism.
One definition of fascism is a political philosophy or movement that places
the nation or the race above the individual and that stands for highly
centralized government led by a dictator; belief in militarism, racism, and
nationalism; opposition to democracy and human rights. You are placing your
concept or political philosophy above the rights of individuals and you
opposes human rights for these individuals. That is fascism, the same
fascism that you so often say you oppose.
"save-our-democracy" <mcs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b5dde9a1.04050...@posting.google.com...
Gerald Newton
"Filthy Rich Scumbag John F*ing Kerry" <Want a Ride in my Fleet of SUV's
that I don't Own @Baaastan .gov> wrote in message
news:2vydnfIAftZ...@adelphia.com...
your country? Did you join the military go to war for the USA? Or are you
another Cheney?
George Allen
be republished.
save-our-democracy
MALE...AND THE "REAL REASON" WHY THE EARTH IS IN DEEP SHIT.
BETWEEN THE OVER ABUNDANCE OF TOTAL STUPIDITY AND THE OBVIOUS LACK OF
ANYTHING THAT COULD BE CALLED "OF HUMAN VALUE" THE WOMEN ARE "RUNNING
LIKE HELL AWAY FROM THESE IDIOTS", I.E. DIVORCE RATES ABOVE 50% AND
MANY WOMEN EITHER WAITING UNTIL THEY ARE IN THEIR 40'S TO MARRY, OR
NOT MARRYING AT ALL AND INSTEAD, HAVING "BOY TOYS" BECAUSE THAT IS ALL
THEY ARE GOOD FOR.
YEP, THE 21ST CENTURY MALE HAS CLEARLY TAKEN THE PLANET EARTH BACK TO
THE COLONIAL/CRUSADE ERA OF "BLOOD, LUST & POWER"..HOPEFULLY THE
PLANET WILL SURVIVE AFTER THESE BARBARIANS KILL EACH OTHER OFF. IT
CAN'T HAPPEN TO SOON FOR MOST OF US. BUT, DON'T LET ME GIVE YOU THE
IMPRESSION THAT I THINK WOMEN ARE "BETTER OR MORE SUPERIOR" THAN THE
MALE..BECAUSE I, AS WELL AS MOST OF YOU, HAVE SEEN AND "TRIED" TO TALK
TO THE 21ST CENTURY FEMALE AND THAT EXERCISE ICAN BE AS USELESS AS THE
ABOVE DRIBBLE. I DON'T EVER REMEMBER A TIME WHEN WOMEN HAVE BEEN SUCH
MATERIALISTIC AND MANIPULATING, TWO-FACED BITCHES, AS NOW.
BOTTOM-LINE:
WE ARE WELL ON OUR WAY TO SELF-DESTRUCTION..HOPE YOU ARE ENJOYING THE
TRIP.
SYLVIA
kevin
> THE ABOVE 3 POSTS ARE PERFECT EXAMPLES OF THE SO-CALLED 21ST CENTURY
> MALE...AND THE "REAL REASON" WHY THE EARTH IS IN DEEP SHIT.
Is a 21st century male someone who cheats on his wife and has sex in the
Oval Office with interns?
save-our-democracy
------------------------
OH YES IT IS ANDY,
HERE IS AN OLD E-MAIL I SENT TO MY FAVORITE "NEWS SOURCE" WHEN THEY
PUBLISHED A SIMILAR STATEMENT..SYLVIA P.S. IF YOU WANT FURTHER INFO GO
TO GOOGLE GET THE U.N. SITE, AND GO TO THE "ROMAN STATUTES". I HAVEN'T
CHECKED THIS SITE SINCE MAY OF LAST YEAR...ALSO...SEE THE SECTIONS I
HAVE UNDERLINED, I.E. EVEN IF BUSH REFUSED TO SIGN ON TO THE
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT "WE, AMERICANS CAN FILE OR A COMPLAINT,
OOORRRR THE IRAQIS' CAN, WHICH IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS HAPPENING RIGHT
NOW. SYLVIA P.S. IT ALSO PAYS TO READ THE "REAL SOURCE" AND NOT MERE
"UNSUPPORTED STATEMENTS", LIKE ....FROM THIS LYING, SELF-SERVING
FASCIST REGINE.
--------
sylviasu...@hotmail.com MSN Home | My MSN | Hotmail
| To :
m...@truthout.org, willia...@truthout.org
Subject :
ARTICLE WRONG: BUSH COULD BE HELD FOR WAR CRIMES UNDER ICC
Date :
Sun, 25 May 2003 17:56:43 -0700
TO: MARC AND WILLIAM
THE BELOW ARTICLE QUOTES "THE ATTORNEY" FOR THESE PLAINTIFF'S NOT
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND HE IS "WRONG", SO GOES "BRILLANT
ATTORNEYS".
THE REPORTER DIDN'T BOTHER "CHECKING THE FACTS". I HAVE PASTED A
"QUESTION AND ANSWER PAGE FROM "THE UN'S INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
ITSELF". PLEASE NOTE UNDER NUMBERS #12 AND 15, I.E. STATE'S "WHO ARE
"NOT PARTIES TO THE ICC" (WHICH BUSH REFUSED TO SIGN ON TO) CAN
DEFINITELY BE HELD FOR WAR CRIMES.
IF YOU GO TO THE UN HOME PAGE AND CLICK ON TO THE "ROME STATUTES",
WHICH ARE THE LAWS THAT THE ICC WORK UNDER, YOU WILL AGAIN SEE THAT
BUSH & CO CAN BE PROSECUTED EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE "NOT A MEMBER STATE
TO THE ICC". PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ICC'S LAWS "MIRROR INTERNATIONAL
LAW" AND ALSO INVOLVES THE UNITED NATIONS, "WHICH THE U.S. "IS A
MEMBER" AND VOWED TO OBEY IT'S CHARTER, WHICH BUSH CLEARLY VIOLATED BY
"REFUSING TO ALLOW THE UN INSPECTORS "DO THE JOB THAT THE ENTIRE
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY MANDATED TO BE DONE.
INSTEAD, BUSH KICKED OUT THE UN INSPECTORS AND BOMBED THE HELL OUT OF
IRAQ, WHICH WAS UNJUSTIFIED, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT PROVOCATION, I.E.
"VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW" AND THE UN CHARTER, ALL OF WHICH IS
ADDRESSED AS "A WAR CRIME AND PROSECUTABLE UNDER THE NEW INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT.
FINALLY, THE ARTICLES THAT I SENT YOU RE TOMMY FRANKS, DEALS WITH
"ANOTHER INTERNATIONAL COURT, I.E. THE ONE IN BELGRADE", WHICH IS "NOT
THE UN'S INTERNATIONAL.C RIMINAL COURT, SO THERE ARE ACTUALLY "TWO
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS" BY WHICH GEN. TOMMY FRANK AND BUSH &
CO. COULD BE INDICTED AND PROSECUTED, WHICH IS WHY I SENT YOU THE
ARTICLE FROM THE "ORGANZATION, ICCNOW.ORG WHICH REVEALS BUSH'S ATTEMPT
TO BRIBE AND INTIMIDATE "OTHER NATIONS TO SIGN IMMUNITY AGREEMENTS
(ARTICLE 98) THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAND OVER OR FILE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS
AGAINST BUSH & CO. KNOWING FULL WELL "THAT THEY HAD FULL INTENTIONS OF
COMMITTING "WAR CRIMES" BY INVADING IRAQ AND TAKING OVER IT'S OIL.
CLEARLY BUSH & CO. IS "RIPE FOR INDICTMENTS OF WAR CRIMES" AND THE
PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THIS SO THEY COULD SUPPORT AND PROMOTE THESE
CHARGES TO BE FILED AGAINST THEM. I HOPE YOU FELLOWS WILL NOW MAKE
THIS INFORMATION KNOW. THANKS, SYLVIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Print This Story E-mail This Stor
Go to Original
Blair Faces War Crimes Suit
BBC News
Friday 23 May 2003
We have received more than 200 communications from different parts of
the world ICC spokeswoman
Greek lawyers say they are going to sue British officials - including
Prime Minister Tony Blair - for their role in the Iraq war.
The Athens Bar Association says it will file a suit against Britain at
the International Criminal Court - the recently created tribunal for
cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
The lawyers call the attacks by the United States and British forces
against Iraq "crimes against humanity and war crimes".
They have listed a number of international treaties they say the two
countries have violated.
These include the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the
Hague Convention and the International Criminal Court's statute.
Dimitris Paxinos, the head of the lawyers' association, told the BBC
the lawsuit will be filed within a fortnight.
He said American officials could not be prosecuted as the US is not a
signatory to the ICC's founding treaty.
Eighty-nine countries signed up to the treaty creating the court,
which was formally inaugurated in March in The Hague.
Mr Paxinos, who was elected by a conservative majority, says he is
confident that the evidence compiled by the lawyers is strong, adding
that the case would be a test of the ICC's credibility.
Anti-war Greeks
The ICC is not working yet. Last month it appointed an Argentine
lawyer, Luis Moreno Ocampo, to be its first prosecutor.
A spokeswoman for the court told BBC News Online that only after Mr
Ocampo was sworn in on 16 June would the court consider the Greek
lawyers' case.
"We have received more than 200 communications from different parts of
the world," she said.
The British Prime Minister's office has declined to comment on the
announcement.
According to the BBC's Panos Polyzoidis in Athens, the move is also
unlikely to go down well with the Greek Government as it will act as a
reminder of the Greek public's strong anti-war feeling, which cuts
across party lines.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.)
Print This Story E-mail This Story
© : t r u t h o u t 2003
| t r u t h o u t | forum | issues | editorial | letters | donate |
contact |
| voting rights | environment | budget | children | politics |
indigenous survival | energy |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Some
Questions and Answers:
(GO TO U.N. WEB SITE-INTERNATIONAL COURT LINK)
On 17 July 1998 in Rome, 160 nations decided to establish a permanent
International Criminal Court to try individuals for the most serious
offences of global concern, such as genocide, war crimes and crimes
against humanity.
Many felt the agreement was no less important than the adoption of the
United Nations Charter itself and it was hailed by United Nations
Secretary-General Kofi Annan as "a giant step forward in the march
towards universal human rights and the rule of law."
1. Why do we need another international court? Why not use the
International Court of Justice?
This century has seen the worst violence in the history of humankind.
In the past fifty years more than 250 conflicts have erupted around
the world; more than 86 million civilians, mostly women and children,
have died; and over 170 million people were stripped of their rights,
their property and their dignity. Most of these victims have been
simply forgotten and few perpetrators have been brought to justice.
In spite of rules and laws defining and forbidding war crimes, crimes
against humanity and genocide, along with various treaties and
conventions, protocols and codicils banning everything from poison gas
to chemical weapons, what has been lacking up to now, has been any
system for enforcing these norms and for holding individual violators
criminally responsible.
The United Nations General Assembly first recognized the need for a
permanent mechanism to prosecute mass murderers and war criminals in
1948, following the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after World War II, and
it has been under discussion at the UN ever since. Until now, however,
attempts to create such a mechanism have been unsuccessful despite the
need for a permanent criminal court to prosecute and punish those
individuals committing the most serious crimes.
The International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of
the United Nations, was designed to deal primarily with disputes
between States. It has no jurisdiction over matters involving
individual criminal responsibility.
2. How will the Court be different from the ad hoc Tribunals for the
Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda?
The two ad hoc Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda were
created by the UN Security Council to deal with specific situations
after egregious crimes had been committed. The jurisdiction of these
Tribunals is limited to the time and the territories concerned. They
were not intended to address violations that occurred elsewhere or to
prevent violations in the future.
The International Criminal Court -- to be headquartered at The Hague,
the Netherlands -- will be a permanent institution not constrained by
these time and place limitations. It will be able to act more quickly
than if an ad hoc tribunal had to be established. As a permanent
entity its very existence will be a deterrent, sending a strong
warning message to would-be perpetrators. It will also encourage
States to investigate and prosecute egregious crimes committed in
their territories or by their nationals, for if they do not, the
International Criminal Court will be there to exercise its
jurisdiction.
3. How strong is the support for the creation of an International
Criminal Court?
One hundred and sixty States participated in the United Nations
Diplomatic Conference (held in Rome from 15 June to 17 July 1998)
which adopted the Statute establishing the International Criminal
Court.
Hundreds of representatives of non-governmental organizations
contributed to this process. Fifty-five States, from all regions of
the world, have already signed the Statute. Many States were unable to
sign immediately due to constitutional requirements such as the need
for prior approval by parliament, but are expected to sign in the near
future. The vast majority of States that sign are expected to ratify.
Sixty States need to ratify the Statute for the Court to come into
existence.
The draft text submitted to the Diplomatic Conference was full of
competing options and had over 1400 brackets indicating disagreement
on the text. Through working groups, informal negotiations and open
debates, a very delicately balanced text emerged; a generally agreed
solution was found for the many politically sensitive and legally
complex issues. The Statute and the Final Act were put forward as a
complete "package" for adoption. This package was the product of
intense negotiations and judicious compromises designed to reach
widespread agreement.
India and the United States tried to amend the package. In each case,
a "no-action motion" -- a procedural device for not considering these
amendments -- was adopted by an overwhelming majority. For the
no-action motion to stop the Indian amendment, the vote was 114 to 16,
with 20 abstentions;
to stop the United States amendment, the vote was 113 to 17, with 25
abstentions.
The package was thus maintained and then agreed in its entirety by a
vote of 120 in favour, 7 against with 21 abstentions.
4. Why did some States vote against the Statute?
Seven States voted against the Statute in an unrecorded vote so the
names of the countries voting were not recorded. Three States --
China, USA and Israel -- stated their reasons for voting against.China
thought that the power given to the pre-trial Chamber to check the
Prosecutor's initiative was not sufficient and that the adoption of
the Statute should have been by consensus, not by a vote.
The United States' principal objection was over the concept of
jurisdiction and its application over non-State parties. It also
stated that the Statute must recognize the role of the Security
Council in determining an act of aggression.
Israel said that it failed to comprehend why the action of
transferring populations into an occupied territory was included in
the list of war crimes.
5. What crimes will the Court deal with?
The Court will deal with the most serious crimes committed by
individuals: genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
These crimes are specified in the Statute and are carefully defined to
avoid ambiguity or vagueness.
Crimes of aggression will also be dealt with by the Court when States
Parties have agreed on the definition, elements and conditions under
which the Court will exercise jurisdiction.
Genocide covers those specifically listed prohibited acts (e.g.
killing, causing serious harm) committed with intent to destroy, in
whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
Crimes against humanity cover those specifically listed prohibited
acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack
directed against any civilian population. Such acts include murder,
extermination, rape, sexual slavery, the enforced disappearance of
persons and the crime of apartheid.
Genocide and crimes against humanity are punishable irrespective of
whether they are committed in time of peace or of war.
War crimes cover grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and
other serious violations, as listed in the Statute, committed on a
large scale in international armed conflicts.
In the past 50 years, the most serious violations of human rights have
occurred, not in international conflicts, but within States.
Therefore, the Court's Statute incorporates contemporary international
humanitarian law standards that criminalize, as war crimes, serious
violations committed in internal armed conflicts, excluding internal
disturbances or riots.
The definitions of the crimes in the Statute are the product of years
of hard work involving many delegations and their experts.
Each definition is precisely formulated to reflect existing
international law and is crafted to meet the requirement of clarity in
criminal justice. The Judges of the Court are required to strictly
construe the definitions and are not to extend them by analogy. The
aim is to establish objective international standards, leaving no room
for arbitrary decisions. In cases of ambiguity, the definitions are to
be interpreted in favour of the suspect or accused.
6. What about the crime of aggression?
-----------------------------------------
Support was widespread from both States and the NGO community at the
Rome Conference for the inclusion of aggression as a crime. However,
there was not time to reach a definition of aggression that was
acceptable to all. As a result, the Statute provides that the Court
may not exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until
agreement is reached by States Parties at a Review Conference on the
definition, elements, and conditions under which the Court shall
exercise jurisdiction with respect to aggression.
Under the United Nations Charter, the Security Council has exclusive
competence to determine whether an act of aggression has been
committed. It is provided in the Statute that the final text on the
crime of aggression must be consistent with the relevant provisions of
the UN Charter.
7. Will the Court prosecute sexual crimes?
Yes. The Statute includes crimes of sexual violence such as rape,
sexual slavery, enforced prostitution and forced pregnancy as crimes
against humanity when they are committed as part of a widespread or
systematic attack directed against any civilian population. They are
also war crimes when committed in either international or internal
armed conflict.
In Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, rape and gender-based violence
were widely used as weapons to inflict terror and to humiliate and
degrade the women of a particular ethnic group as well as the entire
community to which they belonged. In prosecuting cases of rape and
other gender-based violations, the ad hoc Tribunals found that victims
were often afraid to come forward with their stories and even feared
being victimized by the process.
To help victims and witnesses face the judicial process, the
International Criminal Court will have a Victims and Witnesses Unit to
provide protective measures and security arrangements, counselling and
other assistance for witnesses and victims, while fully respecting the
rights of the accused. The Court must also take appropriate measures
to protect the privacy, the dignity, the physical and psychological
well-being and the security of victims and witnesses, especially when
the crimes involve sexual or gender violence.
8. Will victims be entitled to compensation?
The Court will establish principles for reparations to victims,
including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. The Court is
empowered to determine the scope and extent of any damage, loss and
injury to victims, and to order a convicted person to make specific
reparation. A Trust Fund may be established for the benefit of victims
and their families. Sources for the Fund will include money and other
property collected through fines and forfeiture imposed by the Court.
9. Will the court prosecute terrorist activities and drug trafficking
which are the most important crimes committed in many parts of the
world?
States could not agree on a definition of terrorism at the Rome
Conference. Some States considered that the prosecution of drug crimes
involved problems of investigation which would strain the resources of
the Court. Many others, however, argued that such prevalent and
subversive crimes should not escape the Court's jurisdiction. In
response to this concern, a resolution adopted at the Rome Conference
recommends that the Review Conference consider the inclusion of such
crimes in the Court's jurisdiction. The Court will thus be able to
exercise its jurisdiction over the crimes of terrorism and drug
trafficking when they are so included by the Review Conference.
10. Can high-level government officials or military commanders be
prosecuted by
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Court?
---------
Yes. Criminal responsibility will be applied equally to all persons
without distinction as to whether he or she is a Head of State or
government, a member of a government or parliament, an elected
representative or a government official. Nor may such official
capacity constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.
The fact that a crime has been committed by a person on the orders of
a superior does not normally relieve that person of criminal
responsibility.
A military commander is criminally responsible for crimes committed by
forces under his/her command and control. Criminal responsibility also
arises if the military commander knew or should have known that the
forces were committing or were about to commit such crimes, but
nevertheless failed to prevent or repress their commission.
11. Will the Court be able to impose the death penalty? Isn't that the
most effective deterrent?
Consistent with international human rights standards, the
International Criminal Court has no competence to impose a death
penalty. The Court can impose lengthy terms of imprisonment of up to
30 years or life when so justified by the gravity of the case. The
Court may, in addition, order a fine, forfeiture of proceeds, property
or assets derived from the committed crime.
Deterrence is not just effected by the death penalty. Deterrence is
brought about by the entire criminal justice process from
investigation, followed by prosecution, trial, delivery of the
judgement, sentencing and punishment. The publicity associated with a
trial will have an additional deterrent effect.
12. When will the Court have jurisdiction over crimes?
------------------------------------------------------
A State must first consent to become a party to the Statute by
ratifying or acceding to it.
Once it is a party, it accepts the Court's jurisdiction.
This automatic jurisdiction represents a major advance in
international law because in the past, the acceptance of jurisdiction
has, in most cases, been subject to additional State consent.
In the case of war crimes, a State may withdraw its consent for seven
years.
However, this does not affect the Court's jurisdiction when it is
conferred by
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Security Council (see question 15).
--------------------
The Court's jurisdiction will not be retroactive. It can only address
crimes committed after the entry into force of the Statute and the
establishment of the court.
The Court may exercise its jurisdiction over a specific case when
either the State in whose territory the crime was committed, or the
State of the nationality of the accused, is a party to the Statute.
Non-party States may also accept the Court's jurisdiction on a
case-by-case basis.
The Court will also have jurisdiction over cases referred to it by the
Security
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Council whether or not the State concerned is a party to the Statute
(see
-------------------------------------------------------------------
question 15).
13. Will the International Criminal Court infringe on the jurisdiction
of national courts?
No. The International Criminal Court will not supersede, but will
complement national jurisdiction. National courts will continue to
have priority in investigating and prosecuting crimes within their
jurisdiction.
Under the principle of complementarity, the International Criminal
Court will
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
act only when national courts are unable or unwilling to exercise
jurisdiction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a national court is willing and able to exercise jurisdiction, the
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Criminal Court cannot intervene and no nationals of that
State can be brought before it except in cases referred to it by the
United Nations
-----------------------------------------------------
Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
------------------------------------------------------------
The grounds for admitting a case to the Court are specified in the
Statute and the circumstances that govern inability and unwillingness
are carefully defined so as to avoid arbitrary decisions.
In addition, the accused and interested States, whether or not
parties to the Statute, may challenge the jurisdiction of the Court or
admissibility of the case. They also have a right to appeal any
related decision.
14. Will the Court violate international law by having jurisdiction
over members of national forces or of peacekeeping missions? Won't
this make States unwilling to participate in peacekeeping operations?
No. Under existing international law, the State in whose territory
genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity have been committed,
or whose nationals are victims of such crimes, has the right to and is
legally obligated to investigate and prosecute persons accused of
committing such crimes.
The Court's Statute does not violate any principle of treaty law and
has not created any entitlements or legal obligations not already
existing under international law. The cooperation of a non-party State
is purely voluntary and no legal obligation is imposed on a non-party
State.
The Court's Statute provides special protection for peacekeepers by
prohibiting intentional attacks against personnel, installations,
material units or vehicles involved in humanitarian assistance or
peacekeeping missions. Such violations constitute war crimes and,
under certain circumstances, also crimes against humanity. In
addition, the Statute does not affect existing arrangements, for
example, with respect to UN peacekeeping missions, since the
troop-contributing countries continue to retain criminal jurisdiction
over their members of such missions.
15. What role will the UN Security Council have in the Court's work?
The work of the Security Council and the International Criminal Court
will complement each other.
The Court's Statute recognizes the role of the Security Council in the
maintenance of international peace and security under the UN Charter
by accepting that the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of
the UN Charter, may refer a "situation" to the Court when one or more
of the crimes covered by the Statute appears to have been committed.
This would provide a basis for the Prosecutor to initiate an
investigation.
Since the referral of a situation by the Security Council is based on
its competence under Chapter VII which is binding and legally
enforceable in all States, the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction
becomes part of the enforcement measures.
It's jurisdiction becomes binding even when neither the State in whose
territory crimes have been committed nor the State of nationality of
the accused is a party. In those instances, the International Criminal
Court, through investigation and prosecution, helps the Security
Council in maintaining peace. This jurisdiction, resulting from a
Security Council referral, enhances the role of the Court in enforcing
international criminal law. At the same time, the Court's jurisdiction
is expanded to cover even non-party States, in these instances.
The Security Council may request that the Court defer an investigation
or prosecution for a renewable period of 12 months when it is
exercising its Chapter VII peace-making or enforcement powers. This
deferral is to ensure that the Security Council's peace-making efforts
will not be hindered by the Court's investigation or prosecution.
16. How independent will the Prosecutor be?
An independent Prosecutor, with the power to initiate investigations
when sufficient evidence points to serious violations, was widely
supported during negotiations at the Rome Conference. While the
Prosecutor may initiate such investigations, detailed provisions are
included in the Statute to ensure proper checks and balances with
respect to this power. In the first place, the Prosecuter must defer
to States willing and able to pursue their own investigation. Before
initiating an investigation, the Prosecutor is required to submit all
supporting materials collected and to obtain permission from the
Pre-Trial Chamber, composed of three judges. The suspect and the
States concerned also have the right to challenge at the investigative
stage action taken by the Prosecutor. States and the accused can also
challenge the jurisdiction of the Court or the admissibility of the
case at the trial stage. These measures provide ample opportunity to
ensure that the case is substantial and deserves investigation and
prosecution by the Court.
The Prosecutor will be elected by secret ballot by the States Parties
and must meet stringent qualifications: she or he must possess the
highest moral character, competence and experience in the prosecution
or trial of criminal cases. The Prosecutor will not be allowed to
participate in any case in which his or her impartiality may be
doubted. Any question concerning disqualification will be decided by
the Court's Appeals Chamber. The Assembly of States Parties has the
power to remove the Prosecutor if he or she is found to have committed
serious misconduct or a serious breach of duties.
17. What guarantee is there that suspects will receive due process and
a fair trial?
The Court's Statute creates a true international criminal justice
system. It will provide impartial and qualified judges, due process
and fair trials to individuals accused of crimes falling within the
jurisdiction of the Court. The Statute recognizes a full range of
rights of the accused, and even extends the standards embodied in
major international human rights instruments.
There are some particular advantages to the Statute. One is the
screening mechanisms by the investigative and prosecutorial organ and
the judicial organ of the Court, which are designed to protect
innocent individuals from frivolous, vexatious or politically
motivated criminal investigations or prosecutions. In addition, the
persons who are entrusted with making decisions relating to the
initiation of a criminal investigation or trial must possess the
highest qualifications of competence, independence and impartiality.
Every individual will be entitled to the highest international
standards and guarantees of due process and fair trial.
In addition, the Statute also contains elaborate provisions (over 60
articles) on criminal law principles, investigation, prosecution,
trial, cooperation and judicial assistance and enforcement. These
provisions required the harmonization of divergent and sometimes
diametrically opposed national criminal laws and procedures. It is an
important achievement that agreement was reached on these highly
technical matters. As the product is a truly international criminal
justice system, it provides the highest standard of protection for
individuals before the Court.
18. What guarantee is there that judges will be qualified and
impartial? What safeguards are included to prevent outside political
influence on the Court?
Judges must possess the highest professional competence and must be
chosen from among persons of high moral character, impartiality and
integrity who possess the qualifications required in their respective
States for appointment to the highest judicial offices. They must also
be independent in the performance of their functions, and cannot
engage in any activity that is likely to interfere with their judicial
functions or to affect confidence in their independence.
The Court will have 18 judges with competence in criminal law and
procedure, and the necessary relevant experience in criminal
proceedings. In addition, judges will have competence in relevant
areas of international law such as international humanitarian law and
human rights law. To ensure that the composition will be truly
balanced and international, their election must take into account the
need to represent the principal legal systems of the world, equitable
geographical representation, a fair representation of female and male
judges, and expertise on violence against women or children. No two
judges may be nationals of the same State and judges may only serve
one nine-year term. They will be elected by secret ballot, by the
highest number of votes but no less than two-thirds of the States
Parties present and voting.
A judge may be removed from office if he or she is found to have
committed serious misconduct or a serious breach of his or her duties.
All these safeguards are intended to ensure independence, integrity
and competence and to prevent outside political influence.
19. To whom is the Court accountable? And how will this affect its
independence?
The States Parties oversee the work of the Court and will provide
management oversight regarding the administration of the Court to the
President, the Prosecutor and the Registrar, decide on the budget for
the Court, decide whether to alter the number of judges, and consider
any questions relating to non-cooperation. The States Parties cannot
interfere with the judicial functions of the Court. Any disputes
concerning the Court's judicial functions are to be settled by a
decision of the Court itself.
20. What are a State Party's obligations under the Statute?
States party to the Statute are required to assist and cooperate fully
with the Court in all stages of its work and to respect international
standards regarding the rights of victims, suspects and accused in
investigations, prosecutions and trials. If a State Party refuses to
comply with a request to cooperate, the Assembly of States Parties or
the Security Council may review the matter.
21. What contribution did Non-Governmental Organizations make to the
establishment of the Court?
A large coalition of NGOs has been involved since 1995 in the process
of establishing the Court. They developed close working relations with
delegations, organized briefings for the Conference participants and
published pamphlets, reports and papers on various topics of special
interest. They provided a substantive contribution to the work of the
Conference and a momentum to its successful negotiations. It is
expected that many will be active in the campaign to get the Statute
ratified by as many States as possible.
22. What must still be done before the Court comes into operation?
A Preparatory Commission will begin work in early 1999 to prepare
proposals for practical arrangements for the entry into force of the
Statute -- once it is ratified by 60 States -- and for the
establishment of the Court. The Commission will take up such matters
as elements of crimes, rules of procedure and evidence, and rules of
the Court. All these are critical to the manner in which the Statute
will actually be applied and implemented. The Commission will also be
involved in making arrangements for the physical establishment of the
Court. Participation in the Preparatory Commission is open to all
States even those that have not signed the Statute. The
Secretary-General is requested to provide to the Commission such
necessary resources as it may require, subject to the approval of the
General Assembly.
Published by the United Nations Department of Public Information
DPI/2016--October 1998
Copyright (c) United Nations 1998-1999
All rights reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
save-our-democracy
WHICH INCLUDE "MURDER AND RAPE" OF IRAQI PRISONERS, AND ON FRIDAY, MAY
7, 2004, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, DONALD RUMFELD, TESTIFIES UNDER OATH
AND ADMITS "THAT HE IS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALL OF THESE ACTS",
AND THEN OVER THE PROTESTS OF SOME REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT CONGRESS
PEOPLE DEMANDING "IMMEDIATE TERMINATION OR IMPEACHMENT OF RUMSFELD,
PRESIDENT BUSH STATES "HE SUPPORTS RUMSFELD AND WILL NOT FIRE HIM",
WHILE VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY HAS STATED PUBLICLY: "RUMSFELD IS THE
BEST SECRETARY OF DEFENSE THE U.S.A. HAS HAD AND HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED
"TO CONTINUE TO DO HIS WORK"....THE REST OF THE WORLD NEEDS NO FURTHER
PROOF, THAT THE U.S. IS BEING GOVERNED BY "WAR CRIMINALS".
YOU WILL NOTE THAT "DONALD RUMSFELD" HAS BEEN BEHIND ALL OF THESE "WAR
CRIMES" YET IS CLEARLY BEING "PROTECTED BY THIS PRESIDENT AND VICE
PRESIDENT". THE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT BUSH, WHILE GOVERNOR OF TEXAS,
RANKED NUMBER ONE IN PUTTING TO DEATH MORE PEOPLE IN "HIS PRISONS"
THEN ANY OTHER GOVERNOR OR STATE. BUSH HAS MADE IT QUITE CLEAR THAT HE
DEMANDS "THE EXECUTION OF PRISONERS" KNOWING THAT THE AMERICAN
JUDICIAL SYSTEM "FAILS" AND HAS CAUSED THE ILLEGAL MURDER OF INNOCENT
PEOPLE, AS WELL AS LIFE SENTENCES FOR OTHERS.
BUSH, LIKE MANY DICTATORS, INCLUDING SADDAM HUSSEIM, CONSIDERS "THESE
MURDERS AND USE OF TORTURE AGAINST THE PEOPLE, IS "MANLY, MACHO, AND
THE MARKS OF A TRUE LEADER", WHEN IN FACT, THEY JUST PROVE THAT "THESE
ACTS ARE THE "MARKS OF TRUE CERTIFIABLE LUNATIC DICTATORS WHO WILL GO
TO ALL LENGTHS "TO INSTILL FEAR AND PERSECUTION" AS A METHOD TO
"CONTROL THE PEOPLE".
AMERICANS HAVE TO BE TOTALLY STUPID TO BELIEVE THAT A LUNATIC DICTATOR
WHO COOKS UP A SCHEME TO "ILLEGALLY INVADE AND KILL PEOPLE IN OTHER
COUNTRIES, "IS IN AMERICA'S BEST INTEREST" AND THAT A "WAR" PRESIDENT
WHO VOWS TO CONTINUE THIS, IS "JUST WHAT AMERICAN NEEDS", YET ALL YOU
HAVE TO DO IS LISTEN TO THE CALLERS ON C-SPAN AND YOU HEAR THEM DOING
EXACTLY THAT.
THESE SO-CALLED "AMERICANS", MOST OF WHOM ARE FROM THE SOUTH, BASED ON
THEIR ACCENTS, AND THE MOST RECENT POLLS RE "APPROVAL OF BUSH",
ALTHOUGH SLOWLY COMING DOWN, DOES "NOT SHOW ANY DRAMATIC DECREASE IN
APPROVAL", NOW GIVES THE REST OF THE WORLD THE "PROOF THEY NEED TO
FEEL THAT "THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS SUPPORT THESE "HORRENDOUS WAR
CRIMES" AND THEY WILL CONTINUE SINCE THE "TOP OFFICIALS WILL REMAIN IN
THEIR POSITIONS AND "NOT HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE".
IT IS MY FIRM BELIEF THAT IF BUSH IS RE-ELECTED IN NOVEMBER, JUST 6
MONTHS FROM NOW...THE U.S.A. WILL BE UNDER "MASSIVE ATTACK", INCLUDING
POSSIBLE NUCLEAR ATTACK, WHICH OUR SO-CALLED "DEFENSE SYSTEM" CANNOT
STOP. AND, IT IS THE VERY REASON THAT BUSH AND HIS HENCHMEN HAVE SET
UP THEIR "SHADOW GOVERNMENT", SECRET BUNKERS WHERE THEY WILL HIDE
UNTIL THE RADIATION IS LOW ENOUGH FOR THEM TO SURFACE. IT ALSO
EXPLAINS THE IMMEDIATE BUILDING OF A MASSIVE MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEM IN
ALASKA, WHICH OF COURSE WILL BE USELESS, BUT WILL MAKE ALASKA A NUMBER
TARGET, I.E. BY SETTING UP ALASKA AS THE NUMBER ONE TARGET, AND THAT
STATE ONLY HAVING 650,000 PEOPLE, TO ACT AS GUINEA PIGS, BUSH & CO.
CAN ASSESS HOW POWERFUL THE NUKE WEAPONS ARE AND THEIR RANGE, WHILE
RUNNING LIKE HELL TO THEIR SAFE BUNKERS.
IRONIC ISN'T IT...THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF POST THAT THE A.C.A.
DICTATOR, DENNIS HARRIS DOESN'T WANT ALASKANS TO READ, I.E. HARRIS
WANTS ALL ALASKANS TO BE AS STUPID AS HE IS, OR PERHAPS HARRIS HAS A
"DEATH-WISH", WHICH EVERYONE COULD UNDERSTAND SINCE HE IS OBVIOUSLY
HAS "NO FRIENDS" NOR "ANY REASON TO LIVE"
AND USES THE MAJORITY OF HIS TIME TO TRY TO INSTILL FURTHER FEAR AND
INTIMIDATION HERE, JUST LIKE THE FASCISTS BUSH & CO HAS DONE TO ALL
AMERICANS.
MOST AMERICANS HAVE "NO IDEA" OF WHAT BUSH AND HIS HENCMEN HAVE
PLANNED AND ACTUALLY DONE IN THE TWO SO-CALLED "WARS ON TERROR".
THESE "ACTS" NOT ONLY VIOLATE "INTERNATIONAL LAWS", BUT CLEARLY
"PROVE" THEY ARE "WAR CRIMES" AND THE U.S. CAN JUSTIFIABLY BE
CONSIDERED "THE REAL TERRORIST" BY THE REST OF THE WORLD.
REMEMBER AMERICANS...."THESE WAR CRIMES ARE BEING ACCOMPLISHED "IN
YOUR NAME", JUST AS THE TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE STATES, I.E. "US
PREPARES", NOT "BUSH PREPARES". BUSH AND HIS ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN
"PROUDLY BOASTING THAT "HE IS THE "WAR PRESIDENT"...NOT "THE PEACE
PRESIDENT". WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?
BUSH & CO. HAS LAID OUT THEIR PLAN OF "INVASION, MURDER, AND ROBBERY"
UNDER THE GUISE OF "WAR ON TERRORISM" AND YOU ARE "ALL PERSONALLY
INVOLVED AND BEING DRAGGED INTO IT, "BECAUSE YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO
DEMAND THAT CONGRESS IMMEDIATELY IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT FOR THE "HIGH
CRIMES" HE HAS AND WILL CONTINUE TO COMMIT...."IN YOUR NAME".
I AM GOING TO POST JUST SOME OF THE BLATANTLY ILLEGAL ACTS THAT HAVE
BEEN GOING ON THAT ARE "ACTUAL TRUE WAR CRIMES" AND PERHAPS "YOU" CAN
TELL ME/US "WHY AMERICANS AND ESPECIALLY CONGRESS, HAS ALLOWED BUSH TO
SPIT IN THE FACES OF THE REST OF THE WORLD, FOR THE PAST 3 1/2 YEARS,
KNOWING THAT HE IS VIOLATING THESE INTERNALTIONAL LAWS, AND
THEN BUSH & CO. HAS THE BALLS TO "ACCUSE OTHER COUNTRIES OF BEING
"TERRORISTS AND "NOT ABIDING BY "THE RULE OF LAW", I.E. EVERY SINGLE
CLAIM OF TERRORISM THAT HAS BEEN SPEWED BY BUSH & CO. IS BEING DONE BY
THE U.S. MILITARY, CIA, AND U.S. MERCENARIES, HIRED BY THE CIA, AND
AMERICANS ARE "NOT BEING TOLD ABOUT THIS, VIA THE AMERICAN MEDIA, NOR
CONGRESS, YET CONGRESS KNOWS ALL ABOUT THEM AND IS FRAUDULENTLY
CLAIMING "IGNORANCE".
WE, AMERICANS ARE IN DEEP TROUBLE BECAUSE WE HAVE "DONE NOTHING OR
SAID ANYTHING, TO STOP THIS WORLD-WIDE SAVAGERY OF OTHER NATIONS AND
THEIR PEOPLE. TIME HAS NOW RUN OUT AND IF I AM AGAIN RIGHT, WE ALL
HAVE JUST 6 MONTHS TO MAKE THE WORLD KNOW THAT "WE WILL NOT TOLERATE
THESE LUNATICS CONTROLLING OUR NATION. WHERE WILL YOU BE IN 6 MONTHS?
I DOUBT THAT YOU HAVE YOUR OWN PRIVATELY WELL BUILT AND STOCKED
BUNKER, BUT OF COURSE, YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO. SYLVIA
--------
MARCH 2, 2003-US PREPARES TO USE TOXIC GASES IN IRAQ
----------------------------------------------------
US prepares to use toxic gases in Iraq
By Geoffrey Lean and Severin Carrell
02 March 2003
The US is preparing to use the toxic riot-control agents CS gas and
pepper spray in Iraq in contravention of the Chemical Weapons
Convention, provoking
---------------------------------------------------
the first split in the Anglo-US alliance.
"Calmative" gases, similar to the one that killed 120 hostages in the
Moscow
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
theatre siege last year, could also be employed.
The convention bans the use of these toxic agents in battle, not least
because
-----------------------------------------------------------
they risk causing an escalation to full chemical warfare.
This applies even though they can be used in civil disturbances at
home:
both CS gas and pepper spray are available for use by UK police
forces.
The US Marine Corps confirmed last week that both had already been
shipped to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Gulf.
---------
It is British policy not to allow troops to take part in operations
where riot control agents are employed.
But the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has asked President
Bush to
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
authorise their use.
-------------------
Mr Bush, who has often spoken of "smoking out" the enemy, is
understood to have agreed.
Internal Pentagon documents also show that the US is developing a
range of
---------------------------
calmative gases, also banned for battlefield use.
Senior US defence sources predict these could be used in Iraq by elite
special forces units to take out command and control bunkers deep
underground.
Rear Admiral Stephen Baker, a Navy commander in the last Gulf War who
is now senior adviser to the Centre for Defence Information in
Washington, told The Independent on Sunday that US special forces had
knock-out gases that can "neutralise" people.
-----------------------
He added: "I would think that if they get a chance to use them, they
will."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pentagon said last week that the decision to use riot control
agents "is made by the commander in the field".
Mr Rumsfeld became the first senior figure on either side of the
impending
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
conflict to announce his wish to use chemical agents in a
little-noticed comment to the House of Representatives Armed Services
Committee on 5 February
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003;
the same day as Colin Powell's presentation of intelligence about
Iraq's
------------------------------------------------------------------------
weapons of mass destruction to the UN.
--------------------------------------
The Defence Secretary attacked the "straitjacket" imposed by bans in
international treaties on using the weapons in warfare.
He specified that they could be used "where there are enemy troops in
a cave [and] you know there are women and children in there with
them".
General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke
of using them against human shields.
The revelations leave the Bush administration open to charges of
double standards at a time when it is making Iraq's suspected arsenal
of chemical and biological weapons the casus belli.
Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats, said last night:
"This all adds to the confusion over how the war will be conducted. If
the argument with Saddam Hussein is over disarming him of weapons of
mass destruction, it is perverse of the US to push the boundaries of
international chemical warfare conventions in order to subdue him."
Leading experts and Whitehall officials fear that using even pepper
spray and CS gas would destroy the credibility of the Chemical Weapons
Convention, provoke Iraqi chemical retaliation and set a disastrous
legal precedent.
Professor Julian Perry Robinson, one of the world's foremost
authorities on the convention, said:
"Legally speaking, Iraq would be totally justified in releasing
chemical
------------------------------------------------------------------------
weapons over the UK if the alliance uses them in Baghdad.
--------------------------------------------------------
"When the war is over and these things have been used they will have
been legitimised as a tool of war, and the principle of toxic weapons
being banned will have gone.
The difference between these weapons and nerve gas is simply one of
structural chemistry."
The Ministry of Defence has warned the US that it will not allow
British troops to be involved in operations where riot control agents
are used, or to transport them to the battlefield, but Britain is even
more concerned about the calmatives.
This is shown by documents obtained by the Texas-based Sunshine
Project under the US Freedom of Information Act. These reveal that the
US is developing calmatives – including sedatives such as the
benzodiazapines, diazepam, dexmeditomide and new drugs that affect the
nervous system – even though it accepts that "the convention
would prohibit the development of any chemically based agent that
would even temporarily incapacitate a human being".
A special working group of the Federation of American Scientists
concluded last month that using even the mildest of these weapons to
incapacitate people would kill 9 per cent of them.
------------------------
It added: "Chemical incapacitating weapons are as likely as bullets to
cause death."
The use of chemical weapons by US forces was explicitly banned by
President
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Ford in 1975 after CS gas had been repeatedly used in Vietnam
to smoke
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
out enemy soldiers and then kill them as they ran away.
-------------------------------------------------------
Britain would be in a particularly sensitive position if the US used
the weapons as it drafted the convention and is still seen
internationally as its most important guardian.
The Foreign Office said: "All states parties to the Chemical Weapons
Convention have undertaken not to use any toxic chemical or its
precursor, including riot-control agents. This applies in any armed
conflict."
----------------------------------
9 May 2004 13:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal | Contact us | Using our Content | Advertise in print |
Subscribe to the print edition |
Sign up for our free daily news update | Other Digital sites
© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
save-our-democracy
"THE BUSH & CO PLAN" FOR WORLD DOMINATION-IS RIGHT ON SCHEDULE.
NOTE: THIS ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED ON 2-21-03, 15 MONTHS AGO...AND "EACH
STEP OF "THE PNAC PLAN" HAS BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY COMPLETED TO DATE.
THE BIGGEST CRITICAL DATE WILL BE NOVEMBER 5, 2004..THE PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION, IN WHICH BUSH SAYS "HE WILL WIN A SECOND TERM AND SAID IT
WITH THE MOST CONFIDENT AND HARDENED EYES, AS IF HE "KNOWS EXACTLY
WHAT THE "NEW COMPUTERIZED VOTING MACHINES" WILL PUMP OUT AS THEIR
"RESULTS".
NOTE: DO YOU REMEMBER THE LOOK IN BUSH'S EYES WHEN HE WAS TOLD THAT
"GORE WON THE POPULAR VOTE"? BUSH THEN SAID, "JEB TOLD ME THAT I
WON...I DON'T BELIEVE YOUR REPORT" AND SURE ENOUGH, JEB SAW TO IT,
THAT BIG BROTHER GEORGE, "DID WIN", BUT IT STILL REQUIRED THE
UNPRECEDENTED HELP OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, WHEN TOO MANY PEOPLE
UNEXPECTEDLY, PROTESTED THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO WERE "NOT
ALLOWED TO VOTE", UNDER THE FRAUD THAT THEY WERE X-CONS, ETC.
THE SUPREME COURT "THEN ORDERED THE RE-COUNTING STOPPED". NOW THAT IS
"POLITICAL POWER" FOLKS, AND NOTHING HAS HAPPENED TO "CHANGE THAT
POWER" OR THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL SITTING ON THE SUPREME COURT,
NOT EVEN THE BLATANT COLLISION OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, SCALIA,
WHO WENT WITH CHENEY ON A SO-CALLED "DUCK HUNTING TRIP", WHILE THE
SUPREME COURT HAS A DECISION TO MAKE "AGAINST CHENEY OBSTRUCTING
JUSTICE, AND REFUSING TO TURN OVER THE DOCUMENTS OF "WHO WAS INVOLVED
IN CREATING THE "U.S. ENERGY POLICY". WELL FOLKS, I THINK "WE, VOTERS,
ARE THE DUCKS" THAT WAS BEING FOCUSED ON.
-----------------------
Print This Story E-mail This Story
Of Gods and Mortals and Empire
-----------------------------
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Friday 21 February 2003
"To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire;
and where they make a wilderness, they call it peace."
- Tacitus
It sounded like two behemoth icebergs colliding in the North Atlantic,
but you needed the right kind of ears to hear it. Two immensely
powerful forces crashed into each other over the weekend of February
15th, and the resulting thunder
---------------------------------
has set the world to trembling.
On one side were the people, who took to the streets all across the
world by
----------------------------------------------------
the tens of millions to stand against George W. Bush's push for
pre-emptive war
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
on Iraq.
-------
The numbers, and the locations, were staggering.
More than 100,000 people took to the streets of Sydney, Australia, a
nation that has been solidly in Bush's corner on this matter.
In Spain, another member of Bush's "Coalition of the Willing," several
million protesters took over Madrid, Barcelona and 55 other cities.
Italy, another Bush ally, saw over a million citizens take to the
streets of Rome.
Britain, Bush's go/no go ally of allies, saw over a million people
protesting in London. Police there said it was the largest
demonstration in that nation's long history.
The Netherlands saw one hundred thousand protesters,
as did Belgium and Ireland.
There were protesters by the tens of thousands in;
Sweden,
Switzerland,
Scotland,
Denmark,
Austria,
Canada,
South Africa,
Mexico,
Greece,
Russia and
Japan.
500,000 protesters demonstrated in Germany, joined by three members of
Gerhard Schroder's cabinet who defied their Chancellor by being there.
It was the largest demonstration ever in post-war Germany.
Another 500,000 people marched in Paris and 60 other French cities.
The United States of America saw protests from coast to coast in over
100 cities nationwide.
New York City was paralyzed by over a million marchers.
San Francisco was taken over by well over 200,000 protesters, and
Los Angeles saw over 100,000 people take to the streets.
Thousands upon thousands joined them in:
Chicago,
Philadelphia,
Miami and
Seattle.
This was a gathering of ordinary citizens who came together in the
streets of the world in an organized event that has no precedent in
all of human history.
They were brought together by a global word-of-mouth activism rooted
entirely in the Internet. Were it not for this planetary connection,
no such coordination could have ever taken place. Once upon a time,
the world wide web was a realm dominated by dreams of profit and
marketing.
Those dreams have soured, leaving behind a marvelous network now
utilized by very average people who can, with the click of a button,
bring forth from all points on the compass a roaring deluge of
humanity to stand against craven injustice and ruinous war.
--------------------------
The weekend of February 15th saw this force ram headlong into the will
of men who walk in shadow, whose hands wield lightning and steel,
pestilence and famine.
In their ranks stand Presidents, Prime Ministers, corporate magnates,
untouchable billionaires, and the advisors who whisper to them of
empire and domination.
They are few in number, but life and death flows from their fingertips
in freshets and gouts. These men control the armies and navies of
great nations, nuclear and chemical nightmares beyond measure,
unassailable technological weapons and walls, the financial cords
which hold the package together, the water, the air, the oil, the law,
and a global media machine by which they can obscure their designs
with pleasing lies.
No mere citizen could do what these men in one moment can do with the
crooking of a little finger. With a word, they can erase cities,
deprive an entire populace of water and light, unleash disease and
famine, annihilate the economies of dozens of nations, and imprison
forever anyone who dares dissent. These men bleed, they sicken, they
die, but in their time of life they can punch holes in the sky large
enough to make Zeus wince with envy.
Like the millions who marched, the gathering of such fearful powers
into the hands of so few is also without precedent in all of human
history.
------------------------------------------------------------------
There was, among the millions who stormed the planet last weekend, a
misconception that masked the true reason for their presence in the
streets. A great many people believe this looming war with Iraq is
about old grudges and oil.
There is logic in this; Iraq has the second largest proven stores of
precious petroleum in the world, and there is a definite history of
malice between House Bush and House Hussein.
The truth of the matter is far more broad and deep, belittling all
talk of
--------------------------------------------------
terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and even oil.
The men who pursue their goals by way of this war have a great many
desires on their minds, and once more, they have the will to attain
these goals by whatever means is required.
Were the protesters fully aware of whom they faced, a good many of
them may well have fled in terror to cower in their homes. One does
not lightly bait a bear with such terrible claws.
Does this all sound like some paranoid fantasy?
If so, allow me to introduce The Project for the New American Century.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a
Washington-based think tank created in 1997.
Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing:
The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all
nations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining
superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to
bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic
Pax Americana.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White
Paper
***********************************************************************
produced in September of 2000 entitled:
"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a
New
************************************************************************
Century."
*********
In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global
empire they envision.
According to PNAC, America must:
********************************
* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast
Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft,
submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a
strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross
domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.
Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for
the American military.
The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and
decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to
"perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the
security environment in critical regions."
Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight
simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this
plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the
other to establish American
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
dominance for all to see.
------------------------
Why is this important? After all, wacky think tanks are a cottage
industry in Washington, DC. They are a dime a dozen. In what way does
PNAC stand above the other groups that would set American foreign
policy if they could?
Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
the disputed election of George W. Bush, and
the attacks of September 11th.
When Bush assumed the Presidency,
the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became
the men who
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House.
--------------------------------------------------------------
When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance
to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.
(1)Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC,
(2)along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and
(3)Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle.
(4)Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father
of the group.
(5)Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for
Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading
position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
(6)PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like
Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported
America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and
(7)with groups like The Committee for the Present Danger, which spent
years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was
"winnable."
(8)PNAC has recently given birth to a new group:
The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which met with National
Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in order to formulate a plan to
"educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq.
(9)CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to support the Iraqi
National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed Chalabi.
Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to 22
years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which
he founded in 1977. Chalabi has not set foot in Iraq since 1956, but
his Enron-like business credentials apparently make him a good match
for the Bush administration's plans.
PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the
institutionalization of plans and ideologies that have been formulated
for decades by the men currently running American government.
The PNAC Statement of Principles is signed by:
(1)Cheney,
(2)Wolfowitz and
(3)Rumsfeld, as well as by
(4)Eliot Abrams,
(5)Jeb Bush,
(6)Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many
others.
(7)William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard,
is also a co-founder of the group.
(8)The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns
international
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
media giant Fox News.
-------------------
The desire for these freshly empowered PNAC men to extend American
hegemony by force of arms across the globe has been there since day
one of the Bush administration, and is in no small part a central
reason for the Florida electoral battle in 2000.
Note that while many have said that Gore and Bush are ideologically
identical, Mr. Gore had no ties whatsoever to the fellows at PNAC.
George W. Bush had to win that election by any means necessary, and
PNAC signatory Jeb Bush was in the perfect position to ensure the rise
to prominence of his fellow imperialists. Desire for such action,
however, is by no means translatable into workable policy. Americans
enjoy their comforts, but don't cotton to the idea of being some sort
of Neo-Rome.
On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity
open wide
----------------
before them, and stormed right through it.
Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy
of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States of America."
-------------------------
It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses"
report
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
issued a year earlier.
In many places, it uses exactly the same language to describe
America's new place in the world. Recall that PNAC demanded an
increase in defense spending to at least 3.8% of GDP.
Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in defense
spending,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
almost exactly 3.8% of GDP.
-------------------------
In August of 2002,
-----------------
Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a
policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand
Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the
final slide of this presentation described:
(1)"Iraq as the tactical pivot,
(2)Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and
(3)Egypt as the prize"
in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam
Hussein's weapons.
Bush has deployed massive forces into the Mideast region, while
simultaneously engaging American forces in the Philippines and playing
nuclear chicken with North Korea. Somewhere in all this lurks at least
one of the "major theater wars" desired by the September 2000 PNAC
report.
Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict.
----------------------------------------------------------
Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing
permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a
measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the
oil flows.
The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is:
------------------------------------------------------------------
a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that
region they
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
choose to.
---------
The American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after
America
-----------------
defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.
-----------------------------------------
All of the horses are traveling together at speed here.
The defense contractors who sup on American tax revenue will be
handsomely paid for arming this new American empire.
The corporations that own the news media will sell this eternal war at
a profit, as viewership goes through the stratosphere when there is
combat to be shown.
Those within the administration who believe that the defense of Israel
is contingent upon laying waste to every possible aggressor in the
region will have their dreams fulfilled.
The PNAC men who wish for a global Pax Americana at gunpoint will see
their plans unfold.
Through it all, the bankrollers from the WTO and the IMF will be able
to dictate financial terms to the entire planet.
This last aspect of the plan is pivotal, and is best described in the
newly revised version of Greg Palast's masterpiece, "The Best
Democracy Money Can Buy."
There will be adverse side effects.
----------------------------------
The siege mentality average Americans are suffering as they smother
behind yards of plastic sheeting and duct tape will increase by orders
of magnitude as our aggressions bring forth new terrorist attacks
against the homeland.
These attacks will require the implementation of the newly drafted
Patriot Act II, an augmentation of the previous Act that has
profoundly sharper teeth.
The sun will set on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
--------------------------------------------------------
The American economy will be ravaged by the need for increased defense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
spending, and
--------
by the aforementioned "constabulary" duties in Iraq, Afghanistan and
elsewhere.
Former allies will turn on us.
------------------------------
Germany, France and the other nations resisting this Iraq war are
fully aware
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
of this game plan.
-------------------
They are not acting out of cowardice or because they love Saddam
Hussein, but because they mean to resist this rising American empire,
lest they face
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
economic and military serfdom at the hands of George W. Bush.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Perle has already stated that France is no longer an American
ally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the eagle spreads its wings, our rhetoric and their resistance will
become more agitated and dangerous.
---------------------------
Many people, of course, will die. They will die from war and from
want, from famine and disease.
At home, the social fabric will be torn in ways that make the Reagan
nightmares
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of crack addiction, homelessness and AIDS seem tame by comparison.
------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the price to be paid for empire, and the men of PNAC who now
control
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the fate and future of America are more than willing to pay it.
---------------------------------------------------------------
For them, the benefits far outweigh the liabilities.
The plan was running smoothly until those two icebergs collided.
Millions and millions of ordinary people are making it very difficult
for Bush's international allies to keep to the script.
PNAC may have designs for the control of the "International Commons"
of the internet,
but for now it is the staging ground for a movement that would see
empire take
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a back seat to a wise peace, human rights, equal protection under the
law, and
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the preponderance of a justice that will, if properly applied, do away
forever
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
with the anger and hatred that gives birth to terrorism in the first
place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tommaso Palladini of Milan perhaps said it best as he marched with his
countrymen in Rome.
"You fight terrorism," he said, "by creating more justice in the
world."
The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history.
At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control.
At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the
People, all of them, been more absolutely required.
The tide can be stopped, and the men who desire empire by the sword
can be thwarted.
It has already begun, but it must not cease.
--------------------------------------------
These are men of will, and they do not intend to fail.
------------------------------------------------------
-------
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times bestselling author of two
books - "War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context
Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in May 2003
from Pluto Press. He teaches high school in Boston, MA.
Scott Lowery contributed research to this report.
Print This Story E-mail This Story
© : t r u t h o u t 2002
| t r u t h o u t | forum | issues | editorial | letters | donate |
contact |
| voting rights | environment | budget | children | politics |
indigenous survival | energy |
| defense | health | economy | human rights | labor | trade | women |
reform | global |
Dave Thompson
OK, Sylvia. No more sympathy for 'nerve damage'. You have squealed that
you must type in all caps because you can't use a shift key. This latest
screed used the quotation mark (") at least 432 times. Guess what? That
little " requires the use of a shift key.
Why don't you take this crap to alt.impeach.bush?
--
Dave Thompson
(Still a tax paying Alaskan)
save-our-democracy
MONTHS AGO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHICH CLEARLY STATES WHAT HAS ACTUALLY TAKEN PLACE.
AS I STATED, "ALL CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES HAVE "CONGRESSIONAL AIDS" WHO
COULD HAVE BEEN READING THIS INFORMATION WHICH CONGRESS CONTINUES TO
SAY; "THEY WERE CLUELESS ABOUT". THIS ARTICLE TALKS ABOUT "CONGRESS
AND IT'S CHOICE TO "NOT ASK QUESTIONS, FOR FEAR OF THE ANSWERS, AND
MORE IMPORTANTLY, "TO DO NOTHING".
AMERICANS, YOU HAVE CLEARLY BEEN "SOLD-OUT", AS SO MUCH IGNORANT HUMAN
SLAVERY, I.E. "JUST KEEP WORKING YOUR ASSES OFF FOR THE "CORPORATE
OWNERS" AND FILL THE NATIONAL TREASURY WITH YOUR TAXES, WHILE THE
"BIGGEST CON-GAME TAKES PLACE BEFORE YOU VERY EYES" AND YOU ARE LEAD
INTO GROSS POVERTY, HOMELESSNESS, AND DIE BECAUSE THERE IS NO HEALTH
CARE AVAILABLE TO YOU.
AND GUESS WHAT...YOU OBEYED AS PREDICTED AND YOU BOUGHT INTO THE "FEAR
FACTOR" AND LIES, THAT HAS BEEN KEPT ALIVE BY DAILY REMINDERS BY THE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION, IN COLLUSION WITH THE AMERICAN MEDIA, TO STAY
DUMB AND DUMBER.
AGAIN, THIS "OLD ARTICLE", WRITTEN BY A REPORTER WHO KNOWS WHO BUSH &
CO. WAS/IS, AND COULD EASILY TELL "YOU" AND "CONGRESS", WHAT "THE PLAN
WAS" AND WITH AMAZING INSIGHT AND ACCURACY, TELL "ANYONE WHO WOULD
LISTEN", EXACTLY "HOW AMERICANS WOULD REACT", WHICH OF COURSE, BUSH &
CO. ALREADY "KNEW", BASED ON AMERICANS TOTAL LACK OF INTEREST IN THEIR
OWN COUNTRY WITH LESS THAN HALF EVEN BOTHERING TO VOTE; THIS REPORTER
ACCURATELY KNEW BUSH WOULD HAVE "NO TROUBLE CONNING THE AMERICAN
SHEEP."
I HOPE AT LEAST SOME OF YOU ARE WAKING UP NOW THAT YOU CAN "SEE" HOW
EASY IT WAS FOR BUSH & CO. TO TAKE TOTAL CONTROL OVER YOU, THIS
COUNTRY, THE NATIONAL TREASURY AND NOW... THE WORLD, ALL OF WHICH WAS
WARNING YOU ABOUT 3 1/2 YEARS AGO, BUT NOTE: WHILE READING THIS, KEEP
IN MIND THAT DENNIS HARRIS, WAS/IS STILL USING HIS SAME FASCIST
"BULLYING TACTICS", REFERENCED RIGHT HERE, IN THIS ARTICLE, AND MOST,
IF NOT ALL OF THE "REGULAR POSTERS", HAVE BOUGHT INTO THE "SAME
FASCIST GAME" THAT BUSH HAS USED.
YOU SEE FOLKS, THIS SIMPLE-ASS CON-GAME HAS BEEN USED FOR CENTURIES
AGAINST "PEOPLE WHO ARE TOO LAZY TO GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ANYONE BUT
THEMSELVES, UNTIL "IT IS TOO LATE". WHY DO YOU THINK I HAVE TAKEN SO
MUCH TIME TO TRY TO GET THOSE OF YOU "WHO CAN ACTUALLY THINK...TO TAKE
ACTION", BOTH ON THIS A.C.A. SITE, STATE LEVEL, THEN NATIONAL LEVEL,IF
YOU IN FACT, GIVE A DAMN. WELL YOUR SILENCE HAS BEEN DEAFENING, AND
THE SO-CALLED AMERICANS/ALASKA DICTATORS JUST GET WORSE. THEY KNOW
"WHO AND WHAT YOU ARE" THAT'S WHY IT'S SO EASY. NOW IT'S PAYBACK TIME.
ARE YOU ALL READY FOR IT...OF COURSE NOT. THAT IS NO-BRAINER ALSO.
SYLVIA.
-----------
BuzzFlash Editorial
January 23, 2003 EDITORIAL ARCHIVES
Welcome to the Muscle Beach Party
---------------------------------
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
In the end the Bush Cartel is banking on making the kind of impression
on the world that a thug makes with a baseball bat on a car.
It's all about image and firepower.
It's how the playground bully establishes himself.
Pick the weakest guy in the school -- the one nobody likes much anyway
-- and beat the living daylights out of him.
Keep all the kids nervous and on edge. Let them think that you are a
little bit mad and might just beat up on them for the fun of it.
Tell them that you will protect them from the gang that lives in the
next neighborhood in return for their loyalty.
Make an example of anyone who challenges your leadership by denouncing
them and bloodying them up.
Establish a system of stool pigeons. Rummage through lockers, at your
will, for any signs of betrayal.
Issue warnings from time-to-time about how you have information that
the other gang has plans to rape your mothers and sisters, and lay
waste to your homes -- and that is why you need to trust in the
playground bully from your school, because he will protect your
mothers and sisters from the gang that few have ever actually
encountered.
It's governance by brazen muscle power, by unfailing commitment to
picking a target to destroy as an example of your ruthlessness, and
your will to use any means necessary to establish and preserve your
leadership.
And if your attack is successful, you will enjoy the spoils of war --
the second largest oil reserves in the world.
This is all the better, because you double up your goal of displaying
raw, harsh military power, by combining it with additional natural
resources that reinforce your dominance.
You will be sitting on top of the world, masters of the universe,
controlling almost everything on the Monopoly board.
And to accomplish this goal, you never blink, you never apologize, you
never let facts get in the way of your mission. You remain steadfast
and focused.
Getting distracted by truth and ethics is a sign of weakness.
------------------------------------------------------------
And weakness is something you can smell and feel in a man.
It was the weak ones that lost the Vietnam War, the bullies argue.
It didn't matter if the U.S. was right or wrong.
It didn't matter if innocent people were massacred right and left.
It didn't matter that a country like Cambodia was turned over to the
Khmer Rouge who left in their wake hundreds of thousands dead.
No, none of that matters to the bully. To the bully, all that matters
is winning, winning at all cost, even if the reasons for starting the
war no longer matter.
The bully knows that if he looks back, allows emotion or conscience to
throw him off course, the playground children will overthrow him one
day when his back is turned.
And he needs an enemy to be the phantom source of fear that is the
foundation of his reign.
It is all about forging ahead, picking a target that meets your goals
and then building a case, whatever the facts, and then going in for
the kill. Keep your eye on the prize.
Of course, America was supposed to be about something different.
----------------------------------------------------------------
It was supposed to be about democracy.
It was supposed to be about one person, one vote.
It was supposed to be about a nation that used the ballot box to elect
its officials, not partisan judicial appointments.
It was supposed to be a country with a thriving two party system --
and
not a two party system where one party instills fear in the nation and
the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
leaders of the other party just stand in fear.
----------------------------------------------
It was supposed to be about being a model of democracy, ethics and
world citizenship.
The problem with being a bully is that a bully never really has any
friends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
And one day one of the children in the playground, who is a little
smarter and a little bigger, punches out the bully and replaces him --
and
no one steps into help, because the bully has governed by fear, not by
----------------------------------------------------------------------
friendship.
----------
The men who led America's revolution feared and resented King George.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And so it is today.
------------------
The citizens of America are onlookers --
--------------------------------------
and possibly victims -- of two bullies playing a game of chicken.
One bully, our modern King George, thinks he's got the biggest guns,
and that the other bully is a pushover.
The other bully is just a mad tyrant and is used to not blinking
first.
It makes for volatile possibilities in an age of weapons of mass
destruction.
Our King George, a man who was too cowardly to serve in Vietnam but
supported the war and let others die, is convinced he's a tougher
hombre than that sadist Saddam.
It's a match-up that you wish you could leave to the two of them to
resolve off in a corner, although George one-on-one with Saddam
wouldn't last a minute.
Our King George is a pampered little pup who is all talk and no cattle
in a one-on-one fight.
His confidence lies in this nation's dazzling and deadly military
technology and a volunteer army that is serving as cannon fodder for
his imperial visions. Soldiers come and go, but dynasties last
forever.
Since September 11th, BuzzFlash has argued that the conduct of the
Bush Cartel's war on terror was something that needed to be addressed
as part of a national discussion.
In the daily barrage of propaganda, it is hard to keep focused on the
fact that our lives are really at stake. And if our lives and the
lives of our loved ones are on the line, we have a right to have input
as to what strategy best preserves this wonderful nation and the lives
of those who live in it.
There are bad men in the world like Saddam Hussein -- and there are
many ways of dealing with them. But resolving the Iraqi situation,
short of war, is not what is on the mind of the Bush cartel.
They need someone to make an example of, and Saddam is their guy.
------------------------------------------------------------------
France and Germany now realize that if they let King George bully his
way into
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a war with Iraq, there will be no stopping him.
------------------------------------------------
The emerging power of Europe would be threatened by an unprecedented
assertion of American domination, largely for the purpose of form
meeting function: using military might to intimidate the rest of the
world.
That is how King George's advisors -- and the King himself -- see this
war: as the first step in asserting a new American hegemony -- and
stealing the second largest oil reserves in the process.
Britain, with the second largest number of oil companies in the world,
is America's only unfaltering major league ally.
Let's restate that: Britain is actually a faltering ally (only 10% of
the
================
British population support an attack on Iraq without the approval of
the U.N.,
=============================================================================
according to the latest poll).
It is only Tony Blair's blind "oil" allegiance that keeps Britain by
King George's side, a historical irony if there ever was one.
This war is about the manner in which nations conduct themselves.
The bullies that are running this country now believe that they are
playing football on a concrete field without padding and with no
referees.
The Democratic leadership, always a bit naive, think that America is
still being run like a baseball game, with close team cooperation,
mutual respect and four impartial umpires to enforce the rules. Wake
up Democratic leaders, the Republicans own the umpires.
Ethics don't matter to the King George administration.
Honesty doesn't matter to the King George Administration.
Following the law doesn't matter to the King George administration.
Respecting constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties doesn't matter
to the King George Administration.
Abiding by treaties doesn't matter to the King George administration.
All that matters is muscling your way to victory.
All that matters is winning and expanding one's power base and riches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For this, we are going to war.
------------------------------
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
BACK TO TOP
save-our-democracy
-----------
'Personal' Responsibility
--------------------------
By Marc Ash
Monday 04 August 2003
Headline, front and center, Wednesday July 30 2003:
"Bush takes 'Personal' Responsibility for State of the Union
Remarks."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What does that mean?
Does that mean that George Tenet was lying when he said he was
responsible?
Or does it mean that George W. Bush was personally responsible for
deciding that Tenet would lie?
Apply the same standard to statements made by Condoleezza Rice and
Donald Rumsfeld.
Does it mean that Bush now admits what is clearly obvious, that he
knew the Niger reports had no merit but insisted on using them anyway,
over the objections of the intelligence community and his senior
staff?
Or is that a touch more personal responsibility than he had in mind?
We started a war;
in fact, we launched the first "pre-emptive" full scale military
action in U.S. history.
The very intent of the statements Mr. Bush is now taking personal
responsibility for, was to mislead.
Those statements were delivered to the nation before a fully assembled
Congress for the purpose of justifying war.
---------------------------------
The State of the Union Address is a constitutionally-mandated duty.
An invasion of a sovereign nation on these terms is clearly a
violation of
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
international and U.S. law.
----------------------------
Does "personal responsibility" mean that Mr. Bush is personally
responsible for the slaughter of thousands of innocent Iraqi
civilians?
Or is Mr. Bush personally responsible for the deaths of 285 U.S.
American and British soldiers? Both?
Responsible for profits?
--------------------------
I think we can find a higher degree of personal responsibility if
we shift our focus.
Let's have a look at the war profits.
-------------------------------------
Is Mr. Bush personally responsible for making his associates in the
defense industry wealthier than our ability to comprehend?
His father is a principal in the largest, most profitable defense
industry investment firm the world has ever known, The Carlyle Group.
Is Mr. Bush personally responsible for lining Carlyle's pockets with
billions in U.S. tax dollars?
Is Mr. Bush personally responsible for the Halliburton Corporation's
exclusive contract to pump Iraq's oil?
Is Mr. Bush now taking personal responsibility for the jail-break,
free-for-all, get-rich-quick-bonanza, mega-money-laundering-swindle
that is the Development Fund for Iraq?
Personal Responsibility
-----------------------
Is personal responsibility a public relations slogan, or are
there ramifications for those who are personally responsible?
What is the downside for Mr. Bush if he is really held responsible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
285 men and women of the US. and British armed forces have given their
lives so far for this wanton military profiteering.
You can bet that they were personally responsible.
The Iraqi people are personally responsible; their suffering is
unimaginable.
Does any of this really matter as long as a Republican-controlled
Congress refuses to take any action to challenge Mr. Bush, no matter
what the charge is?
Is Mr. Bush today effectively beyond the reach of U.S. law?
-----------------------------------------------------------
When Mr. Bush says he is personally responsible, does he really mean
that ultimately you and I will be?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Ash is the Executive Director of t r u t h o u t. He can be
reached at: m...@mail.truthout.org
Print This Story E-mail This Story
© : t r u t h o u t 2003
save-our-democracy
NO SPECIAL PROSECUTOR-AND ASHCROFT REFUSES TO APPOINT;
NO IMPEACHMENT FOR BUSH THIS WAY.
OUR SO-CALLED DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT & RULE OF LAW "IS BROKEN" AND HAS
FAILED THE PEOPLE. THIS NEEDS FIXING TO STOP FASCISTS DICTATORS FROM
HI-JACKING OUR GOVERNMENT AND ROBBING US BLIND, WHILE PHYSICALLY AND
MENTALLY ABUSING, NOT ONLY U.S. CITIZENS, BUT ILLEGALLY INVADES AND
MURDERS PEOPLE IN SOVEREIGN COUNTRIES, WITHOUT BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
(NOTE: AMERICANS,DO HAVE TWO OPTIONS:
THEY, THEMSELVES, CAN DEMAND CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS UNDER TITLE
18-DEFRAUDING AND LYING TO THE COUNTRY, ON A STATE BY STATE BASIS,
FILED BY THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, ORRRRR
A COMPLAINT FILED UNDER THE "NEW INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT",
BECAUSE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT "REFUSES TO HOLD BUSH & CO. ACCOUNTABLE
FOR THE WAR CRIMES".
-------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1A
Bush unscathed by investigations.
---------------------------------
Here's why Special counsels are now a thing of the past,
---------------------------------------------------------
and GOP-controlled Congress has stifled partisan inquiries
-------------------------------------------------------------
By Susan Page
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON -- The urge to investigate defined the capital during the
Clinton years. But no more.
For nearly a decade, special counsel inquiries and adversarial
congressional hearings dominated the headlines, etched bitter partisan
lines, led to the impeachment of a president and made the nation's
political debates resemble hand-to-hand combat.
Now, some things have changed.
The law that provided for special counsels has expired.
President Bush's fellow Republicans control both houses of Congress.
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, has
stepped back from challenging the White House after losing a court
case that sought to open the records of Vice President Cheney's energy
task force.
The result:
The White House is better able to control information and prevent a
nagging controversy from becoming a full-blown crisis.
It's harder for Democrats to demand answers and easier for
administration officials to dismiss their charges as political
posturing.
Fairly or not, Bush faces less of the daily barrage that prompted
President Clinton to set up a parallel press operation for
investigative inquiries and made Clinton's White House seem at times
like an embattled enclave.
Not since the early years of Lyndon Johnson's tenure has a president
had more breathing room.
''It's made an enormous difference, and it's helped Bush in
governing,'' says Larry Sabato, a political scientist who studied the
pursuit of Washington scandals during the Clinton years.
''When a president is seen as besieged and entangled in controversy,
he really can't get very much done.
But when a president commands the central institutions of American
politics and has few institutional checks, he can range more widely
and hover above the fray.''
That doesn't mean partisanship has evaporated or even eased. The
charge-and-countercharge on cable TV shows and interest-group ads
continue, and Democrats' frustration with the White House is palpable.
A sense among Democratic regulars that party leaders haven't done
enough to challenge Bush is boosting the presidential prospects of
insurgent Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont.
But the president's Democratic critics now face a much steeper
challenge to force the administration's hand or drive the capital's
agenda than Republicans had during the Clinton administration.
As the minority party in Congress, the Democrats can't schedule a
congressional hearing, issue a subpoena, demand a special counsel or
rely on the GAO to obtain information that the White House doesn't
want to give.
Predictably, the parties disagree on whether this a good thing.
''When the Republicans ran the Congress and Clinton was in the White
House, there was no accusation too small for them to pursue,'' says
California Rep. Henry Waxman, the senior Democrat on the House
Government Reform Committee.
''Now that President Bush is in power, there's no scandal so large
that they have any interest in examining it.''
He says he'd like to have hearings on the no-bid contract awarded to
Halliburton, Cheney's former company, to rebuild oilfields in Iraq,
for example.
But White House spokesman Scott McClellan says Bush has delivered on
his campaign promise to ''change the tone'' in Washington.
''The American people want us to be forward-looking and want us to
work together to get things done, not to continue to settle political
scores from the past or score political points,'' he says.
''There is an ugly side of Washington's recent past, and Americans
will not look kindly upon partisans or presidential candidates who
seek to exploit unsubstantiated rumors or innuendo for political
gain.''
It's still possible to request a special counsel to investigate
accusations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
that raise potential conflicts of interest for the Justice Department.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the question is now left to Attorney General John Ashcroft's
discretion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So far, Ashcroft hasn't appointed any.
And, with a handful of exceptions, congressional Republicans have
avoided holding hearings that might embarrass the president -- on
precisely who was responsible for including disputed intelligence
claims in the State of the Union address in January, for instance.
In contrast, by the end of Clinton's first term, Republicans on the
Government Reform Committee had issued 40 subpoenas and held three
hearings into the firing of workers at the White House travel office
and four into the release of confidential FBI files on past officials
to a junior White House aide.
Five special counsels had been appointed by judicial panels to pursue
---------------------------------------------------------------------
allegations against Clinton and his Cabinet.
---------------------------------------------
One was named in 1995 to investigate whether Henry Cisneros, the
secretary of Housing and Urban Development, lied to the FBI about the
size of payments he had made to his mistress. Cisneros left the
government in 1997 and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in the case in
1999.
That inquiry, after pursuing related allegations, is only now closing
down. The final report is expected to be submitted this fall. It is
the last of the Clinton era to conclude its work.
A blunt weapon
---------------
There's little nostalgia for the special counsel law, enacted after
the Watergate scandal and allowed to expire in 1999 without protest
from either
-----------------------------------------------------
party.
-----
Critics say the law became a blunt weapon that propelled marginal
accusations into lengthy investigations and maligned innocent people.
The Clinton-era special counsels cost taxpayers nearly $133 million.
During the Bush administration, several special counsels have been
requested:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., asked for a special counsel to investigate
campaign contributions to Republicans by Westar Energy, a Kansas
utility seeking exemption from some regulations.
Environmental groups wanted an inquiry into whether the No. 2 official
at the Interior Department violated ethics laws to help his former
lobbying firm.
Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., requested one to pursue possible
conflicts of interest in the administration's inquiry into Enron's
collapse.
Each time, the Justice Department declined.
-------------------------------------------
(Ashcroft recused himself from the Enron case because he had received
Enron contributions as a Senate candidate.)
Most Democrats are less concerned about the need for criminal
investigations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
than they are about congressional review of policy, though.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Only the majority party can schedule hearings and require testimony.
Most committee chairmen, Republican or Democratic, aren't inclined to
use those tools to irritate the president when he is from their own
party.
So Democrats now express outrage and demand answers through press
releases, op-ed articles and open letters, hoping for news coverage or
a public groundswell.
Lobbying by relatives of people killed in the Sept. 11 terror attacks
persuaded congressional Republicans and the White House to agree to an
independent commission that Democrats wanted, for instance.
Persistent media coverage has driven disclosures about those
controversial 16 words in the State of the Union.
Florida Sen. Bob Graham, a presidential hopeful and former chairman of
the Senate Intelligence Committee, says he would love to convene
hearings into the ''misleading statements'' by Bush and others about
whether there was credible evidence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium
in Niger that could be used in a nuclear weapon.
''Were they the result of intelligence agency failures? Or were the
agencies acting appropriately but the information they provided was
manipulated?'' he asks. ''I would want to hold a hearing on that.''
Democrats also want to explore:
-------------------------------
* The administration's refusal to declassify a section of the
congressional report on the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The 28 pages
reportedly detail possible Saudi involvement.
* The help that the Federal Aviation Administration gave in May to
Texas Republicans who were trying to track down Democratic state
legislators. The Democrats had flown to Oklahoma to avoid a special
session on redistricting.
* Allegations that the administration has distorted scientific
findings to justify political decisions involving missile defense,
environmental protection and other issues.
Last week, Waxman issued a 40-page report on the subject. A White
House spokesman dismissed it as partisan sniping.
''We still have our voices and our ability to speak out when we see
things we don't like,'' says Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, another
presidential contender and the senior Democrat on the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee.
But he says ''it would be a lot different'' if Democrats could
schedule hearings and call witnesses. ''They'd be under a lot more
pressure than they are today.''
Stuart Roy, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas,
has no sympathy for the other side: ''You have Democrats feeling
irrelevant, and the only way they can make themselves feel more
relevant is to engage in the politics of personal destruction.''
To some extent, partisans in both parties have switched sides.
Democrats like Waxman who decried investigations of the Clinton
administration now express frustration about lacking the tools to get
answers from the Bush administration.
Republicans like DeLay who defended the Clinton-era inquiries now
dismiss proposed investigations as political grandstanding.
An agency defanged
-------------------
When the General Accounting Office sought information about Cheney's
energy task force, the White House refused.
Administration officials said they were determined to rebuff what they
saw as an incursion on the president's constitutional authority.
The GAO then filed its first-ever lawsuit against the White House
demanding the information. But in February, the agency announced it
was dropping the case after losing a round in federal court, although
the watchdog group Judicial Watch is continuing its lawsuit on the
same issue.
The head of the GAO, David Walker, said he wouldn't sue the
administration again unless he had the approval of the House and
Senate oversight committees -- committees that control the agency's
budget and are now ruled by Republicans.
''Much of this is the result of unified government,'' with the White
House and Congress under one party's control, says Stephen Hess of the
Brookings Institution, who arrived in Washington as a speechwriter for
President Eisenhower and has been studying capital affairs ever since.
Bush's unchallenged position at the head of the GOP and the discipline
imposed by Republican congressional leaders have magnified the
advantages.
Bush is in an even stronger position than the last two presidents who
had unified governments.
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during the first two
years of Clinton's presidency, but Senate Armed Services Chairman Sam
Nunn nonetheless held critical hearings on administration policy
toward gays in the military.
Democrats controlled Congress throughout President Carter's tenure,
but his relations with Congress, even his fellow Democrats, were
famously prickly.
The first President Bush and President Reagan had to deal with
opposition control of one or both houses of Congress throughout their
terms. Both administrations faced several special counsel
investigations.
The current President Bush had a Democratic-controlled Senate for less
than two years, after Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., left the GOP in May
2001 and until Republicans regained control in the 2002 elections.
If Bush wins a second term in 2004, many political analysts predict
he'll be
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
presiding over unified government again.
----------------------------------------
Hess says that favorable landscape gives Bush an opening for the sort
of fundamental policy changes made by such consequential presidents as
LBJ and Franklin Roosevelt.
Bush's grand ambitions include a new national security policy of
pre-emption
*****************************************************************************
against foreign threats,
************************
the creation of individual investment accounts in Social Security and
more tax cuts.
Veterans of the Clinton administration are wistful when they consider
the contrast.
''There were countless investigations, and we ended up consuming
enormous resources that otherwise would have been spent on trying to
move the president's agenda forward,'' says John Podesta, former White
House chief of staff.
The Bush team has a big advantage, he says:
''I don't think the bloodhounds will be out.''
**********************************************
Cover storyCover story
USATODAY.com partners: USA Weekend Sports Weekly Education
Space.com
Home News Money Sports Life Tech Weather Travel Job Center
Resources: Mobile News Site Map FAQ Feedback
Email News Jobs with Us Terms of service Privacy Policy Media Kit
© Copyright 2003 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
save-our-democracy
Investigations | Terms
Analysis: Was there reason for the abuses?
-------------------------------------------
By Claude Salhani
UPI International Editor
Published 5/5/2004 6:02 PM
WASHINGTON, May 5 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush tried to explain
directly to the people of the Middle East that the maltreatment and
abuse of Iraqi prisoners detained by U.S. forces in Iraq were
uncharacteristic of freedom-loving Americans. But while admitting that
these incidents were indeed "terrible," the president, however, unlike
his national security adviser, stopped short of offering an outright
apology to Iraqis.
Appearing on al-Arabiya, the Dubai-based Arab news satellite channel,
Wednesday, the president promised "a full investigation" into the
matter, saying that the incident was a "matter that reflects badly on
my country" and promised that "justice will be served."
To date, a number of military investigations have been launched and
six U.S officers have been reprimanded. Additionally, Brig. Gen. Janis
Karpinski, the commander of the Abu Ghraib prison facility where the
abuses occurred, has received a letter of letter of admonishment from
Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.
Meanwhile, continued round-the-clock news coverage of the incidents,
and the uncovering of new cases of abuses -- including reports of
several deaths of Iraqi prisoners while in U.S. custody -- continues
to perturb the Bush administration and garner hatred and hostility
against America in the Arab world.
Holding photographs of a hooded prisoner with electric wires attached
to his hands and feet while forced to stand on a small box, one Iraqi
protestor held a sign demanding, "Is this American justice?"
"We want to know the truth," Bush said, speaking of the uproar that
has erupted since CBS first aired pictures showing Iraqi detainees in
humiliating situations. Speaking to al-Arabiya's Washington
correspondent, Lukman Ahmad, Bush said that the way the United States
normally behaves "stands in contrast to dictatorships."
But herein lies a strange coincidence that seem to indicate that to
capture Saddam Hussein, the American forces in Iraq were forced to
revert to the use of highly unorthodox methods in order to obtain
intelligence from captured Iraqi insurgents and people who remained
faithful to the former dictator, and which could lead to his arrest.
Certain facts seem to indicate that American interrogators at the Abu
Ghraib prison in Baghdad adopted tactics eerily reminiscent of those
used by the former landlords of the prison -- Saddam Hussein's
Baathists jailers. One possible explanation for this could be the
stepped-up efforts to track down the former Iraqi dictator, which
seemed to have gathered steam around September 2003. It was also
around this time that attacks against United States and coalition
forces in Iraq increased.
When examining the trail of events, the fact that most of the abuses
have reportedly occurred during the period between September and
December 2003, ultimately leading to the capture of Saddam just before
Christmas, one could deduct that the ill treatment and humiliation of
prisoners did not happen haphazardly, but that rather, with systematic
reason, orchestrated by a small group of people eager to obtain quick
intelligence.
One report from Iraq stated that under such treatment, prisoners
usually broke within three days. This would also explain the sudden
increase in the number of arrests and detainees, primarily at the Abu
Ghraib prison facility.
Karpinski, the commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade, the
unit in charge of Abu Ghraib prison and other detention facilities in
Iraq, told MSNBC's Deborah Norville that starting in September-October
2003 "large numbers of detainees were arriving" at Abu Ghraib, a
facility initially capable of housing about 4,000 prisoners, but which
by now held closer to 6,000 inmates.
In September and October, Karpinski said large numbers of "security
detainees" started to arrive. This is also the time when "civilian
contractors" -- technically mercenaries -- apparently started getting
more involved in interrogation of prisoners.
It was also around this time, Karpinski says, that while still in
command, she was technically no longer in charge of the prison. The
brigadier general defends her position, arguing that "this is not a
military police leadership failure. This is a system failure."
Karpinski pointed out that around the same time, interrogation of
"security prisoners" became the order of the day. "The focus of the
efforts of the Abu Ghraib prison at that time was the interrogation
effort," she said.
Security prisoners were those detained for political and security
reasons, as opposed to the general prison population, which was
comprised of regular criminals.
The former commander of the Baghdad prison facility asserts that "from
September and October the military intelligence commander and
operations officer and the X.O." (executive officer, the second in
command) were the ones calling the shots.
Karpinski stated that cells 1A and 1B, where the reported abuses took
place "were under control of military intelligence." She no longer had
control of interrogations.
Whatever emerges from the undergoing investigations, the Pentagon will
certainly want to re-think the logic of outsourcing interrogation of
prisoners to private contractors. There are some things which are
simply better off left in government hands.
Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International
Want to use this article? Click here for options!
Copyright 2004 United Press International
Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International. All rights reserved.
Home | Products | Photos | About | Contact | Press | UPI
Investigations | Terms
save-our-democracy
-----------------------------
THE RED CROSS REPORTED TORTURE AT THE PRISON
NOT UNTIL MAY 2004, HAS IT BECOME KNOWN AND WE, AMERICANS ARE SUPPOSED
TO BELIEVE RUMSFELD DIDN'T KNOW. THIS IS HOW STUPID BUSH & CO. THINKS
WE AMERICANS ARE, AND WHY THEIR CRIMINAL ACTS CONTINUE AND GET WORSE.
AMERICANS MUST DEMAND FROM THEIR CONGRESS PERSON THAT "IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BUSH & CO. START NOW"..THE WORLD IS WATCHING AND
SAYING, "AMERICANS SUPPORT THIS..IF THEY DIDN'T THEY WOULD "DO
SOMETHING ABOUT IT".
BUSH & CO. HAS TOLD US, "YES, AMERICA LOOKS BAD TO THE REST OF THE
WORLD, THAT'S WHY WE ARE GOING TO "IMMEDIATELY PROSECUTE THOSE U.S.
G.I.'S, RIGHT THERE IN IRAQ". THAT HAS BEEN BUSH & CO.'S POLICY, "THEY
LIE TO THE PEOPLE..REMEMBER THE SADDAM "HAS" WMD AND WE KNOW WHERE
THEY ARE (RUMSFELD), THEN WHEN NONE WERE FOUND, THEY BLAMED THE CIA,
AND TENET TOOK THE BLAME? WHEN, IN FACT, CHENEY AND RUMSFELD WERE
DEMANDING THAT THE CIA LIE ABOUT THE EVIDENCE OF WMD.
THE CONGRESS IS "NOT ACTING" TO RID THE NATION OF THIS CORRUPT AND
TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE AMERICANS ARE TOO LAZY TO EVEN SEND ONE
E-MAIL TO THEIR CONGRESSMAN. YOUR CONGRESS-PERSON WANTS TO BE
"RE-ELECTED" AND THEY ARE PROBABLY UP FOR RE-ELECTION THIS
NOVEMBER...YOU BET THEY WILL LISTEN TO YOU..THAT IS IF YOU CAN FIND 5
MINUTES TO E-MAIL THEM. SYLVIA
-------------
washingtonpost.com > World > Latest Wires
Red Cross Report Describes Abuse in Iraq
By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS
The Associated Press
Monday, May 10, 2004; 9:40 AM
GENEVA - A Red Cross report disclosed Monday said coalition
intelligence officers estimated that 70-90 percent of Iraqi detainees
were arrested by mistake and said Red Cross observers witnessed U.S.
officers mistreating Abu Ghraib prisoners by keeping them naked in
total darkness in empty cells.
The report by the International Committee of the Red Cross supports
its allegations that abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers was
broad and "not individual acts" - contrary to President Bush's
contention that the mistreatment "was the wrongdoing of a few."
"ICRC delegates directly witnessed and documented a variety of methods
used to secure the cooperation of the persons deprived of their
liberty with their interrogators," according to the confidential
report.
The delegates saw in October how detainees at Abu Ghraib were kept
"completely naked in totally empty concrete cells and in total
darkness," the report said.
"Upon witnessing such cases, the ICRC interrupted its visits and
requested an explanation from the authorities," the report said. "The
military intelligence officer in charge of the interrogation explained
that this practice was 'part of the process.'"
This apparently meant that detainees were progressively given
clothing, bedding, lighting and other items in exchange for
cooperation, it said.
It said it found evidence supporting prisoners' allegations of other
forms of abuse during arrest, initial detention and interrogation.
Among the evidence were burns, bruises and other injuries consistent
with the abuse that prisoners alleged, it said.
The 24-page document, confirmed by the ICRC as authentic after it was
published Monday by the Wall Street Journal, said the abuses were
primarily during the interrogation stage by military intelligence.
Once the detainees were moved to regular prison facilities, the abuses
typically stopped, it said.
The report cites abuses - some "tantamount to torture" - including
brutality, hooding, humiliation and threats of "imminent execution."
"These methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the
military intelligence in a systematic way to gain confessions and
extract information and other forms of cooperation from person who had
been arrested in connection with suspected security offenses or deemed
to have an 'intelligence value.'"
The agency said arrests allegedly tended to follow a pattern.
"Arresting authorities entered houses usually after dark, breaking
down doors, waking up residents roughly, yelling orders, forcing
family members into one room under military guard while searching the
rest of the house and further breaking doors, cabinets and other
property," the report said.
CONTINUED
1 2 Next >
Print This Article
© 2004 The Associated Press
save-our-democracy
THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE IN IRAQ FROM AUGUST 2003 TO DECEMBER 2003.
FIRST, HERE ARE A FEW THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW SINCE THE NEWS TONIGHT
WILL BE ABOUT THIS REPORT AND FURTHER EVIDENCE, I.E. PHOTOS AND VIDEO
TAPES SHOWING RAPES AND PERHAPS MURDER OF THESE IRAQI'S WHO WERE
ROUNDED UP AT THEIR HOMES, MOSTLY AT NIGHT.
(1)THE RED CROSS WAS TOLD THAT BETWEEN 70% AND 90% WERE TAKEN "BY
MISTAKE", YET WERE SUMMARILY TRAMATIZED, BEATEN, TORTURED FOR DAYS,
AND SOME WERE KILLED--WHAT A GREAT EXAMPLE OF AMERICA'S "RULE OF LAW",
I.E. THIS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY VIOLATES ALL OF THE "INTERNATIONAL
TREATIES" THAT THE U.S. HAS SIGNED WITH OTHER NATIONS, INCLUDING THE
MANY "GENEVA CONVENTIONS"...SO THE U.S. "WORDS ARE CLEARLY LIES" WHICH
NOW AND "THEN" PERMITS "ANY COUNTRY TO TORTURE U.S. G.I.'S";
(2)THE RED CROSS "CONTINUALLY CITED THE GENEVA CONVENTION "LAWS" TO
THE U.S. TROOPS AND THEIR SUPERIORS, AT THIS "MANY PRISONS OF
TORTURE", YET WE ARE BEING TOLD BY BUSH & CO. THESE G.I.'S AND THEIR
SUPERIORS "WERE NEVER TOLD ABOUT, NOR READ THESE GENEVA CONFERENCE
LAWS". MORE BLATANT LIES AND COVER-UP;
(3)BUSH & CO. SAYS...THESE ARE "ISOLATED INCIDENCES" AND "THE PEOPLE
INVOLVED WILL BE IMMEDIATELY INVESTIGATED AND PROSECUTED "WE WANT THE
WORLD TO KNOW THAT WE "ARE TRANSPARENT...WE DO "IMMEDIATE REPORTS AND
INVESTIGATION AND "MAKE CORRECTIONS" OUT IN THE OPEN. GIVEN THE FACT
THAT THE RED CROSS WAS REPORTING THESE "MANY" INCIDENCES OF ABUSE,
TORTURE AND MURDER, NINE (9) MONTHS AGO...ANY IDIOT WOULD "KNOW" THAT
BUSH & CO WERE LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH "AGAIN AND AD NAUSEUM" AND
APPARENTLY "STILL BELIEVE THAT AMERICANS WILL GO BACK TO SLEEP BECAUSE
"WE CAN JUST TRUST THEM".
HERE IS A SHORT LIST OF THE MANY PLACES WHERE THE RED CROSS WENT AND
FOUND THESE WAR CRIMES BEING COMMITTED:
(1)BAGHDAD;
(2)BASRAH;
(3)RAMADI;
(4)TIKRIT;
(5)UMM QASR;
(6) AL-KHAIM;
(7) MOSSUL
HERE ARE JUST SOME OF THE NAMES OF THE "PRISONS" IN THE ABOVE CITIES:
(1) CAMP BUCCA;
(2) CAMP CROPPER;
(3) CAMP VIGILANT;
(4) CAMP CONDOR;
(5) CAMP AMARAHI;
(6) CAMP HABBANIA
(7) HEAT BASE;
(8) AL-BAGHDADI;
(9)AL-HAKIMIYA;
(10)AL-SALIHLYYE;
(11)AL-RUSSAFA
(12)TASFERAT;
(13)TALLIL TRANS-SHIPMENT PLACE;
(14)FIELD HOSPITAL SHAIBAH
(15)MANY----------IRAQI POLICE STATIONS WHERE THE U.S. SELECTED, IRAQI
COPS WERE GIVEN THE O.K. TO TORTURE OTHER IRAQI'S FOR INFO AND WOULD
DEMAND MONEY FROM THEIR FAMILES TO STOP IT.
THE RED CROSS HAS MADE IT CLEAR IN THEIR REPORT THAT THIS TORTURE, WAS
"SYSTEMATIC AND WIDE SPREAD" NOT JUST A FEW CASES, FROM A FEW U.S.
ROGUE M.P.'S.
THERE ISN'T ANY SINGLE ACT THAT COULD "PROVE TO THE WORLD", AND
ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO ARE HELL BENT ON DESTROYING THE U.S.A., THAT THE
U.S.A. "IS AN OUT-OF-CONTROL TERRORIST NATION, THAN.......THIS
DOCUMENTED RECORD COMBINED WITH THE ACTUAL PHOTOS OF JUST SOME OF
THESE INCIDENTS. CLEARLY FOR "EACH" TORTURE VICTIM WHO WAS RELEASED
AND MORE ARE BEING RELEASED "NOW", YOU CAN MULTIPLY BY AT LEAST 20
MORE IRAQI PEOPLE WHO "WANT TO KILL AMERICAN G.I.'S IN IRAQ".
RUMSFELD KNEW THIS FROM THE GIT-GO, BUT THOUGHT HE COULD USE THE U.S.
MILITARY TO "KILL THESE PEOPLE OFF UNDER THE GUISE OF THEM BEING
"TERRORIST AND INSURGENTS" WHO HATE AMERICA BECAUSE "THEY HATE
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY"...WELL THAT PART "IS TRUE"...AMERICA'S SO-CALLED
"DEMOCRACY AND TREATMENT" IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAD ALREADY EXPERIENCED
UNDER SADDAM HUSSEIN, YET HUSSEIN NEVER WENT AFTER "THESE FAMILIES",
SO THEY WERE SAVE...NO MORE...AND "NO MORE SAFETY FOR AMERICAN G.I.'S
IN IRAQ, OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AT HOME....THANKS AGAIN TO THE
SO-CALLED AMERICAN REPRESENTATIVES, "YOUR CONGRESS WHO REFUSED TO
IMPEACH BUSH & CO., WHEN THEY CLEARLY LIED TO CONGRESS; KICKED THE
U.N. INSPECTORS OUT OF IRAQ, SO THEY COULD BOMB THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ
WITH THEIR (SHOCK & AWE) AND THEN BEGIN THEIR 3 1/2 YEARS OF BLATANT
AND PROVEN LIES TO COVER ALL OF THIS UP, AND CALL "ANY AMERICAN A
TRAITOR IF THEY PROTESTED AGAINST THIS FASCIST ACTIVITY".
SO....WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR NOW..AMERICANS...A ROLLS-ROYCE TO PICK
YOUR BUTTS UP AND DRIVE YOU TO YOUR CONGRESS PERSON'S OFFICE SO YOU
CAN CALMLY PROTEST? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO TELL "YOUR KIDS" YOU DID
ABOUT THESE HISTORICAL EVENTS?
SYLVIA
IT IS IN PDF:
http://www.truthout.org/mm_01/4.rcr.iraq.pdf
save-our-democracy
------------------
AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE SO-CALLED U.S. MILITARY "INTELLIGENCE
AGENTS" WERE TORTURING IRAQI PRISONERS..... IN AZERBIJIIAN WHERE U.S.
OIL CORPS VIA BUSH'S BOMBING OF AFGHANISTAN WAS BUILDING THEIR OIL/GAS
PIPELINE...AND THE TORTURING OF THE PEOPLE OF OPPOSITION TO WHO THE
U.S.'S CHOICE OF A DICTATOR FOR THEIR COUNTRY (AZERBIJIIAN) IN THE
"SAME FASHION AS IN IRAQ).
YEP...RUMSFELD WAS "RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS TORTURE SCENARIO
ALSO".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUSH & CO WANTS "OIL" AND WILL "LOVE ANY DICTATOR OR TERRORIST TO GET
IT"..WE ALL KNOW THAT...AS WELL AS KNOWING THAT, AS SOON AS "THE U.S.
OIL CORPORATIONS SAY THEY NEED "PROTECTION".. RUMSFELD BRINGS IN THE
U.S. TROOPS AND THEY NEVER LEAVE. HERE IS JUST ONE OF MANY MANY CASES,
OF HOW BUSH & CO. LIES THROUGH IT'S TEETH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT
THESE "EVIL-DOERS OF TERRORISTS" WHO BUSH HAS VOWED TO USE EVERY PENNY
OF THE AMERICAN TREASURY TO KILL, WHEN IN FACT, HE IS "DOING
BUSINESS...BIG BUSINESS WITH THESE DICTATORS", ALL OF WHICH "BUSH &
CO. PERSONALLY PROFITS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LOSE ALL THEIR MONEY,
GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND CHILDREN. WHEN WILL AMERICANS STOP BEING SO
DUMB?? SYLVIA
---------------
OneWorld.net > News
In Azerbaijan, U.S. Sacrifices Rights for Oil
------------------------------------------------
Human Rights Watch
Azerbaijan’s government has unleashed a massive crackdown on the
political opposition in the wake of the fraudulent October
presidential election, Human Rights Watch said in a new report
released today.
The 55-page report, “Crushing Dissent: Repression, Violence and
Azerbaijan’s Elections,” documents hundreds of arbitrary
arrests, widespread beatings and torture, and politically motivated
job dismissals of members and supporters of the opposition following
the October 15 presidential election, which was widely condemned by
the international community as fraudulent.
“Azerbaijan is experiencing its gravest human rights crisis of
the past ten years,” said Rachel Denber, acting executive
director of the Europe and Central Asia Division of Human Rights
Watch. “The government must take immediate steps to end the
repression.”
On January 27 the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly
will debate Azerbaijan’s compliance with the
organization’s human rights requirements. Azerbaijan became a
member of the Council of Europe in 2001, immediately after
parliamentary elections that were highly criticized by the
international community.
“Many hoped that Azerbaijan’s admission to the Council of
Europe would encourage the government finally to hold free and fair
elections,” Denber said. “These hopes were crushed. The
Parliamentary Assembly needs to adopt a strong resolution making clear
that Azerbaijan’s credentials are at risk unless the government
remedies the situation.”
The Human Rights Watch report documents human rights violations
committed by the Azerbaijani authorities before, during and after the
presidential election.
The report is based on hundreds of interviews with victims and
eyewitnesses in 13 towns and cities in Azerbaijan in October and
November.
Human Rights Watch found that the government prevented opposition
candidates from campaigning effectively. Police brutality and
arbitrary arrests intimidated opposition supporters and the general
public.
On election day, the government carried out a well-organized campaign
of fraud throughout the country to ensure victory for the ruling party
candidate, Ilham Aliev, right in front of the largest international
election-monitoring team ever deployed in the country.
Violence erupted immediately after the election. The report documents
the use of brutal and excessive force by police to suppress
demonstrations, severely injuring at least 300 protesters, and killing
at least one protester. So far, the Azerbaijani authorities have
refused to investigate or punish security forces for using excessive
force.
In the weeks following the election, the Azerbaijani authorities used
the post-election violence as a pretext for a massive crackdown on the
opposition.
Police arrested close to 1,000 people, including national leaders of
the opposition, local opposition party members, activists from
nongovernmental organizations, journalists, and election officials and
observers who challenged the fraud.
Human Rights Watch documented numerous cases of police
torture—through severe beatings, electric shocks, and threats of
male rape against opposition leaders,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
particularly by the Organized Crime Unit of the Ministry of Interior.
More than 100 detainees remain in custody, and could face imprisonment
of up to 12 years. Police continue to summon political opposition
supporters to pressure them to denounce their party membership.
Human Rights Watch documented more than 100 cases in which opposition
members and their relatives were fired from their jobs in retaliation
for their political activism, or the activism of their relatives.
Human Rights Watch found that the complete dominance of the presidency
was one of the root causes of human rights abuses in Azerbaijan. Many
of the abuses documented by Human Rights Watch took place on the
direct orders of the local executive authorities, who are appointed by
and accountable to only the president’s office.
In light of the visible and significant support provided by the
international community for free and fair elections in Azerbaijan,
Human Rights Watch expressed disappointment about the often muted and
contradictory messages expressed by foreign governments and
election-monitoring missions in the aftermath of the presidential
election.
For example, the U.S. government initially congratulated Ilham Aliev
on his victory, then offered a statement of concern about the abuses,
and ultimately
resorted to silence about the situation during U.S. Secretary of
Defense Donald
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rumsfeld’s visit to Azerbaijan in December.
------------------------------------------
“The international community needs to take a strong and
consistent stance against the rising tide of abuse,” said
Denber.
“In light of President Bush’s recent statements on
democracy in neighboring
-------------------------------------------------------------
countries in the Middle East, U.S. inaction on Azerbaijan is
particularly
-------------------------------------------
troubling.”
---------
The Human Rights Watch report contains recommendations to the
Azerbaijani government and the international community. These include:
• Establish an independent commission of inquiry, with
significant international participation, to investigate the election
fraud.
• Investigate allegations of physical abuse and torture,
particularly at the Ministry of Interior’s Organized Crime Unit,
and discipline or prosecute those agents found responsible.
The international community, particularly governments of the European
Union and United States, should ensure that police units complicit in
torture do not benefit from foreign financial assistance.
• Immediately review the cases of all remaining detainees
arrested on suspicion of involvement in the violence of October 15 and
16.
Investigate allegations of torture and abuse against these detainees.
Unconditionally release all detainees against whom no specific
evidence of illegal activities exists.
During the embargoed period, the report, Crushing Dissent: Repression,
Violence and Azerbaijan’s Elections, can be found at
http://docs.hrw.org/embargo/azerbaijan0104/ using the username:
crushing and the password: dissent
Beginning January 23, 2004, the report can be found at
http://hrw.org/reports/2004/azerbaijan0104
save-our-democracy
***************************************************
----------------
Special Reports > Military
Military Split On How to Use Special Forces In Terror War
----------------------------------------------------------
By Gregory L. Vistica
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 5, 2004; Page A01
------------------------
With Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld pressuring the Pentagon to
take a more aggressive role in tracking down terrorists, military and
intelligence officials are engaged in a fierce debate over when and
how elite military units should be deployed for maximum effectiveness.
Under Rumsfeld's direction, secret commando units known as
hunter-killer teams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
have been ordered to "kick down the doors," as the generals put it,
all over
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the world in search of al Qaeda members and their sympathizers.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The approach has succeeded in recent months in Iraq, as Special
Operations
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
forces have helped capture Saddam Hussein and other Baathist
loyalists.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
But in other parts of the world, particularly Afghanistan, these
soldiers and
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
their civilian advocates have complained to superiors that the
Pentagon's
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
counterterrorism policy is too inflexible in the use of Special Forces
overall
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and about what units are allowed to chase down suspected terrorists,
according
to former commandos and a Defense Department official.
In fact, these advocates said the U.S. military may have missed
chances to capture two of its most-wanted fugitives -- Mohammad Omar,
the Taliban leader, and Ayman Zawahiri, deputy to Osama bin Laden --
during the past two years because of restrictions on Green Berets in
favor of two other components of the Special Operations Command, the
Delta Force and SEAL Team Six.
-------------------------------------------------------------
They said several credible sightings by CIA and military informants of
Omar entering a mosque this spring in Kandahar, Afghanistan, were
relayed to U.S. forces at nearby Firebase Gecko, where a Green Beret
team was ready to deploy.
But rather than send in the Green Berets, who were just minutes from
the mosque, commanders followed strict military doctrine and called on
the Delta Force, the team of commandos whose primary mission is to
kill and capture
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
targets such as Hussein.
In the several hours it took the Delta unit, based hundreds of miles
away near Kabul, to review the information and prepare for the raid,
Omar vanished, said the sources, all of whom advise Rumsfeld's senior
aides.
Other informants reported spotting Zawahiri in a medical clinic in
Gardez, Afghanistan, in the spring of 2002.
Green Berets five minutes away were ordered to stand down so SEAL Team
Six, another of the hunter-killer teams, could storm the clinic and
capture or kill Zawahiri, according to the sources. But too much time
elapsed during preparations, and Zawahiri escaped. The Special
Operations Command declined to comment on the reports.
Separate Missions
Both incidents spotlight the ongoing debate over how best to employ
Special Operations forces in the global war against terrorism.
Special Operations forces refer to a range of soldiers from the Army,
Navy and Air Force who are specially trained for sensitive missions,
typically secret in nature and frequently involving rescues or
assaults on high-value enemy targets.
The military's policy, in practice, mandates using only "Special
Mission Units," such as Delta Force and SEAL Team Six, to apprehend or
assassinate specially targeted individuals.
It precludes other Special Forces such as Green Berets -- who are
trained primarily to work with indigenous fighters -- from pursuing
the most sought-after targets when opportunities arise.
Some experts on counterterrorism contend that it takes the Special
Mission Units too long to deploy for unanticipated raids. Some believe
equal, if not more, emphasis should be placed on Special Operations
forces to develop relationships with local villagers who supply the
bulk of valuable information, which is known as counterinsurgency
work.
In the past year, poor intelligence has often led to the wrong targets
being
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
killed or captured.
-----------------
"For all of the Special Mission Units' efforts, how many high-value
targets did they get in Afghanistan?" asked one adviser, a civilian
advocate of aggressive unconventional warfare with the Special
Operations Command. "None."
------
Supporters say units such as Delta are the only ones trained
specifically to carry out the apprehension or assassination of
high-value targets.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"By doctrine and training, targets like that belong to the Special
Mission Units," said Richard H. Shultz Jr., a scholar at the Fletcher
School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a Pentagon
consultant.
"That's what they are for."
--------------------------
The Pentagon's official position is that there is no conflict between
the two approaches. Marshall Billingslea, formerly the principal
deputy assistant secretary of defense for special operations and
low-intensity conflict, said both approaches are being followed and
both are vital to achieving success against terrorist organizations.
"The hearts and minds element is essential," Billingslea said.
But according to a classified Defense Department policy briefing on
the war against the al Qaeda terrorist network and Baathist insurgents
in Iraq, the Bush administration is moving away from work with
insurgents and favoring more direct-action strikes.
---------------------
Rumsfeld has long been enamored of the idea of expanding the role of
Special
--------
Operations forces in fighting terrorists.
He has dramatically boosted the budget of the forces and last year
ordered the
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Operations Command to draft a strategy to send hunter-killer
teams a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
after terrorist cells.
--------------------
He is considering expanding their role even more.
-------------------------------------------------
Among proposals under review is to send the Special Mission Units into
areas such as Somalia and Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, where little
government authority exists and terrorists congregate, seemingly safe
from the long arm of the United States, said officials who are
reviewing the plan or have been briefed on it.
"There have been briefings about various operations against various
targets," a State Department official said. "We're prepared to go into
these areas," he said, but in a careful way.
'Black' or 'White'?
------------------
Over the years, such proposals have faced roadblocks, including a
shortage of resources, legal questions on Capitol Hill about
assassinations, intelligence
---------------------------------------------------
shortcomings and worries about the political willpower of some
officials at the State Department and Pentagon.
According to four officials who have seen it, a top-secret report by
Shultz, the Pentagon consultant, contends that despite reliable
intelligence on those responsible for the 1993 attack on the World
Trade Center, the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa and
the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, Special Mission Units were
never sent to kill or capture the terrorists responsible.
"It was very, very frustrating," retired Gen. Peter Schoomaker told
Shultz. "It was like having a brand-new Ferrari in the garage, and
nobody wants to race it because you might dent the fender," said
Schoomaker, a former head of the Delta Force who is now the Army's
chief of staff. "We were never instructed to mount a serious operation
against bin Laden, never."
It was not because of President Bill Clinton's reluctance to deploy
the secret units, concluded Shultz, who would not discuss the
classified study. Rather, the Pentagon's civilian leaders and generals
repeatedly came up with what the report called "showstoppers" to
dissuade the White House from launching each mission.
Officials in Billingslea's old office who spoke on background about
the study said they are watching that such an attitude does not
sabotage the current plans.
Rumsfeld's "manhunter" plan, as described in memos, is more daring
than efforts
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
against terrorist networks during the Clinton years, according to
those who
-----------------
have seen it or have been briefed.
Rumsfeld's plan calls for sending Special Mission Units into a number
of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
countries throughout the world.
-------------------------------
The capture of Hussein may increase support for Rumsfeld's global
vision for the hunter-killer teams. But this worries some in the
Special Operations forces community who see more emphasis on direct
action and less on unconventional warfare.
Special Operations forces are divided into two distinct but
complementary kinds of combat teams:
those involved in direct action -- the "black" Special Mission Units
such as Delta Force and SEAL Team Six -- and
those that support unconventional warfare, the "white" Green Berets
and, on occasion, other SEAL platoons.
Although they are capable of killing or capturing terrorists, Green
Berets and other "white" units traditionally work to win the trust of
local villagers by living and eating with them and taking on their
customs and garb.
They are also called "force multipliers" because a few Green Berets
can turn insurgent groups such as Afghanistan's Northern Alliance into
a more lethal
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fighting force.
---------------
Building such relationships takes time, but the payoff is the ability
to solicit the kind of intelligence that enables operations.
---------------------------------------------------------
But "Delta envy" now permeates the ranks, especially among younger
soldiers who realize early in their careers that the "kick down the
door approach" is what Washington wants, said one civilian advocate of
unconventional warfare.
"All they want to do is strike missions," he said.
The better policy, he recently told Rumsfeld's senior aides, is to
focus more on counterinsurgency rather than assassinations and
snatches.
"We want to know where the high-value targets are in Afghanistan and
Iraq," he said. "Who has that information? People at the neighborhood
and village level."
A top-secret report by the Defense Intelligence Agency that began
circulating in November for senior executives in the intelligence
community points out that a "hearts and minds" campaign may have more
benefits, particularly in Iraq, than the approach now being followed.
"One of the ways to success in Iraq is . . . creating relationships
with the heads of tribes in villages to counter the influences of
[Saddam's] Fedayeen and radical sheiks," said an administration
official who cited passages from the report. "The strategy would take
time and appropriate resources," the report said, according to the
official.
In locating Hussein, Army officers partly followed this approach,
interrogating distant members of the former Iraqi president's tribe.
But this
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
was more of a police tactic, rather than using Special Forces to build
goodwill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
with local Iraqis to garner intelligence.
----------------------------------------
Following Convention
----------------------
In Afghanistan, Special Operations forces face different problems.
Officials with the Special Operations Command, some of whom have made
multiple trips to Afghanistan, said little emphasis is being placed on
unconventional warfare.
Not only are the Special Forces excluded from major raids, any mission
that takes them farther than two miles from a firebase requires as
long as 72 hours to be approved, said several officials. When Special
Forces do deploy, which is infrequently, say officials who have
interviewed troops there, they are required to travel in armed
convoys, a practice that alerts the enemy. They also have been ordered
to stop assisting militias that helped topple the Taliban to avoid
competing with the new national army Afghanistan is trying to
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
organize.
----------
A good example to follow, said several officials, was set by a Green
Beret team operating along the Afghan-Pakistani border last year. The
team drove an abusive warlord out of the region, helped to establish a
town council, and rebuilt schools and roads.
With the help of some Afghan workers, they cut up several 40-ton tanks
captured from the Taliban into large chunks of steel. The Afghans sold
it last year at a market for enough money to build a much-needed
medical clinic.
The villagers repaid the Army team many times over with valuable
information, which led to the closure of routes used by the Taliban
and al Qaeda to infiltrate parts of Afghanistan, according to Defense
Department sources.
But this ingenuity violated at least the spirit of the Pentagon's
kill-and-capture-only policy.
"This type of indirect approach does not fit with the current
kick-down-the-door mentality," said one official, a 30-year Army
veteran and retired Special Forces officer who has made multiple trips
to Afghanistan to interview troops.
"Their focus is to capture and kill. It's easier, it's quick, and more
----------------------------------------------------------------------
glamorous," he said. "Based on what I saw, clearly no, it's not
working."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, the Special Forces and others continue to debate whether
the emphasis on Special Mission Units is, at times, counterproductive.
When Omar and Zawahiri were sighted, for example, it might have been
more productive to let the Green Berets scout the mosque and the
medical clinic to determine the accuracy of the information.
"Did we know with 100 percent certainty that it was Zawahiri and
Omar?" asked the official with the Special Operations Command. "How
would you know that if you never went into town? We never got to take
a look."
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
save-our-democracy
----------------QUESTION THAT RUMMY & HIS LUNATICS NEED TO BE LOCKED
UP?
RUMSFELD REFUSED TO GET RID OF THIS GENERAL AFTER THE BELOW INCIDENT
TOOK PLACE.
NOTE: THIS ARTICLE & INCIDENT TOOK PLACE "IN THE SAME MONTH THAT THE
TORTURES BEGAN IN THE IRAQ PRISONS AND "THIS LUNATIC GENERAL WAS
CLEARLY "IN CHARGE" OF THOSE TROOPS AND OFFICERS AT THE TIME. SYLVIA
--------------------------------------------
Print This Story E-mail This Story
Go to Original
The Pentagon Unleashes a Holy Warrior
By William M. Arkin
The Los Angeles Times
Thursday 16 October 2003
------------------------
Click Here for Video Report
William M. Arkin is a military affairs analyst who writes regularly
for The Times.
A Christian extremist in a high Defense post can only set back the
U.S. approach to the Muslim world.
In June of 2002, Jerry Boykin stepped to the pulpit at the First
Baptist Church of Broken Arrow, Okla., and described a set of
photographs he had taken of Mogadishu, Somalia, from an Army
helicopter in 1993.
The photographs were taken shortly after the disastrous "Blackhawk
Down" mission had resulted in the death of 18 Americans. When Boykin
came home and had them developed, he said, he noticed a strange dark
mark over the city. He had an imagery interpreter trained by the
military look at the mark. "This is not a blemish on your photograph,"
the interpreter told him, "This is real."
"Ladies and gentleman, this is your enemy," Boykin said to the
congregation as he flashed his pictures on a screen. "It is the
principalities of darkness It is a demonic presence in that city that
God revealed to me as the enemy."
That's an unusual message for a high-ranking U.S. military official
to deliver. But Boykin does it frequently.
This June, for instance, at the pulpit of the Good Shepherd
Community Church in Sandy, Ore., he displayed slides of Osama bin
Laden, Saddam Hussein and North Korea's Kim Jung Il. "Why do they hate
us?" Boykin asked. "The answer to that is because we're a Christian
nation We are hated because we are a nation of believers."
Our "spiritual enemy," Boykin continued, "will only be defeated if
we come against them in the name of Jesus."
Who is Jerry Boykin? He is Army Lt. General William G. "Jerry"
Boykin. The day before Boykin appeared at the pulpit in Oregon, the
Pentagon announced that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had
nominated the general for a third star and named him to a new position
as deputy undersecretary of Defense for
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
intelligence.
-------------
In this newly created position, Boykin is not just another Pentagon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
apparatchik or bureaucratic warrior.
--------------------------------------
He has been charged with reinvigorating Rumsfeld's "High Value Target
Plan" to
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
track down Bin Laden, Hussein, Mullah Omar and other leaders in the
terrorism world.
But Gen. Boykin's appointment to a high position in the
administration is a frightening blunder at a time when there is
widespread acknowledgment that the position of the United States in
the Islamic world has never been worse.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A month long journalistic investigation of Boykin reveals a 30-year
veteran whose classified resumé reads like a history of special
operations and counter-terrorism. From the failed Iranian hostage
rescue attempt in 1980 to invasions in Grenada and Panama, to the hunt
for drug lord Pablo Escobar in Colombia, to Somalia and various
locales in the Middle East, Boykin has been there. He also was an
advisor to Atty. Gen. Janet Reno during Waco.
He has risen in the ranks, starting out as one of the first Delta
Force
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
commandos and going on to head the top-secret Joint Special Operations
Command.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He has served in the Central Intelligence Agency and, most recently,
he
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
commanded Army Special Forces before being brought into the Rumsfeld
leadership
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
team.
------
But Boykin is also an intolerant extremist who has spoken openly
about how
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
his belief in Christianity has trumped Muslims and other
non-Christians in
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
battle.
-------
He has described himself as a warrior in the kingdom of God and
invited others to join with him in fighting for the United States
through repentance, prayer and the exercise of faith in God.
He has praised the leadership of President Bush, whom he extolled as
"a man who prays in the Oval Office." "George Bush was not elected by
a majority of the voters in the United States," Boykin told an Oregon
congregation.
"He was appointed by God."
--------------------------
All Americans, including those in uniform, are entitled to their
views. But when Boykin publicly spews this intolerant message while
wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army, he strongly suggests that this
is an official and sanctioned view — and that the U.S. Army is
indeed a Christian army.
But that's only part of the problem. Boykin is also in a senior
Pentagon policymaking position, and it's a serious mistake to allow a
man who believes in a Christian "jihad" to hold such a job.
For one thing, Boykin has made it clear that he takes his orders not
from his Army superiors but from God — which is a worrisome line
of command. For another, it is both imprudent and dangerous to have a
senior officer guiding the war on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan
who believes that Islam is an idolatrous, sacrilegious religion
against which we are waging a holy war.
And judging by his words, that is what he believes.
In a speech at a church in Daytona, Fla., in January, Boykin told
the following story:
"There was a man in Mogadishu named Osman Atto," whom Boykin
described as a top lieutenant of Mohammed Farah Aidid.
When Boykin's Delta Force commandos went after Atto, they missed him
by seconds, he said. "He went on CNN and he laughed at us, and he
said, 'They'll never get me because Allah will protect me. Allah will
protect me.'
"Well, you know what?" Boykin continued. "I knew that my God was
bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an
idol." Atto later was captured.
Other countries, Boykin said last year, "have lost their morals,
lost their values. But America is still a Christian nation."
The general has said he has no doubt that our side is the side of
the true God. He says he attends prayer services five times a week.
In Iraq, he told the Oregon congregation, special operations forces
were victorious precisely because of their faith in God. "Ladies and
gentlemen I want to impress upon you that the battle that we're in is
a spiritual battle," he said . "Satan wants to destroy this nation, he
wants to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as a
Christian army."
Since 9/11, the war against terrorism has become almost exclusively
a special operations war, melding military and CIA paramilitary and
covert activities with finer and finer grained integrated intelligence
information. Hence, the creation of Boykin's new job as deputy
undersecretary of Defense for intelligence.
The task facing Boykin, Rumsfeld insiders say, is to break down the
wall between different intelligence collectors and agencies and
quickly get the best information and analysis for American forces in
the field.
But even as he begins his new duties, Boykin is still publicly
preaching.
As late as Sept. 27, he was in Vero Beach, Fla., speaking on behalf
of Visitation House Ministries.
In describing the war against terrorism, President Bush frequently
says it "is not a war against Islam." In his National Security
Strategy, Bush declared that "the war on terrorism is not a clash of
civilizations." Yet many in the Islamic world see the U.S. as waging a
cultural and religious war against them. In fact, the White House's
own Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World
reported this month that since 9/11, "hostility toward America has
reached shocking levels."
"Arabs and Muslims respond in anger to what they perceive as U.S.
denigration of their societies and cultures," the report stated.
The task for the U.S., the report said, is to wage "a major struggle
to expand the zone of tolerance and marginalize extremists."
Appointing Jerry Boykin, with his visions of holy war in the Islamic
world, to a top position in the United States military is no way to
marginalize extremism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to Original
General Casts War in Religious Terms
By Richard T. Cooper
The Los Angeles Times
Thursday 16 October 2003
----------------------------
The top soldier assigned to track down Bin Laden and Hussein is an
evangelical Christian who speaks publicly of 'the army of God.'
-------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has assigned the task of tracking
down and eliminating Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other
high-profile targets to an Army general who sees the war on terrorism
as a clash between Judeo-Christian values and Satan.
Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, the new deputy undersecretary of
Defense for intelligence, is a much-decorated and twice-wounded
veteran of covert military operations. From the bloody 1993 clash with
Muslim warlords in Somalia chronicled in "Black Hawk Down" and the
hunt for Colombian drug czar Pablo Escobar to the ill-fated attempt to
rescue American hostages in Iran in 1980, Boykin was in the thick of
things.
Yet the former commander and 13-year veteran of the Army's
top-secret Delta Force is also an outspoken evangelical Christian who
appeared in dress uniform and polished jump boots before a religious
group in Oregon in June to declare that radical Islamists hated the
United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our
foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian ... and the enemy is a
guy named Satan."
Discussing the battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia, Boykin
told another audience, "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that
my God was a real God and his was an idol."
"We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have
been raised for such a time as this," Boykin said last year.
On at least one occasion, in Sandy, Ore., in June, Boykin said of
President Bush: "He's in the White House because God put him there."
Boykin's penchant for casting the war on terrorism in religious
terms appears to be at odds with Bush and an administration that have
labored to insist that the war on terrorism is not a religious
conflict.
Although the Army has seldom if ever taken official action against
officers for outspoken expressions of religious opinion, outside
experts see remarks such as Boykin's as sending exactly the wrong
message to the Arab and Islamic world.
In his public remarks, Boykin has also said that radical Muslims who
resort to terrorism are not representative of the Islamic faith.
He has compared Islamic extremists to "hooded Christians" who
terrorized blacks, Catholics, Jews and others from beneath the robes
of the Ku Klux Klan.
Boykin was not available for comment and did not respond to written
questions from the Los Angeles Times submitted to him Wednesday.
"The first lesson is to recognize that whatever we say here is heard
there, particularly anything perceived to be hostile to their basic
religion, and they don't forget it," said Stephen P. Cohen, a member
of the special panel named to study policy in the Arab and Muslim
world for the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.
"The phrase 'Judeo-Christian' is a big mistake. It's basically the
language of Bin Laden and his supporters," said Cohen, president of
the Institute for Middle East Peace and Development in New York.
"They are constantly trying to create the impression that the Jews
and Christians are getting together to beat up on Islam.... We have to
be very careful that this doesn't become a clash between religions, a
clash of civilizations."
Boykin's religious activities were first documented in detail by
William N. Arkin, a former military intelligence analyst who writes on
defense issues for The Times Opinion section.
Audio and videotapes of Boykin's appearances before religious groups
over the last two years were obtained exclusively by NBC News, which
reported on them Wednesday night on the "Nightly News with Tom
Brokaw."
Arkin writes in an article on the op-ed page of today's Times that
Boykin's appointment "is a frightening blunder at a time that there is
widespread acknowledgment that America's position in the Islamic world
has never been worse."
Boykin's promotion to lieutenant general and his appointment as
deputy undersecretary of Defense for intelligence were confirmed by
the Senate by voice vote in June.
An aide to the Senate Armed Services Committee said the appointment
was not examined in detail.
Yet Boykin's explicitly Christian-evangelical language in public
forums may become an issue now that he holds a high-level policy
position in the Pentagon.
Officials at his level are often called upon to testify before
Congress and appear in public forums.
Boykin's new job makes his role especially sensitive: He is charged
with speeding up the flow of intelligence on terrorist leaders to
combat teams in the field so that they can attack top-ranking
terrorist leaders.
Since virtually all these leaders are Muslim, Boykin's words and
actions are likely to draw special scrutiny in the Arab and Islamic
world.
Bush, a born-again Christian, often uses religious language in his
speeches, but he keeps references to God nonsectarian.
At one point, immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, the president said he wanted to lead a "crusade" against
terrorism.
But he quickly retracted the word when told that, to Muslim ears, it
recalled the medieval Christian crusaders' brutal invasions of Islamic
nations.
In that context, Boykin's reference to the God of Islam as "an idol"
may be perceived as particularly inflammatory.
The president has made a point of praising Islam as "a religion of
peace." He has invited Muslim clerics to the White House for Ramadan
dinners and has criticized evangelicals who called Islam a dangerous
faith.
The issue is still a sore spot in the Muslim world.
Pollster John Zogby says that public opinion surveys throughout the
Arab and Islamic world show strong negative reactions to any statement
by a U.S. official that suggests a conflict between religions or
cultures.
"To frame things in terms of good and evil, with the United States
as good, is a nonstarter," Zogby said.
"It is exactly the wrong thing to do."
For the Army, the issue of officers expressing religious opinions
publicly has been a sensitive problem for many years, according to a
former head of the Army Judge Advocate General's office who is now
retired but continues to serve in government as a civilian.
"The Army has struggled with this issue over the years. It gets
really, really touchy because what you're talking about is freedom of
expression," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"What usually happens is that somebody has a quiet chat with the
person," the retired general said.
Times staff writer Doyle McManus contributed to this report.
-------
Jump to TO Features for Friday 17 October 2003
Today's TO Features -------------- Clinton Warned Bush of bin Laden
Threat William M. Arkin | The Pentagon Unleashes a Holy Warrior
Schwarzenegger Asked To Explain Ken Lay Meeting Many Troops
Dissatisfied, Iraq Poll Finds US Soldiers to America: Bring Us Home
Now Iraqi Shiite Split Widens Sept. 11 Panel Votes to Subpoena FAA
Union Asks Colombian President to Find Two Missing Labor Workers EPA
Scuttles Comparison Of Ways To Control Mercury Maureen Dowd |
Bewitched, Bothered, Billy-Goated
save-our-democracy
Go to Original
The Gray Zone
By Seymour M. Hersh
The New Yorker
Saturday 15 May 2004
How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib.
The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal
inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last
year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly
secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to
the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld's decision embittered
the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of
élite combat units, and hurt America's prospects in the war on terror.
According to interviews with several past and present American
intelligence officials, the Pentagon's operation, known inside the
intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green,
encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners
in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing
insurgency in Iraq. A senior C.I.A. official, in confirming the
details of this account last week, said that the operation stemmed
from Rumsfeld's long-standing desire to wrest control of America's
clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A.
Rumsfeld, during appearances last week before Congress to testify
about Abu Ghraib, was precluded by law from explicitly mentioning
highly secret matters in an unclassified session. But he conveyed the
message that he was telling the public all that he knew about the
story. He said, "Any suggestion that there is not a full, deep
awareness of what has happened, and the damage it has done, I think,
would be a misunderstanding." The senior C.I.A. official, asked about
Rumsfeld's testimony and that of Stephen Cambone, his Under-Secretary
for Intelligence, said, "Some people think you can bullshit anyone."
The Abu Ghraib story began, in a sense, just weeks after the
September 11, 2001, attacks, with the American bombing of Afghanistan.
Almost from the start, the Administration's search for Al Qaeda
members in the war zone, and its worldwide search for terrorists, came
up against major command-and-control problems. For example, combat
forces that had Al Qaeda targets in sight had to obtain legal
clearance before firing on them. On October 7th, the night the bombing
began, an unmanned Predator aircraft tracked an automobile convoy
that, American intelligence believed, contained Mullah Muhammad Omar,
the Taliban leader. A lawyer on duty at the United States Central
Command headquarters, in Tampa, Florida, refused to authorize a
strike. By the time an attack was approved, the target was out of
reach. Rumsfeld was apoplectic over what he saw as a self-defeating
hesitation to attack that was due to political correctness. One
officer described him to me that fall as "kicking a lot of glass and
breaking doors." In November, the Washington Post reported that, as
many as ten times since early October, Air Force pilots believed
they'd had senior Al Qaeda and Taliban members in their sights but had
been unable to act in time because of legalistic hurdles. There were
similar problems throughout the world, as American Special Forces
units seeking to move quickly against suspected terrorist cells were
compelled to get prior approval from local American ambassadors and
brief their superiors in the chain of command.
Rumsfeld reacted in his usual direct fashion: he authorized the
establishment of a highly secret program that was given blanket
advance approval to kill or capture and, if possible, interrogate
"high value" targets in the Bush Administration's war on terror. A
special-access program, or sap-subject to the Defense Department's
most stringent level of security-was set up, with an office in a
secure area of the Pentagon. The program would recruit operatives and
acquire the necessary equipment, including aircraft, and would keep
its activities under wraps. America's most successful intelligence
operations during the Cold War had been saps, including the Navy's
submarine penetration of underwater cables used by the Soviet high
command and construction of the Air Force's stealth bomber. All the
so-called "black" programs had one element in common: the Secretary of
Defense, or his deputy, had to conclude that the normal military
classification restraints did not provide enough security.
"Rumsfeld's goal was to get a capability in place to take on a
high-value target-a standup group to hit quickly," a former high-level
intelligence official told me. "He got all the agencies together-the
C.I.A. and the N.S.A.-to get pre-approval in place. Just say the code
word and go." The operation had across-the-board approval from
Rumsfeld and from Condoleezza Rice, the national-security adviser.
President Bush was informed of the existence of the program, the
former intelligence official said.
The people assigned to the program worked by the book, the former
intelligence official told me. They created code words, and recruited,
after careful screening, highly trained commandos and operatives from
America's élite forces-Navy seals, the Army's Delta Force, and the
C.I.A.'s paramilitary experts. They also asked some basic questions:
"Do the people working the problem have to use aliases? Yes. Do we
need dead drops for the mail? Yes. No traceability and no budget. And
some special-access programs are never fully briefed to Congress."
In theory, the operation enabled the Bush Administration to respond
immediately to time-sensitive intelligence: commandos crossed borders
without visas and could interrogate terrorism suspects deemed too
important for transfer to the military's facilities at Guantánamo,
Cuba. They carried out instant interrogations-using force if
necessary-at secret C.I.A. detention centers scattered around the
world. The intelligence would be relayed to the sap command center in
the Pentagon in real time, and sifted for those pieces of information
critical to the "white," or overt, world.
Fewer than two hundred operatives and officials, including Rumsfeld
and General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were
"completely read into the program," the former intelligence official
said. The goal was to keep the operation protected. "We're not going
to read more people than necessary into our heart of darkness," he
said. "The rules are 'Grab whom you must. Do what you want.'"
One Pentagon official who was deeply involved in the program was
Stephen Cambone, who was named Under-Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence in March, 2003. The office was new; it was created as
part of Rumsfeld's reorganization of the Pentagon. Cambone was
unpopular among military and civilian intelligence bureaucrats in the
Pentagon, essentially because he had little experience in running
intelligence programs, though in 1998 he had served as staff director
for a committee, headed by Rumsfeld, that warned of an emerging
ballistic-missile threat to the United States. He was known instead
for his closeness to Rumsfeld. "Remember Henry II-'Who will rid me of
this meddlesome priest?'" the senior C.I.A. official said to me, with
a laugh, last week. "Whatever Rumsfeld whimsically says, Cambone will
do ten times that much."
Cambone was a strong advocate for war against Iraq. He shared
Rumsfeld's disdain for the analysis and assessments proffered by the
C.I.A., viewing them as too cautious, and chafed, as did Rumsfeld, at
the C.I.A.'s inability, before the Iraq war, to state conclusively
that Saddam Hussein harbored weapons of mass destruction. Cambone's
military assistant, Army Lieutenant General William G. (Jerry) Boykin,
was also controversial. Last fall, he generated unwanted headlines
after it was reported that, in a speech at an Oregon church, he
equated the Muslim world with Satan.
Early in his tenure, Cambone provoked a bureaucratic battle within
the Pentagon by insisting that he be given control of all
special-access programs that were relevant to the war on terror. Those
programs, which had been viewed by many in the Pentagon as sacrosanct,
were monitored by Kenneth deGraffenreid, who had experience in
counter-intelligence programs. Cambone got control, and deGraffenreid
subsequently left the Pentagon. Asked for comment on this story, a
Pentagon spokesman said, "I will not discuss any covert programs;
however, Dr. Cambone did not assume his position as the
Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence until March 7, 2003, and
had no involvement in the decision-making process regarding
interrogation procedures in Iraq or anywhere else."
In mid-2003, the special-access program was regarded in the Pentagon
as one of the success stories of the war on terror. "It was an active
program," the former intelligence official told me. "It's been the
most important capability we have for dealing with an imminent threat.
If we discover where Osama bin Laden is, we can get him. And we can
remove an existing threat with a real capability to hit the United
States-and do so without visibility." Some of its methods were
troubling and could not bear close scrutiny, however.
By then, the war in Iraq had begun. The sap was involved in some
assignments in Iraq, the former official said. C.I.A. and other
American Special Forces operatives secretly teamed up to hunt for
Saddam Hussein and-without success-for Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction. But they weren't able to stop the evolving insurgency.
In the first months after the fall of Baghdad, Rumsfeld and his
aides still had a limited view of the insurgency, seeing it as little
more than the work of Baathist "dead-enders," criminal gangs, and
foreign terrorists who were Al Qaeda followers. The Administration
measured its success in the war by how many of those on its list of
the fifty-five most wanted members of the old regime-reproduced on
playing cards-had been captured. Then, in August, 2003, terror
bombings in Baghdad hit the Jordanian Embassy, killing nineteen
people, and the United Nations headquarters, killing twenty-three
people, including Sergio Vieira de Mello, the head of the U.N.
mission. On August 25th, less than a week after the U.N. bombing,
Rumsfeld acknowledged, in a talk before the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
that "the dead-enders are still with us." He went on, "There are some
today who are surprised that there are still pockets of resistance in
Iraq, and they suggest that this represents some sort of failure on
the part of the Coalition. But this is not the case." Rumsfeld
compared the insurgents with those true believers who "fought on
during and after the defeat of the Nazi regime in Germany." A few
weeks later-and five months after the fall of Baghdad-the Defense
Secretary declared,"It is, in my view, better to be dealing with
terrorists in Iraq than in the United States."
Inside the Pentagon, there was a growing realization that the war
was going badly. The increasingly beleaguered and baffled Army
leadership was telling reporters that the insurgents consisted of five
thousand Baathists loyal to Saddam Hussein. "When you understand that
they're organized in a cellular structure," General John Abizaid, the
head of the Central Command, declared, "that . . . they have access to
a lot of money and a lot of ammunition, you'll understand how
dangerous they are."
The American military and intelligence communities were having
little success in penetrating the insurgency. One internal report
prepared for the U.S. military, made available to me, concluded that
the insurgents'"strategic and operational intelligence has proven to
be quite good." According to the study:
"Their ability to attack convoys, other vulnerable targets and
particular individuals has been the result of painstaking surveillance
and reconnaissance. Inside information has been passed on to insurgent
cells about convoy/troop movements and daily habits of Iraqis working
with coalition from within the Iraqi security services, primarily the
Iraqi Police force which is rife with sympathy for the insurgents,
Iraqi ministries and from within pro-insurgent individuals working
with the CPA's so-called Green Zone."
The study concluded, "Politically, the U.S. has failed to date.
Insurgencies can be fixed or ameliorated by dealing with what caused
them in the first place. The disaster that is the reconstruction of
Iraq has been the key cause of the insurgency. There is no legitimate
government, and it behooves the Coalition Provisional Authority to
absorb the sad but unvarnished fact that most Iraqis do not see the
Governing Council"-the Iraqi body appointed by the C.P.A.-"as the
legitimate authority. Indeed, they know that the true power is the
CPA."
By the fall, a military analyst told me, the extent of the
Pentagon's political and military misjudgments was clear. Donald
Rumsfeld's "dead-enders" now included not only Baathists but many
marginal figures as well-thugs and criminals who were among the tens
of thousands of prisoners freed the previous fall by Saddam as part of
a prewar general amnesty. Their desperation was not driving the
insurgency; it simply made them easy recruits for those who were. The
analyst said, "We'd killed and captured guys who had been given two or
three hundred dollars to 'pray and spray'"-that is, shoot randomly and
hope for the best. "They weren't really insurgents but down-and-outers
who were paid by wealthy individuals sympathetic to the insurgency."
In many cases, the paymasters were Sunnis who had been members of the
Baath Party. The analyst said that the insurgents "spent three or four
months figuring out how we operated and developing their own
countermeasures. If that meant putting up a hapless guy to go and
attack a convoy and see how the American troops responded, they'd do
it." Then, the analyst said, "the clever ones began to get in on the
action."
By contrast, according to the military report, the American and
Coalition forces knew little about the insurgency: "Human intelligence
is poor or lacking . . . due to the dearth of competence and
expertise. . . . The intelligence effort is not coördinated since
either too many groups are involved in gathering intelligence or the
final product does not get to the troops in the field in a timely
manner." The success of the war was at risk; something had to be done
to change the dynamic.
The solution, endorsed by Rumsfeld and carried out by Stephen
Cambone, was to get tough with those Iraqis in the Army prison system
who were suspected of being insurgents. A key player was Major General
Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the detention and interrogation
center at Guantánamo, who had been summoned to Baghdad in late August
to review prison interrogation procedures. The internal Army report on
the abuse charges, written by Major General Antonio Taguba in
February, revealed that Miller urged that the commanders in Baghdad
change policy and place military intelligence in charge of the prison.
The report quoted Miller as recommending that "detention operations
must act as an enabler for interrogation."
Miller's concept, as it emerged in recent Senate hearings, was to
"Gitmoize" the prison system in Iraq-to make it more focussed on
interrogation. He also briefed military commanders in Iraq on the
interrogation methods used in Cuba-methods that could, with special
approval, include sleep deprivation, exposure to extremes of cold and
heat, and placing prisoners in "stress positions" for agonizing
lengths of time. (The Bush Administration had unilaterally declared Al
Qaeda and other captured members of international terrorist networks
to be illegal combatants, and not eligible for the protection of the
Geneva Conventions.)
Rumsfeld and Cambone went a step further, however: they expanded the
scope of the sap, bringing its unconventional methods to Abu Ghraib.
The commandos were to operate in Iraq as they had in Afghanistan. The
male prisoners could be treated roughly, and exposed to sexual
humiliation.
"They weren't getting anything substantive from the detainees in
Iraq," the former intelligence official told me. "No names. Nothing
that they could hang their hat on. Cambone says, I've got to crack
this thing and I'm tired of working through the normal chain of
command. I've got this apparatus set up-the black special-access
program-and I'm going in hot. So he pulls the switch, and the
electricity begins flowing last summer. And it's working. We're
getting a picture of the insurgency in Iraq and the intelligence is
flowing into the white world. We're getting good stuff. But we've got
more targets"-prisoners in Iraqi jails-"than people who can handle
them."
Cambone then made another crucial decision, the former intelligence
official told me: not only would he bring the sap's rules into the
prisons; he would bring some of the Army military-intelligence
officers working inside the Iraqi prisons under the sap'sauspices. "So
here are fundamentally good soldiers-military-intelligence guys-being
told that no rules apply," the former official, who has extensive
knowledge of the special-access programs, added. "And, as far as
they're concerned, this is a covert operation, and it's to be kept
within Defense Department channels."
The military-police prison guards, the former official said,
included "recycled hillbillies from Cumberland, Maryland." He was
referring to members of the 372nd Military Police Company. Seven
members of the company are now facing charges for their role in the
abuse at Abu Ghraib. "How are these guys from Cumberland going to know
anything? The Army Reserve doesn't know what it's doing."
Who was in charge of Abu Ghraib-whether military police or military
intelligence-was no longer the only question that mattered. Hard-core
special operatives, some of them with aliases, were working in the
prison. The military police assigned to guard the prisoners wore
uniforms, but many others-military intelligence officers, contract
interpreters, C.I.A. officers, and the men from the special-access
program-wore civilian clothes. It was not clear who was who, even to
Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, then the commander of the 800th
Military Police Brigade, and the officer ostensibly in charge. "I
thought most of the civilians there were interpreters, but there were
some civilians that I didn't know," Karpinski told me. "I called them
the disappearing ghosts. I'd seen them once in a while at Abu Ghraib
and then I'd see them months later. They were nice-they'd always call
out to me and say, 'Hey, remember me? How are you doing?'" The
mysterious civilians, she said, were "always bringing in somebody for
interrogation or waiting to collect somebody going out." Karpinski
added that she had no idea who was operating in her prison system.
(General Taguba found that Karpinski's leadership failures contributed
to the abuses.)
By fall, according to the former intelligence official, the senior
leadership of the C.I.A. had had enough. "They said, 'No way. We
signed up for the core program in Afghanistan-pre-approved for
operations against high-value terrorist targets-and now you want to
use it for cabdrivers, brothers-in-law, and people pulled off the
streets'"-the sort of prisoners who populate the Iraqi jails. "The
C.I.A.'s legal people objected," and the agency ended its sap
involvement in Abu Ghraib, the former official said.
The C.I.A.'s complaints were echoed throughout the intelligence
community. There was fear that the situation at Abu Ghraib would lead
to the exposure of the secret sap, and thereby bring an end to what
had been, before Iraq, a valuable cover operation. "This was
stupidity," a government consultant told me. "You're taking a program
that was operating in the chaos of Afghanistan against Al Qaeda, a
stateless terror group, and bringing it into a structured, traditional
war zone. Sooner or later, the commandos would bump into the legal and
moral procedures of a conventional war with an Army of a hundred and
thirty-five thousand soldiers."
The former senior intelligence official blamed hubris for the Abu
Ghraib disaster. "There's nothing more exhilarating for a pissant
Pentagon civilian than dealing with an important national security
issue without dealing with military planners, who are always worried
about risk," he told me. "What could be more boring than needing the
coöperation of logistical planners?" The only difficulty, the former
official added, is that, "as soon as you enlarge the secret program
beyond the oversight capability of experienced people, you lose
control. We've never had a case where a special-access program went
sour-and this goes back to the Cold War."
In a separate interview, a Pentagon consultant, who spent much of
his career directly involved with special-access programs, spread the
blame. "The White House subcontracted this to the Pentagon, and the
Pentagon subcontracted it to Cambone," he said. "This is Cambone's
deal, but Rumsfeld and Myers approved the program." When it came to
the interrogation operation at Abu Ghraib, he said, Rumsfeld left the
details to Cambone. Rumsfeld may not be personally culpable, the
consultant added, "but he's responsible for the checks and balances.
The issue is that, since 9/11, we've changed the rules on how we deal
with terrorism, and created conditions where the ends justify the
means."
Last week, statements made by one of the seven accused M.P.s,
Specialist Jeremy Sivits, who is expected to plead guilty, were
released. In them, he claimed that senior commanders in his unit would
have stopped the abuse had they witnessed it. One of the questions
that will be explored at any trial, however, is why a group of Army
Reserve military policemen, most of them from small towns, tormented
their prisoners as they did, in a manner that was especially
humiliating for Iraqi men.
The notion that Arabs are particularly vulnerable to sexual
humiliation became a talking point among pro-war Washington
conservatives in the months before the March, 2003, invasion of Iraq.
One book that was frequently cited was "The Arab Mind," a study of
Arab culture and psychology, first published in 1973, by Raphael
Patai, a cultural anthropologist who taught at, among other
universities, Columbia and Princeton, and who died in 1996. The book
includes a twenty-five-page chapter on Arabs and sex, depicting sex as
a taboo vested with shame and repression. "The segregation of the
sexes, the veiling of the women . . . and all the other minute rules
that govern and restrict contact between men and women, have the
effect of making sex a prime mental preoccupation in the Arab world,"
Patai wrote. Homosexual activity, "or any indication of homosexual
leanings, as with all other expressions of sexuality, is never given
any publicity. These are private affairs and remain in private." The
Patai book, an academic told me, was "the bible of the neocons on Arab
behavior." In their discussions, he said, two themes emerged-"one,
that Arabs only understand force and, two, that the biggest weakness
of Arabs is shame and humiliation."
The government consultant said that there may have been a serious
goal, in the beginning, behind the sexual humiliation and the posed
photographs. It was thought that some prisoners would do
anything-including spying on their associates-to avoid dissemination
of the shameful photos to family and friends. The government
consultant said, "I was told that the purpose of the photographs was
to create an army of informants, people you could insert back in the
population." The idea was that they would be motivated by fear of
exposure, and gather information about pending insurgency action, the
consultant said. If so, it wasn't effective; the insurgency continued
to grow.
"This shit has been brewing for months," the Pentagon consultant who
has dealt with saps told me. "You don't keep prisoners naked in their
cell and then let them get bitten by dogs. This is sick." The
consultant explained that he and his colleagues, all of whom had
served for years on active duty in the military, had been appalled by
the misuse of Army guard dogs inside Abu Ghraib. "We don't raise kids
to do things like that. When you go after Mullah Omar, that's one
thing. But when you give the authority to kids who don't know the
rules, that's another."
In 2003, Rumsfeld's apparent disregard for the requirements of the
Geneva Conventions while carrying out the war on terror had led a
group of senior military legal officers from the Judge Advocate
General's (jag) Corps to pay two surprise visits within five months to
Scott Horton, who was then chairman of the New York City Bar
Association's Committee on International Human Rights. "They wanted us
to challenge the Bush Administration about its standards for
detentions and interrogation," Horton told me. "They were urging us to
get involved and speak in a very loud voice. It came pretty much out
of the blue. The message was that conditions are ripe for abuse, and
it's going to occur." The military officials were most alarmed about
the growing use of civilian contractors in the interrogation process,
Horton recalled. "They said there was an atmosphere of legal ambiguity
being created as a result of a policy decision at the highest levels
in the Pentagon. The jag officers were being cut out of the policy
formulation process." They told him that, with the war on terror, a
fifty-year history of exemplary application of the Geneva Conventions
had come to an end.
The abuses at Abu Ghraib were exposed on January 13th, when Joseph
Darby, a young military policeman assigned to Abu Ghraib, reported the
wrongdoing to the Army's Criminal Investigations Division. He also
turned over a CD full of photographs. Within three days, a report made
its way to Donald Rumsfeld, who informed President Bush.
The inquiry presented a dilemma for the Pentagon. The C.I.D. had to
be allowed to continue, the former intelligence official said. "You
can't cover it up. You have to prosecute these guys for being off the
reservation. But how do you prosecute them when they were covered by
the special-access program? So you hope that maybe it'll go away." The
Pentagon's attitude last January, he said, was "Somebody got caught
with some photos. What's the big deal? Take care of it." Rumsfeld's
explanation to the White House, the official added, was reassuring:
"'We've got a glitch in the program. We'll prosecute it.' The cover
story was that some kids got out of control."
In their testimony before Congress last week, Rumsfeld and Cambone
struggled to convince the legislators that Miller's visit to Baghdad
in late August had nothing to do with the subsequent abuse. Cambone
sought to assure the Senate Armed Services Committee that the
interplay between Miller and Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the
top U.S. commander in Iraq, had only a casual connection to his
office. Miller's recommendations, Cambone said, were made to Sanchez.
His own role, he said, was mainly to insure that the "flow of
intelligence back to the commands" was "efficient and effective." He
added that Miller's goal was "to provide a safe, secure and humane
environment that supports the expeditious collection of intelligence."
It was a hard sell. Senator Hillary Clinton, Democrat of New York,
posed the essential question facing the senators:
"If, indeed, General Miller was sent from Guantánamo to Iraq for the
purpose of acquiring more actionable intelligence from detainees, then
it is fair to conclude that the actions that are at point here in your
report [on abuses at Abu Ghraib] are in some way connected to General
Miller's arrival and his specific orders, however they were
interpreted, by those MPs and the military intelligence that were
involved.... Therefore, I for one don't believe I yet have adequate
information from Mr. Cambone and the Defense Department as to exactly
what General Miller's orders were . . . how he carried out those
orders, and the connection between his arrival in the fall of '03 and
the intensity of the abuses that occurred afterward."
Sometime before the Abu Ghraib abuses became public, the former
intelligence official told me, Miller was "read in"-that is,
briefed-on the special-access operation. In April, Miller returned to
Baghdad to assume control of the Iraqi prisons; once the scandal hit,
with its glaring headlines, General Sanchez presented him to the
American and international media as the general who would clean up the
Iraqi prison system and instill respect for the Geneva Conventions.
"His job is to save what he can," the former official said. "He's
there to protect the program while limiting any loss of core
capability." As for Antonio Taguba, the former intelligence official
added, "He goes into it not knowing shit. And then: 'Holy cow! What's
going on?'"
If General Miller had been summoned by Congress to testify, he, like
Rumsfeld and Cambone, would not have been able to mention the
special-access program. "If you give away the fact that a
special-access program exists,"the former intelligence official told
me, "you blow the whole quick-reaction program."
One puzzling aspect of Rumsfeld's account of his initial reaction to
news of the Abu Ghraib investigation was his lack of alarm and lack of
curiosity. One factor may have been recent history: there had been
many previous complaints of prisoner abuse from organization like
Human Rights Watch and the International Red Cross, and the Pentagon
had weathered them with ease. Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services
Committee that he had not been provided with details of alleged abuses
until late March, when he read the specific charges. "You read it, as
I say, it's one thing. You see these photographs and it's just
unbelievable. . . . It wasn't three-dimensional. It wasn't video. It
wasn't color. It was quite a different thing." The former intelligence
official said that, in his view, Rumsfeld and other senior Pentagon
officials had not studied the photographs because "they thought what
was in there was permitted under the rules of engagement," as applied
to the sap. "The photos," he added, "turned out to be the result of
the program run amok."
The former intelligence official made it clear that he was not
alleging that Rumsfeld or General Myers knew that atrocities were
committed. But, he said, "it was their permission granted to do the
sap, generically, and there was enough ambiguity, which permitted the
abuses."
This official went on, "The black guys"-those in the Pentagon's
secret program-"say we've got to accept the prosecution. They're
vaccinated from the reality." The sap is still active, and "the United
States is picking up guys for interrogation. The question is, how do
they protect the quick-reaction force without blowing its cover?" The
program was protected by the fact that no one on the outside was
allowed to know of its existence. "If you even give a hint that you're
aware of a black program that you're not read into, you lose your
clearances," the former official said. "Nobody will talk. So the only
people left to prosecute are those who are undefended-the poor kids at
the end of the food chain."
The most vulnerable senior official is Cambone. "The Pentagon is
trying now to protect Cambone, and doesn't know how to do it," the
former intelligence official said.
Last week, the government consultant, who has close ties to many
conservatives, defended the Administration's continued secrecy about
the special-access program in Abu Ghraib. "Why keep it black?" the
consultant asked. "Because the process is unpleasant. It's like making
sausage-you like the result but you don't want to know how it was
made. Also, you don't want the Iraqi public, and the Arab world, to
know. Remember, we went to Iraq to democratize the Middle East. The
last thing you want to do is let the Arab world know how you treat
Arab males in prison."
The former intelligence official told me he feared that one of the
disastrous effects of the prison-abuse scandal would be the
undermining of legitimate operations in the war on terror, which had
already suffered from the draining of resources into Iraq. He
portrayed Abu Ghraib as "a tumor" on the war on terror. He said, "As
long as it's benign and contained, the Pentagon can deal with the
photo crisis without jeopardizing the secret program. As soon as it
begins to grow, with nobody to diagnose it-it becomes a malignant
tumor."
The Pentagon consultant made a similar point. Cambone and his
superiors, the consultant said, "created the conditions that allowed
transgressions to take place. And now we're going to end up with
another Church Commission"-the 1975 Senate committee on intelligence,
headed by Senator Frank Church, of Idaho, which investigated C.I.A.
abuses during the previous two decades. Abu Ghraib had sent the
message that the Pentagon leadership was unable to handle its
discretionary power. "When the shit hits the fan, as it did on 9/11,
how do you push the pedal?" the consultant asked. "You do it
selectively and with intelligence."
"Congress is going to get to the bottom of this," the Pentagon
consultant said. "You have to demonstrate that there are checks and
balances in the system." He added, "When you live in a world of gray
zones, you have to have very clear red lines."
Senator John McCain, of Arizona, said, "If this is true, it
certainly increases the dimension of this issue and deserves
significant scrutiny. I will do all possible to get to the bottom of
this, and all other allegations."
"In an odd way," Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human
Rights Watch, said, "the sexual abuses at Abu Ghraib have become a
diversion for the prisoner abuse and the violation of the Geneva
Conventions that is authorized." Since September 11th, Roth added, the
military has systematically used third-degree techniques around the
world on detainees. "Some jags hate this and are horrified that the
tolerance of mistreatment will come back and haunt us in the next
war," Roth told me. "We're giving the world a ready-made excuse to
ignore the Geneva Conventions. Rumsfeld has lowered the bar."
-------
Jump to TO Features for Sunday May 16, 2004
Today's TO Features -------------- Sy Hersh | 'Rumsfeld Ordered Abu
Ghraib Torture' Doris "Granny D" Haddock | Soil of Good Democracy New
York Times | America Adrift in Iraq 5 U.S. Soldiers Die in Separate
Incidents U.S. Forces Move Against Cleric During Battle in Shiite Holy
City Undeterred by McCain Denials, Some See Him as Kerry's No. 2
Guantanamo Abuse Same as Abu Ghraib, say Britons Global Cod Stocks May
Be Depleted by 2020 Jean-Marcel Bouguereau | "Blood and Faith"
Firefighters Association Leader Calls for Bush's 'Firing' t r u t h o
u t Home
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever
with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or
sponsored by the originator.)
Print This Story E-mail This Story
© : t r u t h o u t 2004
save-our-democracy
I-DATED MAY 9, 1991.....13 YEARS AGO.
AS I HAVE STATED "MANY TIMES" HERE...THIS COMPLAINT WAS DIRECTED TO
THE NEW INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND IS "THE ONLY PLACE" THAT THE
PEOPLE OF THE WORLD CAN STOP THESE "AMERICAN FASCIST PRESIDENTS".
UNFORTUNATELY, FOR GENERAL WESLEY CLARK, THE INTERNATIONAL COURT WAS
NOT OFFICIALLY FORMED AND ABLE TO ACT UNTIL THIS YEAR 2004, WHEN A
PROSECUTOR AND JUDGES HAVE BEEN ELECTED.
THE TIME "IS NOW" THAT THE "AMERICAN PEOPLE" MUST START THIS ACTION OF
A COMPLAINT AGAINST BUSH II, AND HIS HENCHMEN. AS I ALSO POSTED ON
THIS SITE, BUSH II, HAS REFUSED TO SIGN THE U.S.A. ON AS A "MEMBER" OF
THE I.C.C. AND THE REASON IS CLEAR...HE "KNEW" THAT "HE & HIS
HENCHMEN" COULD BE LEGALLY HELD AS "WAR CRIMINALS" AND THOUGHT HE
COULD "AVOID" THAT PROSECUTION. THAT IS "NOT TRUE"..."ANY OFFICIAL OR
SOLDIER" CAN BE HELD FOR "WAR CRIMES", IF "THEIR OWN COUNTRY REFUSES
TO PROSECUTE THEM". PUT THE WORDS, "INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT" IN
YOUR GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE, THEN CLICK ON THE "ROMAN STATUTES" AND YOU
WILL SEE THAT THE "AMERICAN PEOPLE" OR "THE VICTIM'S, I.E. IRAQI
PEOPLE", CAN FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST BUSH, JUST LIKE GEN. WESLEY
CLARK DID HERE.
THIS LINK HAS THE "INTERNATIONAL LAWS", U.N. CHARTER, GENEVA
CONFERENCE TREATIES, WHICH ARE "THE SAME" LAWS AND TREATIES THAT BUSH
II, HAVE INTENTIONALLY VIOLATED AND CAN NOW BE PROSECUTED THROUGH THIS
COURT.
SEND THIS LETTER WITH THIS LINK TO YOUR LOCAL PAPERS AND LET'S GET
THIS COMPLAINT FILED "NOW". CAN YOU "STILL BURY YOUR HEADS AND SHUT
YOUR MOUTH", KNOWING WHAT YOU KNOW NOW? OR...ARE YOU STILL TOO LAZY TO
FIND OUT WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON? SYLVIA
-----
Subject: GEN.RAMSEY CLARK-ACCUSES BUSH NO. 1-WAR CRIMES-GULF WAR #1
save-our-democracy
BANISHMENT.
"YOU DESERVE THE GOVERNMENT YOU GET"...HOW DO YOU LIKE IT SO
FAR?-SYLVIA
------
Print This Story E-mail This Story
Go to Original--http://www.truthout.org
Continuing the Cover-Up?
************************
By Brian Ross and Alexandra Salomon
ABC News
Friday 21 May 2004
Military Takes Action Against Key Witness in Abu Ghraib Abuse Scandal.
A witness who told ABCNEWS he believed the military was covering up
the extent of abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison was today stripped of
his security clearance and told he may face prosecution because his
comments were "not in the national interest."
Sgt. Samuel Provance said in addition to his revoked security
clearance, he was transferred to a different platoon, and his record
was officially "flagged," meaning he cannot be promoted or given any
awards or honors.
Provance said he was told he will face administrative action for
failing to report what he knew at the time and for failing to take
steps to stop the abuse.
"I see it as an effort to intimidate Sgt. Provance and any other
soldier whose conscience is bothering him, and who wants to come
forward and tell what really happened at Abu Ghraib," said his
attorney Scott Horton.
Provance Alleges Cover-Up
A key witness in the military investigation into prisoner
mistreatment at Abu Ghraib, Provance told ABCNEWS earlier this week
that dozens of soldiers, in addition to the seven military police
reservists who have been charged, were involved in the abuse at the
prison, and he said there is an effort under way in the Army to hide
it.
"There's definitely a cover-up," Provance said. "People are either
telling themselves or being told to be quiet."
Provance, 30, was part of the 302nd Military Intelligence Battalion
stationed at Abu Ghraib last September. He spoke to ABCNEWS despite
orders from his commanders not to.
"What I was surprised at was the silence," said Provance. "The
collective silence by so many people that had to be involved, that had
to have seen something or heard something."
Provance, now stationed in Germany, ran the top-secret computer
network used by military intelligence at the prison.
He said that while he did not see the actual abuse take place, the
interrogators with whom he worked freely admitted they directed the
MPs' rough treatment of prisoners.
"Anything [the MPs] were to do legally or otherwise, they were to
take those commands from the interrogators," he said.
Top military officials have claimed the abuse seen in the photos at
Abu Ghraib was limited to a few MPs, but Provance says the sexual
humiliation of prisoners began as a technique ordered by the
interrogators from military intelligence.
"One interrogator told me about how commonly the detainees were
stripped naked, and in some occasions, wearing women's underwear,"
Provance said. "If it's your job to strip people naked, yell at them,
scream at them, humiliate them, it's not going to be too hard to move
from that to another level."
According to Provance, some of the physical abuse that took place at
Abu Ghraib included U.S. soldiers "striking [prisoners] on the neck
area somewhere and the person being knocked out. Then [the soldier]
would go to the next detainee, who would be very fearful and voicing
their fear, and the MP would calm him down and say, 'We're not going
to do that. It's OK. Everything's fine,' and then do the exact same
thing to him."
Provance also described an incident when two drunken interrogators
took a female Iraqi prisoner from her cell in the middle of the night
and stripped her naked to the waist. The men were later restrained by
another MP.
Pentagon Sanctions Investigation
Maj. Gen. George Fay, the Army's deputy chief of staff for
intelligence, was assigned by the Pentagon to investigate the role of
military intelligence in the abuse at the Iraq prison.
Fay started his probe on April 23, but Provance said when Fay
interviewed him, the general seemed interested only in the military
police, not the interrogators, and seemed to discourage him from
testifying.
Provance said Fay threatened to take action against him for failing
to report what he saw sooner, and the sergeant said he feared he would
be ostracized for speaking out.
"I feel like I'm being punished for being honest," Provance told
ABCNEWS on Tuesday. "You know, it was almost as if I actually felt if
all my statements were shredded and I said, like most everybody else,
'I didn't hear anything, I didn't see anything. I don't know what
you're talking about,' then my life would be just fine right now."
In response, Army officials said it is "routine procedure to advise
military personnel under investigative review" not to comment. The
officials said, however, that Fay and the military were committed to
an honest, in-depth investigation of what happened at the prison.
But Provance believes many involved may not be as forthcoming with
information.
"I would say many people are probably hiding and wishing to God that
this storm passes without them having to be investigated [or]
personally looked at," he said.
-------
Jump to TO Features for Sunday May 23, 2004
Today's TO Features -------------- Abu Ghraib Whistle Blower Under
Attack by Military List of Detainee Death Inquiries Expanded to 37
Report: Rape of Iraqi Women by U.S. Soldiers Widespread Reporters
Subpoenaed in CIA Leak U.S. General Linked to Abu Ghraib Abuse Iraq
Wedding Bombing Video Shows Carnage EPA Relied on Industry for Plywood
Plant Pollution Rule Carlos Fuentes | The Adventures of Bush the
Crackpot Punishment and Amusement Molly Ivins | How Fascism Starts
Eleanor Clift | Panic on the Hill GOP Ran Fund-Raising Out of India t
save-our-democracy
IRAQI DETAINEES...AND THE "NAMES OF THE TOP BRASS" WHO APPROVE IT.
AGAIN, BUSH & CO HAVE LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH TO "COVER-UP" THEIR
APPOINTED TOP MILITARY OFFICIALS AND MERCENARIES, WHO ORDERED THIS
TORTURE AND DEATH OF HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS OF IRAQI MEN AND
WOMEN....
OH YEAH...YOU G.I.'S THESE "ORDERS" HAVE NOW GIVEN THE IRAQI'S AND ALL
ARABS THE "RIGHT TO TORTURE YOU"..RUMSFELD HAS CLEARLY ELIMINATED ALL
OF THE PROTECTIONS UNDER THE "GENEVA CONFERENCE" WHICH YOU GAVE "YOU"
THESE PROTECTIONS. NOW TELL ME AGAIN, "IN WHO'S INTERESTS ARE YOU
WILLING TO BE TORTURED AND DIE FOR? OH YES, THE "GOOD OLD AMERICA".
WELL LOOK AROUND YOU G.I.S "YOUR GOVERNMENT DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT
YOUR LIFE AND THEY HAVE MADE THAT AS CLEAR AS THEY CAN". THIS "WAS AN
ILLEGAL WAR TO START WITH...YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T "BOTHER TO FIND OUT
ABOUT IT BEFORE "YOU VOLUNTEERED TO DIE FOR IT"...MY SUGGESTION
IS....GET AN ATTORNEY AND SUE OLD UNCLE SAM FOR FRAUD, I.E. GO TO THE
U.S. CODE-TITLE 18-AND READ ABOUT THIS "FRAUD PERPETRATED AGAINST
AMERICAN CITIZENS, MEDIA AND CONGRESS". DON'T DIE FOR THE "CAUSE OF
THIS FASCIST GOVERNMENT'S GREED FOR OIL AND POWER".
JUST AS BUSH & RUMSFELD IS HOLDING THE G.I.S "TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR
THIS IRAQI TORTURE" AND NOT THEIR HENCHMEN, THEY ARE ALSO SAYING
"THESE G.I.'S SHOULD HAVE USED THEIR "COMMON SENSE AND MORAL
DUTY"...NOT TO DO THESE TORTURES. YOUR GOING "AWOL" CAN AND SHOULD BE
THE SAME "DEFENSE"...I.E. I FOUND OUT THAT "MY GOVERNMENT ILLEGALLY
ATTACKED IRAQ AND FRAUDULENTLY TOLD ME "IT WAS LEGAL" AND NOW IS
ORDERING ME TO "KILL CITIZENS OF THAT COUNTRY, WHO ARE FIGHTING US AS
THE "ILLEGAL INVADERS THAT WE ARE"...THE IRAQI'S HAVE THE RIGHT TO
DEFEND THEIR COUNTRY AGAINST THIS ILLEGAL INVASION, TORTURE AND
MURDER, AND "THEY..BUSH & CO. ARE THE TRAITORS AND SHOULD BE INDICTED
FOR THESE "WAR CRIMES"...NOT ME, BECAUSE I REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN
THESE WAR CRIMES...TALK TO A FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, WHO CAN HELP
YOU...THE PLAN IS...TO KEEP U.S. MILITARY TROOPS IN IRAQ FOR "AT LEAST
ANOTHER 5-10 YEARS"..DON'T BE A SHEEP...YOU HAVE "THE RIGHT NOT TO
OBEY ILLEGAL ORDERS"...BY THIS FASCIST GOVERNMENT. SYLVIA
-------
Print This Story E-mail This Story
Go to Original
List of Detainee Death Inquiries Expanded to 37
By John Hendren
The Los Angeles Times
Saturday 22 May 2004
The Pentagon's higher figure for Iraq and Afghanistan includes at
least eight unresolved homicide cases that may have involved assaults.
WASHINGTON — Pentagon officials on Friday increased to 37 the
number of detainee deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan that have prompted
investigations, including at least eight unresolved homicides that may
have involved assaults before or during interrogation.
Earlier this month, defense officials detailed 25 cases of prisoners
who died in U.S. Army detention centers. But in an unscheduled
briefing at the Pentagon, a senior defense official and a senior
Pentagon medical official said the number had risen to 30 cases,
including some involving more than one death, for a total of 37
deaths. Thirty-two deaths occurred in Iraq and five in Afghanistan.
Although military officials cautioned that some of the deaths
involved justifiable use of force, the rising number of detainee
deaths intensified concerns among lawmakers and critics of the
American-led occupation of Iraq.
"Time after time, we've said … there are a few bad apples, and
every day we're finding out that this apple cart is getting bigger,"
said Rep. Kendrick B. Meek (D-Fla.), a member of the House Armed
Services Committee who was briefed on the cases Friday. "I'm concerned
not only about getting to the bottom of this, but also getting to the
top of it."
Human rights activists have denounced detention practices.
"It's important that the Pentagon seems to be releasing these
figures with some semblance of transparency, but it's difficult to
know if we're far — I would even say frighteningly far —
from the whole truth," Amnesty International spokeswoman Wende Gozan
said.
The senior defense official said the number of known deaths in
detention was a small proportion of the 45,000 detainees who have been
handled in Iraq alone. He compared the 37 deaths with what he said was
a 3.3% death rate in federal and state prisons in the United States.
Photographs and video images of detainees being abused at the Abu
Ghraib prison — site of two of the newly disclosed suspected
homicides — have drawn international condemnation and prompted
more than half a dozen probes of U.S. military detention centers and
inquiries in both chambers of Congress.
The latest images were published in Friday's Washington Post.
Of the 37 deaths detailed Friday, investigators found that 15 were
due to "natural or undetermined" causes other than homicide, in many
cases heart attacks.
Eight deaths were ruled justifiable killings. In those cases,
soldiers followed so-called standard rules of engagement and killed
detainees either to protect other troops or prevent prisoners from
escaping, the senior military medical official said.
Two are wrongful deaths, while as many as nine are homicides still
under investigation. The remaining three are in a special category
because they occurred outside of any detention facility.
Among the cases is a fatal shooting at southern Iraq's Camp Bucca in
April 2003 that the Army ruled justifiable. But a Red Cross team that
witnessed the incident at the facility concluded that "at no point"
did the prisoner pose a serious threat to guards.
The deaths of the others deemed justifiable homicides all occurred
at Abu Ghraib — four in November 2003, one in March 2004 and two
in April 2004.
Both of the wrongful deaths were in Iraq.
In a September 2003 incident, a soldier fatally shot a prisoner who
was throwing rocks at him at a forward operating base.
He was later downgraded in rank from specialist to private and
discharged from the Army, apparently the only soldier to date to be
prosecuted for killing a detainee. He was not imprisoned.
The second case, of a CIA contract worker who allegedly killed an
Iraqi prisoner at Abu Ghraib in November, was referred to the Justice
Department, the official said. As a civilian, the worker could not be
prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, officials said.
The Justice Department said Friday that it had received another
referral from the Defense Department "regarding a civilian contractor
in Iraq" and had opened an investigation. Officials would not say if
the incident involved a death. It was the first Justice Department
criminal investigation sought by the Pentagon.
The CIA has referred at least two other cases to the department.
Of the nine unresolved homicide cases, three occurred in Afghanistan
and six in Iraq, including the two at Abu Ghraib.
In one of the cases, a preliminary assessment has found that an Abu
Ghraib detainee died of natural causes, but the investigation is
continuing.
Among the specifics offered by the Pentagon were details regarding
23 autopsies by military medical examiners. Twelve of the death
certificates concluded that the deaths were from natural causes. One
Iraqi death was labeled an accident. One other case is pending;
defense officials could provide no information about it.
Some of those labeled homicides involved gunshots, but the most
common reason was blunt-force injuries. Six died at detention centers
throughout Iraq:
• On June 6, 2003, Naem Sadoon Hatab was found strangled in an
outdoor isolation area at the Whitehorse detention facility in
Nasiriya, Iraq, according to his death certificate.
• On June 13, Dilar Dababa died of a severe head injury in
Iraq.
• One Nov. 4, Manadel Jamadi died of blunt-force injuries
complicated by "compromised respiration" at Abu Ghraib. The suspected
homicide occurred while he was with Navy SEALs and other special
operations troops.
• On Jan. 9, Abdul Jaleel died of blunt-force injuries and
asphyxiation at a prison in Al Asad, Iraq. His case is one of the
suspected incidents of homicide still under investigation. Jaleel was
found gagged and shackled to a cell door with his hands over his head.
• On April 28, Ali Gumaa Fahin died of complications due to
multiple gunshot wounds in Baghdad.
• On May 12, Maj. Gen. Abid Mowhosh, former commander of
Iraq's air defenses, died of asphyxiation due to smothering and chest
compression in Qaim, Iraq.
Three detainees were killed in Afghanistan, according to their death
certificates.
Most recently, on Nov. 6, Abdul Wahid died of multiple blunt-force
injuries — complicated by what examiners suspect was a condition
in which toxins are released to the body, sometimes due to a crushing
injury or an electrical shock — at a detention center in Helmand
province.
Two deaths at Bagram Air Base outside Kabul have been investigated
for 17 months. On Dec. 3, 2002, Habib Ullah died of a blood clot
caused by a blunt-force injury at Bagram. A week later, an Afghan
whose last name was Dilawar died of blunt-force injuries to his lower
body that complicated his coronary artery disease at the base outside
Kabul, according to the death certificates.
Human rights groups have been pressing for an accounting of the
deaths of Ullah and Dilawar.
The senior military official said the investigations have gone on so
long because they were "very difficult" and "very complicated."
The three deaths that occurred outside of detention centers since
August 2002 include one in which a soldier shot and killed an Afghan
who allegedly lunged at his gun, the senior military official said.
In the second, an Iraqi was fatally shot after he allegedly moved
menacingly toward a sergeant who was escorting him, he said.
In the third, an Iraqi drowned after he allegedly was forced to jump
off a bridge by U.S. troops, officials said, confirming media reports
about the fatality for the first time.
Separately, Army officials have closed 14 cases in which detainees
were allegedly assaulted, and they are pursuing two assault
investigations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to Original
Abu Ghraib: Inmates Raped, Ridden Like Animals,
And Forced to Eat Pork
By Andrew Buncombe, Justin Huggler and Leonard Doyle
The Independent U.K.
Saturday 22 May 2004
The abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison continued yesterday with the
publication of fresh pictures and sworn statements that detailed a
teenage boy being raped, prisoners being ridden like animals and other
Iraqis being forced to eat pork and drink alcohol in contravention of
their religion. For the first time video footage of some of the abuse
was also broadcast, a development likely to increase the political
impact of the scandal.
The new details caused fresh outrage around the Arab world and
further rocked the Bush administration, already floundering after a
week in which US forces killed dozens of guests at a wedding party in
Iraq after mistaking them for insurgents. The latest pictures and
allegations, chronicling more calculated attempts to humiliate Muslim
prisoners, have only added to the suspicion that they were part of a
policy formulated at a high level of authority.
Even though the existence of the images was known, indeed, lawmakers
on Capitol Hill have seen many of the images already, their
publication put further pressure on Washington as it prepares to hand
over sovereignty to an Iraqi administration at the end of June.
Partly in preparation for that handover, a bus full of Iraqi
prisoners left Abu Ghraib outside Baghdad yesterday as the US sought
to reduce the numbers being held in the jail. But the new pictures and
statements overshadowed the release.
In one statement, a prisoner tells how he witnessed a US army
translator raping an Iraqi boy, aged somewhere between 15 and 18.
Kasim Mehaddi Hilas, prisoner number 151108, says a female soldier
took photographs of the rape. Sheets had been hung to block the
prisoners' view, but Mr Hilas says he heard the boy's screams and
climbed a door to see what was going on. "The kid was hurting very
bad," his statement reads.
The statements were published in The Washington Post, accompanied by
images that will haunt America. One shows an Iraqi completely naked,
his arms outstretched, his back to the camera. His body is smeared
with a thick brown substance that looks like excrement. It is caked
around the back of his head.
Yet it is not simply these images and details that are so shocking,
but the overwhelming evidence suggesting that, far from being an
isolated episode involving a "few bad apples" from Appalachia, as the
administration claims, this abuse was part of a systematic, gloves-off
approach to dealing with suspected "terrorists" in the post-9/11
world.
Compelling evidence is emerging that responsibility for the abuse
goes right to the Pentagon, where an ultra-secret "black operation"
was set up to run the interrogation process. This unit, under the
direction of Stephen Cambone, under-secretary of defence for
intelligence, reportedly used theories developed by an academic to
guide the torture of the detainees.
The book, The Arab Mind by the late cultural anthropologist Raphael
Patai, includes a 25-page chapter on Arabs and sex, stating that the
biggest weakness of Arabs is shame and humiliation. Patai's book was
described by The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh as providing an
intellectual and practical underpinning of the culture of torture at
Abu Ghraib. Another alleged victim of the orchestrated abuse tells how
American soldiers held him down and sodomised him with a truncheon.
This prisoner is not being named because he was the alleged victim of
a sexual assault. Other prisoners tell how they were fed pork or
forced to drink alcohol, which are forbidden to Muslims.
Ameen Saeed al-Sheikh says that he was tortured and ordered to
denounce Islam. Mr Sheikh says that his leg was broken when one of the
soldiers started hitting it and ordering him to curse Islam. "They
ordered me to thank Jesus that I'm alive," he says.
Other photographs show a terrified Iraqi being menaced by a huge
black dog while an American soldier stares aggressively on, and a man
in women's underwear being forced to stand precariously on two boxes,
one leg chained to a doorway and his hands handcuffed between his
legs.
These are just some of the photographs the Pentagon tried to
suppress. The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, claimed they
could not be released because they might jeopardise the courts martial
of seven soldiers charged with involvement in the abuses. The sworn
witness statements had been kept secret until they were published
yesterday.
Mr Rumsfeld is fighting for his political life. The New Yorker
report suggests he approved the covert operation, to which he
appointed Dr Cambone as leader in order to obtain fast, "actionable"
intelligence in pursuit of Mr Bush's "war on terror". The pressure to
obtain this information, and the increasingly important role of the
army's military intelligence soldiers and civilian interrogators, grew
as the Iraqi insurgency against US forces developed. At Abu Ghraib, it
appears this effort was combined with ideas that had been developed by
Patai's book. The New Yorker claimed the book was the "bible of the
neo-cons on Arab behaviour" and left them with two ideas, that Arabs
only understood force and that humiliation and shame were their
greatest weaknesses.
Specialist Charles Graner, one of seven soldiers from the 372nd
Military Police Unit based in Cumberland, Maryland, charged and
clearly identified in some of the prisoners' statements, has already
said through his lawyer that he intends to plead at his court martial
that he was following orders.
He and the others charged will say that they were told by American
interrogators to soften the prisoners up for questioning.
It is likely that the hearings will further highlight the role of
Major-General Geoffrey Miller, formerly the warden at Guantanamo Bay,
who took control of Abu Ghraib last year with a plan to turn it into a
hub of interrogation. He placed the military police under the tactical
control of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade. Specialist Jeremy
Sivits, who pleaded guilty as part of a plea bargain at a court
martial this week, told the court in his evidence that one of the
other accused had told him they had been told to keep abusing the
prisoners by interrogators, and that they were doing good work.
That version of events is backed up one of the former detainees at
Abu Ghraib, Saddam Saleh, who has come forward to say that he is one
of the prisoners in the photographs: the one in which Private Lynndie
England is pointing at the genitals of a row of naked, hooded Iraqi
men, and grinning.
Mr Saleh, who has since been released, says he only knows that he is
the third from the right, he was hooded when the picture was taken and
could not see Pte England, because American soldiers brought the
photograph to his cell and pointed him out, apparently in an effort to
humiliate him further. That would back claims that the photographs
were taken so they could be used to humiliate and demoralise the
prisoners.
Mr Saleh has also said that he was tortured for 18 days in Abu
Ghraib, but that the torture abruptly stopped. While other prisoners
continued to be tortured, he was left alone. At exactly the same time
as the torture stopped, interrogators began questioning him in regular
sessions. He had not been questioned at all before. If the torture was
designed to extract useful information from the prisoners, in Mr
Saleh's case it did not work. He says that after what he had been
through, he was ready to tell the interrogators anything just to
escape further mistreatment.
"Whatever they asked me I just said, 'Yes'. I was desperate," he
says in his statement.
Interrogators asked him if he was a member Ansar al-Islam, a Kurdish
Islamist group that has alleged links with al-Qa'ida. "I said yes," Mr
Saleh says, although he says he knew nothing about the group, and he
has since been released, which indicates that American interrogators
decided he had nothing to do with it. They asked if he was a member of
Jeish Mohammed, a Sunni Iraqi resistance group. "I said my cousin was
the leader of Jeish Mohammed," Mr Saleh says.
They asked him if he knew Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a militant leader in
Iraq with links to al-Qa'ida. "I said, 'Yes', but I'd never heard of
him before."
Last night the Pentagon said that 37 deaths involving detainees held
by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were being investigated.
There were 33 cases involved, eight more than previously revealed,
according to officials.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to Original
Dogs and Other Harsh Tactics Linked
To Military Intelligence
By Douglas Jehl and Eric Schmitt
The New York Times
Saturday 22 May 2004
WASHINGTON - The use of dogs to intimidate prisoners during
interrogation at Abu Ghraib in Iraq was approved by military
intelligence officers at the prison, and was one of several aggressive
tactics they adopted even without approval from senior military
commanders, according to interviews gathered by Army investigators.
Intelligence officers also demanded strict limits on Red Cross
access to prisoners as early as last October, delaying for a day what
the military had previously described as an unannounced visit to the
cellblock where the worst abuses occurred, according to a document
from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
The role of intelligence officers in the abuse scandal is still
under investigation, and the newly disclosed documents provide further
details of their involvement in abuses that so far have resulted in
formal charges against the prison guards, but not the interrogators.
Other Army documents first obtained by The Denver Post provided new
evidence that harsh treatment extended beyond Abu Ghraib to more
American-run detention centers in Iraq, revealing details about three
previously unreported incidents in which Iraqi prisoners died after
questioning by American interrogators.
At the Pentagon on Friday, the Army revised an earlier estimate to
say that it is now actively investigating the deaths of nine prisoners
in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002, and that eight
had already been determined by medical examiners to be possible
homicides, involving acts committed before or during an interrogation.
In previous statements, it was not clear that so many prisoners died
in interrogation, rather than being shot during riots or escape
attempts. At Abu Ghraib, military intelligence units were responsible
for interrogations, and military police units for guarding the
prisoners and preparing them for interrogation.
The documents assembled by Army investigators starting in January
and obtained by The New York Times cite accounts by American dog
handlers who say the use of military working dogs in interrogations at
Abu Ghraib was approved by Col. Thomas M. Pappas, the commander of the
205th Military Intelligence Brigade. Previously, Pentagon and Army
officials have said that only the top American commander, Lt. Gen.
Ricardo S. Sanchez, could have approved the use of the animals for
interrogations. A "memorandum for the record" issued on Oct. 9 by the
Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center at the prison listed as
permissible a number of interrogation procedures that Army officials
have said were allowed only with approval from General Sanchez. Among
other things, the memorandum said the use of dogs in interrogations
and the confining of prisoners to isolation cells was permitted in
some cases without a prior approval from General Sanchez.
In a November report to military commanders in Iraq that was
included in the documents, the Red Cross complained that its
inspectors had faced restrictions "at the behest of Military
Intelligence," including a one-day delay in interviewing prisoners,
who were to be seen for only a short time, and asked only about their
names and their health.
In the four-page report, which has not previously been made public,
the Red Cross said it had nonetheless found naked prisoners covering
themselves with packages from ready-to-eat military rations, and
subjected to "deliberate physical violence and verbal abuse."
Prisoners were found to be incoherent, anxious and even suicidal, with
abnormal symptoms "provoked by the interrogation period and methods."
The document said the prison authorities "could not explain" the
lack of clothing for prisoners and "could not provide clarification"
about other mistreatment of prisoners.
On Capitol Hill, some Senate Republicans and Democrats expressed
concern that the Pentagon withheld important supporting documents when
it sent Congress copies of the 6,000-page investigative report by Maj.
Gen. Antonio M. Taguba.
But a spokesman for Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican
who heads the Armed Services Committee, said the Army was working to
fill any gaps in materials. "There does not appear to be a problem in
producing materials that are germane to the facts of the inquiry,"
said the spokesman, John Ullyot.
The documents show that military intelligence officers at the prison
and civilian contractors under their control adopted harsher tactics
than previously known, and enlisted the military police in some of
their interrogation methods. In many details, the documents elaborate
on what has already been known since the photos of the abuses first
became public last month.
To date, only seven enlisted soldiers from a military police company
have been charged with crimes in connection with the abuses at Abu
Ghraib, all in a single cellblock, known as Tier 1. But most have
argued that they were acting with the knowledge or encouragement of
the military intelligence officers who oversaw the interrogations and
exerted authority over the cellblock.
A new time line provided by an Army spokesman also showed that the
involvement of military intelligence personnel in abuses at Abu Ghraib
began in October 2003. The first reported episode involved soldiers
assigned to the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center, months
before the major criminal investigation initiated in January into
misconduct at the prison, which focused on the involvement by the
military police.
Three enlisted soldiers from the 519th Military Intelligence
Battalion were fined and demoted in the incident, whose broad outlines
have been reported previously. The spokesman, Lt. Col. Billy Buckner,
declined to identify the soldiers involved or the details of the
incident, citing privacy concerns.
The documents obtained by The Times included transcripts of sworn
statements from military intelligence, the military police, civilian
contractors and others who were interviewed by Army investigators last
January as they began to look into allegations of abuse.
The statements include several accounts from officers, including
Capt. Donald J. Reese of the 372nd Military Police Company, who
acknowledged having seen Iraqi prisoners stripped naked while in
American detention. Captain Reese, among others, said they had been
told that nudity was part of "an interrogation procedure used by M.I."
or military intelligence.
One intelligence officer, Specialist Luciana Spencer, said
interrogations had been staged "in the showers, stairwell or property
room" of the cellblock, as well as in two interrogation centers that
were formally in control of the Joint Information and Debriefing
Center. The officer in charge was Capt. Carolyn A. Wood of the 519th
Military Intelligence Battalion, who other Army officers have said
brought to Iraq the aggressive procedures the unit had developed
during her previous service in Afghanistan, from July 2002 to January
2003. She served in Afghanistan as the operations officer in charge of
the Bagram Collection Point.
Steven A. Stefanowicz, a civilian interrogator who worked under
contract to the intelligence unit, described an interrogation tool
that he called a "Sleep Meal Management Program," in which prisoners
were allowed no more than four hours of sleep in a 24-hour period, in
a regime that usually lasted 72 hours. Mr. Stefanowicz said in a
statement that military police were "allowed to do what is necessary,"
within certain limits, to keep prisoners awake during that period.
At least two noncommissioned officers, Sgts. Michael J. Smith and
Santos A. Cardona, said they had used unmuzzled military dogs to
intimidate prisoners under interrogation. They said they were acting
under instructions from Colonel Pappas, the commander of the
intelligence brigade.
Both sergeants said Colonel Pappas had assured them that the use of
dogs in interrogation was permitted and did not require written
authorization or approval from senior officers. The memorandum for the
record issued by the interrogation center on Oct. 9 also listed the
"presence of working dogs" as "approved" on the basis of authorization
from the interrogation officer in charge.
Colonel Pappas has declined requests for interviews, but other Army
officials have said the use of dogs in interrogations could have been
approved only by General Sanchez, as outlined in a policy he issued on
Oct. 10. An unclassified Dec. 12 situation update sent by Colonel
Pappas's unit describes interrogation techniques permitted for use in
Iraq, including "sleep management, sensory deprivation, isolation
longer than 30 days, dogs," as among the "harsh approaches" that could
be introduced only with prior approval from General Sanchez.
Some new details involving deaths of Iraqi prisoners that are being
investigated as possible homicides were first reported in Wednesday's
editions of The Denver Post, and several of them involved Special
Operations Forces. The details of the incidents were confirmed Friday
by Pentagon officials, who said the deaths were among the nine now
being investigated by the Army.
Among the previously unknown incidents was the death in January 2004
of an Iraqi prisoner at a forward operating base in Asad, Iraq, where
a detainee had resisted questioning by Special Forces soldiers from
Operational Detachment Delta. The prisoner died after he was gagged
and his hands were tied to the top of his cell door, in an incident
being reviewed for "consideration of misconduct," the Army documents
said.
In a second incident in June 2003, at a "classified interrogation
facility" in Baghdad, an Iraqi prisoner was found dead after being
restrained in a chair for questioning, and after being subjected to
physical and psychological stress, the Army documents show. The Denver
Post said an autopsy had determined that he died of a "hard, fast
blow" to the head; and that while an investigation was continuing, no
disciplinary action has been taken.
A third incident, whose broad outlines had been previously known,
involved the death in custody of a high-ranking general, Maj. Gen.
Abed Hamed Mowhoush, who died in November at a detention facility run
by the Third Armored Cavalry, a unit based in Fort Carson, Colo. A
Nov. 27 announcement by the American military command in Baghdad
described General Mowhoush as having died "of natural causes."
In fact, according to the Army documents cited by The Denver Post,
General Mowhoush died after being shoved head-first into a sleeping
bag, and questioned while being rolled repeatedly from his back to his
stomach. Then, according to the documents, an interrogator sat on the
general's chest and placed his hands over his mouth.
The documents say the "preliminary report lists the cause of death
as asphyxia due to smothering and chest compressions." American
intelligence officials have said General Mowhoush died several days
after C.I.A. officers handed over custody of him to the military, but
they say the agency's inspector general is examining possible
wrongdoing involving C.I.A. personnel.
Altogether, a senior military official said at a Pentagon briefing
on Friday afternoon, 37 prisoners have died in American custody in
Iraq and Afghanistan since August 2002, all but five in Iraq.
Of these, 15 prisoner deaths have been determined by the Army to be
cases of death by natural or undetermined causes, and 8 as justifiable
homicides. Two have been determined to be homicides inside American
detention centers.
Three others, including one homicide, took place outside American
prisons, the senior military officer said. The officer described the
remaining nine as being under active investigation. Of them, the Army
official said, two were at Abu Ghraib, including the death of a
prisoner there in an incident that the C.I.A. has said involved agency
personnel.
The Pentagon also released copies of 23 death certificates of
prisoners who died while in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department announced Friday that it was
opening a criminal investigation into a civilian contractor in Iraq.
The action represents the first time that the Justice Department has
formally begun a criminal investigation in the prisoner abuse scandal,
although it has been reviewing its jurisdiction in three death cases
involving the C.I.A., including one in Afghanistan.
Justice Department officials said they had received a criminal
referral from the Pentagon on Thursday, but would not identify the
civilian contractor who is under investigation. An internal Army
report in March identified two contractors at Abu Ghaib who were
suspected of abuses, but it is not clear whether either one of them is
the subject of the criminal investigation.
The Justice Department has asserted its jurisdiction over the
conduct of civilians working for the military under an as yet untested
federal statute, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which
allows contractors and other nonmilitary personnel working for the
armed forces to be charged with crimes in civilian courts.
George Allen
save-our-democracy wrote:
> OH YEAH...YOU G.I.'S THESE "ORDERS" HAVE NOW GIVEN THE IRAQI'S AND ALL
> ARABS THE "RIGHT TO TORTURE YOU"..RUMSFELD HAS CLEARLY ELIMINATED ALL
> OF THE PROTECTIONS UNDER THE "GENEVA CONFERENCE" WHICH YOU GAVE "YOU"
> THESE PROTECTIONS. NOW TELL ME AGAIN, "IN WHO'S INTERESTS ARE YOU
> WILLING TO BE TORTURED AND DIE FOR? OH YES, THE "GOOD OLD AMERICA".
> WELL LOOK AROUND YOU G.I.S "YOUR GOVERNMENT DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT
> YOUR LIFE AND THEY HAVE MADE THAT AS CLEAR AS THEY CAN". THIS "WAS AN
> ILLEGAL WAR TO START WITH...YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T "BOTHER TO FIND OUT
> ABOUT IT BEFORE "YOU VOLUNTEERED TO DIE FOR IT"...MY SUGGESTION
> IS....GET AN ATTORNEY AND SUE OLD UNCLE SAM FOR FRAUD, I.E. GO TO THE
> U.S. CODE-TITLE 18-AND READ ABOUT THIS "FRAUD PERPETRATED AGAINST
> AMERICAN CITIZENS, MEDIA AND CONGRESS". DON'T DIE FOR THE "CAUSE OF
> THIS FASCIST GOVERNMENT'S GREED FOR OIL AND POWER".
>
The Geneva Convention only appliess to military personnel in uniform.
These terrorist have no protection underthe Geneva accords. Do you think
the Terrorist
care about the Geneva accords? The are going to keep up their war of
terror. The G.I. in the field was never give any protections by the
terrorist.
I don't think that all the Arabs and Iraqis are going to start torturing
G.I.s.
George Allen
Dear Mom & Dad,
Word has reached us about some soldiers who are in trouble for allegedly
abusing war prisoners. I don't know the details of the situation, but
from what we've heard, it's pretty ugly and all over the news. I wanted
to tell you a story about a night in the desert a few weeks ago that you
won't see in the news, but is more representative of what's going on
over here.
Due to operational security constraints, I can't go into great detail in
this story, but I think you'll get the picture. In the course of my
unit's operations, it's very common that suspected bad guys are captured
and detained for interrogation. I'm sure the media is making
interrogations out to be bad or wrong, but they are not. Interrogations
are a necessary tool to extract intelligence that helps us destroy the
enemy and protect Americans from terrorism.
Sometimes we have a hardened and roofed facility in which detainees are
held and interrogated, but if we are on the move, often times they are
placed in whatever temporary detainee area we can create.
One night last month, we were stopped in the desert outside of Fallujah.
We had 3 detainees under our control that were captured in the act of
doing bad things against Marines. Because we were in the open without
any facilities around, the detainees were temporarily being held on a
patch of desert closed off by concertina wire. Besides for the wire and
guards watching them, they were out under the stars just like all of our
Marines.
Around 3:00 a.m., the wind started blowing hard and a sandstorm hit our
position. As Marines covered themselves with their sleeping bags, the
sky opened up and the flying sand was joined by a downpour of rain. Most
of the Marines hopped into vehicles to get some cover.
In the back of a truck, which was the closest vehicle to the detainees,
4 Marines were trying to stay dry and get some sleep. The lieutenant who
was in charge of providing security for the detainees approached this
truck and opened up the back hatch. He ordered the Marines out of the
truck and told them that they couldn't stay in there. The Marines asked
why and he explained to them that he had to put the detainees in the
back of the truck to protect them from the rain and sand.
Word of this spread very quickly and everyone was livid. We couldn't
believe that our Marines were being kicked into the sandstorm/rainstorm
so these 3 detainees, who were caught trying to kill Marines, could stay
dry. The next day I was still angry and everyone was still talking about
what had happened that night. Later in the day, after having time to
cool down and think about the situation, I switched from being angry to
being proud.
Who else, other than Americans, would kick their own men into a storm so
their enemy could sleep in peace? Who else, other than Americans, feel
so strongly about laws and rights that they would go to such extremes to
protect captured terrorists during a war on terrorism?
When these guys are under our control, they eat better than they do when
not in capacivity, receive medical attention that they would never
otherwise receive, and are treated like Marines only know how to act,
professionally.
I assume whatever happened with the alleged prisoner abuse is leading
headlines back home, but I wanted to share this story with you, because
it's not one you'll ever see in the news. What I've described in this
letter is indicative of how my unit operates, and I would venture to
guess that it's representative of the other 99% of detainee handling
throughout Iraq.
My spirits remain high, my body's holding up, and all's swell on my end.
I hope the same is the case with everyone back home. I love you and miss
you lots.
save-our-democracy
> The Geneva Convention only appliess to military personnel in uniform.
> These terrorist have no protection underthe Geneva accords.
Do you think the Terrorist care about the Geneva accords?
The are going to keep up their war of terror.
The G.I. in the field was never give any protections by the terrorist.
>
> I don't think that all the Arabs and Iraqis are going to start torturing
> G.I.s.
--------
MY RESPONSE:
PERHAPS YOU THINK YOUR "KNOWLEDGE OF LAW" IS GREATER THAN THE U.S.
SUPREME COURT, GEORGE?
IN ORDER FOR THESE CASES TO BE TAKEN UP "IN" THE SUPREME COURT, THEY
HAD TO HAVE BEEN "DECIDED" BY THE LOWER COURTS, AND THEN APPEALED TO
THE "HIGHEST COURT", U.S. SUPREME COURT.
AS TO YOUR STATEMENT: "I DON'T THINK THAT "ALL" THE ARABS AND IRAQIS
ARE GOING TO "START" TORTURING G.I.'S.... THE FIRST RULE OF ANY ONE
WHO WISHES TO DEBATE ANY ISSUE IS TO "NEVER" USE THE WORDS:
"EVERYBODY", "NOBODY", "ALL", ETC. BECAUSE "NOT EVERY SINGLE PERSON
WILL AGREE TO EVERYTHING". THUS, YOUR STATEMENT FAILS FROM THE GIT-GO,
BUT THE "FACTS" THAT "MANY" G.I.S IN IRAQ WHO HAVE BEEN "CAPTURED"
HAVE OBVIOUSLY BEEN TORTURED, KILLED AND THEN DRAGGED THROUGH THE
STREETS OR HUNG IN PUBLIC PLACES, SINCE THE REVELATION OF THE G.I.S
TORTURING AND KILLING BOTH IRAQIS AND AFGHANS, ARE CLEAR, WHILE
EARLIER CAPTIVES LIKE JESSICA LYNCH AND HER FELLOW MECHANICS WERE
TAKEN TO HOSPITALS AND OTHERS RELEASED, "BEFORE" THE PRISON ABUSE
SCANDALS. THIS SPEAKS VOLUMES...AT LEAST TO THE G.I.S WHO ARE "STILL
IN IRAQ", IF NOT YOU GEORGE. SYLVIA
-----
FindLaw | Legal Professionals | Students | Business | Public | News
E-m...@Justice.com | MY FindLaw
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html
Print This | Email This
----
The U.S. Supreme Court and The Imperial Presidency
***************************************************
How President Bush Is Testing the Limits of His Presidential Powers
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Jan. 16, 2004
Can the President of the United States arrest any American he suspects
of being a terrorist and toss him in a military brig, deny him a
lawyer, omit to bring any charges against him -- yet indefinitely keep
him imprisoned nonetheless?
Can the President kidnap foreigners charged with violating federal
law, and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
bring them to the United States to stand trial?
----------------------------------------------
How about Osama bin Laden, for starters?
----------------------------------------
These are only a few of the issues raised by cases now pending before
the U.S. Supreme Court that will examine the limits of presidential
powers.
As David Savage, the legal writer for the Los Angeles Times, has
noted, this is a remarkable collection of cases.
"[T]he justices have voted to take up five cases that test the
president's power to act alone and without interference from Congress
or the courts," Savage explains. The description of these cases, as
Savage has ably summarized them, is startling:
"They involve imprisoning foreign fighters at overseas bases,
-------------------------------------------------------------
holding American citizens without charges in military brigs,
preserving the secrecy of White House meetings,
enforcing free-trade treaties despite environmental concerns, and
abducting foreigners charged with U.S. crimes."
---------------------------------------------
What the Supreme Court has placed on its agenda, in short, is the
Imperial Presidency -- that is, the Presidency in which the Executive
largely acts alone, pushing the Constitution to the limits and beyond.
And how the Justices deal with this overwhelmingly important topic
could affect the reelection prospects of the Bush presidency, for, as
David Savage notes, at least four of the five rulings are anticipated
to be handed down during the summer of 2004 -- right in the middle of
the presidential campaign.
The High Court and Nixon's Imperial Presidency
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s The
Imperial Presidency gave the term its currency. He traces its growth
from George Washington to Richard Nixon, showing how a presidency
never contemplated by the founders has evolved. As a basis for their
authority, presidents typically cited their role as commander-in-chief
-- an undefined constitutional term -- and "inherited powers" other
presidents had used before them.
After Nixon pushed the presidential powers even further than past
presidents had, both the Congress and Supreme Court acted to curtail
his activities. In the name of protecting national security, Nixon
wanted to be able to wiretap without the approval of a judge.
The authority for this power? Before the Court of Appeals, Nixon
relied on a vague "historical power of the sovereign to preserve
itself" and "the inherent power of the President to safeguard the
security of the nation."
Later, arguing the issue before the Supreme Court, the government got
even more vague -- just loosely using the national security
contention. In the end, the Court -- in the ironically named case
United States v. United States Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan (which became known as the Keith Case) -- said no. Joining
the opinion were all of Nixon's own appointees -- except William
Rehnquist, who recused himself.
In another Supreme Court case, New York Times Co. v. United States,
Nixon also tried, but failed to get the Supreme Court to extend
Executive powers. Then, Nixon's government sought an order blocking
publication of the Pentagon Papers.
It claimed the release of the classified documents that had been
leaked to The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other
newspapers, could harm national security. Again, Nixon lost.
Then, in United States v. Nixon, Nixon resisted turning over to the
Watergate Special Prosecutor his taped conversations. He asserted his
implied authority to invoke "executive privilege." But once again, he
lost: It was the Supreme Court's unanimous decision that the privilege
did not protect the tapes, when a grand jury had sought the
information.
This ruling, of course, ended Nixon's presidency.
After Nixon had departed, the Supreme Court also addressed Nixon's
effort to impound federal funds -- to not spend money that Congress
had appropriated.
Nixon claimed he was only doing as his predecessors had done (albeit a
bit more aggressively than they had). But the Court again unanimously
ruled against him. It held that the president had exceeded his
constitutional authority.
In short, at the zenith of the Imperial Presidency era, the Supreme
Court consistently ruled in such a way as to pull the presidency back
into Constitutional balance with the other branches.
Its rulings were wise, for the alternative would have been to allow
presidential power to burgeon, at the expense of the balance of power
with the Legislative and Judicial branches.
Bush's Imperial Presidency?
--------------------------
Not inaccurately, the Bush presidency has been called imperial, in
Schlesinger's sense.
The evidence? Its "preemptive" and "preventive" military policy, its
contentions that it can go to war regardless of whether Congress
approves, its policies calling for American world domination, and its
unprecedented blending of national security policy and domestic law
enforcement.
In my view, these policies and positions not only easily establish the
Bush presidency as imperial, they also rank it beyond anything in the
annals of the modern American presidency. This may be the most
imperial Presidency our history has yet seen.
I've spoken with Arthur Schlesinger about it -- asking him if he
thought the Bush presidency fit his description of an imperial
presidency. In response, he chuckled, and said, "I'd certainly say
this is an imperial presidency."
The fact that five cases currently before the Supreme Court address
the question of presidential powers -- and whether or not the Bush
presidency has exceeded them -- speaks for itself. Bush has had almost
twice as many such cases before the Court as Nixon had, in half the
time.
The new level of exertion of presidential authority is a combination
of the circumstances following 9/11, the war on terrorism, and Vice
President Dick Cheney's long held views on executive power.
Accordingly, these are hardly small issues with this presidency.
In fact, they are precisely the issues that will be an integral part
of the debate during the presidential campaign.
Democrats, and many Republicans, believe that Bush and Cheney have
pushed too far, taken too many liberties, and far exceeded the
constitutional boundaries -- many of them defined by these cases. For
that reason, it is difficult to suggest a collection of cases, over
our history, that were more likely to have a political impact --
whichever way the Supreme Court rules.
Stated more bluntly: Rulings for Bush will help him politically.
Conversely, holdings against him will show a president who is
operating outside the Constitution.
Will the Supreme Court Place Checks on the Bush Presidency?
----------------------------------------------------------
Predicting Supreme Court rulings is a tricky business. Yet it is clear
that the current Court is more center-to-conservative than the Court
that checked Nixon's activity. And when members of the Court start
thinking about leaving the high bench -- and several on this Court
have been mulling that for some time -- they also think about who will
be in the White House to select their successor.
Without dissecting the legal matters at issue in each of these cases
-- all with their own complexes and nuances -- at this time, it is not
possible to know how the Court will rule. Some pundits claim, however,
that the recent ruling of the Court not to review the case of Center
for National Security Studies v. Justice Department is a favorable
omen for the Administration.
There, the court rejected a petition, joined by twenty-three news
organizations, that it should hear a high profile case involving First
Amendment and Freedom of Information Act issues. The result was to
allow the government -- specifically, the Justice Department -- to
continue to withhold the names and other details about the hundreds of
Muslims and other Middle Eastern men rounded up, and detained (even
abused, according to the Justice Department's Inspector General's
report) after 9/11.
The pundits have suggested that this denial of review shows that the
Bush administration is correct to be confident that it will win the
executive power cases before the Court. But frankly, I don't believe
anything can be read into a decision of the Supreme Court not to
review any case, even this one.
For one thing, the issues in Center for National Security Studies are
quite distinct from the issues in the other pending executive
authority cases. Second, as with virtually all denials of review, no
one outside the Court can really understand why Justices turned down
the case. Those pundits who claim otherwise are thus off the mark.
The Executive Power Cases the Court Will Hear Soon
--------------------------------------------------
As I noted at the start of this column, it has been three decades
since the Court will have tackled such important presidential power
questions -- with such potential political implications for a
presidential race.
For that reason, the five cases that raise these questions should be
on the radar screen of all president -- and Supreme Court -- watchers.
The cases are:
Sealed Case.
-----------
A case so secret it does not appear on the Court's docket, and the
Solicitor General simply refers to it as "this matter that is required
to be kept under seal." In fact, it is not all that secret.
It involves Mohamed Kamel Baellahouel, who wants the Court to rule on
whether he was improperly secretly jailed. The government want to
argue its case in secret. But some twenty news organizations are
opposing this extreme secrecy.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
----------------
This case raises the rights of an American citizen -- Yaser Hamdi --
who was captured overseas and held in the United States as an "enemy
combatant."
Hamdi was arrested in Afghanistan.
Rasul v. Bush, and Al Odah v. United States.
--------------------------------------------
These cases address the habeas corpus rights of aliens detained at the
U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The government is maintaining that
these aliens do not have the right to file habeas corpus petitions in
U.S. federal courts.
Padilla v. Rumsfeld.
-------------------
This case involves Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who is being held
indefinitely, in a military prison, as an "enemy combatant." He was
arrested when deplaning in Chicago. (Thus, his case may be treated
differently from that of Hamdi, who was arrested abroad, in
Afghanistan.)
The Second Circuit, in a 2-1 ruling, held that Padilla's detention
violated the Non-Detention Act of 1971, which asserts that no citizens
may be held by the federal government "except pursuant to an act of
Congress."
The Government is appealing, claiming that the President has power to
unilaterally cause such detentions to occur.
Cheney v. Judicial Watch and Sierra Club.
-----------------------------------------
This case involves the right of the vice president (and, by
implication, of the president) to refuse to turn over documents in a
civil lawsuit. The suit seeks to determine if Cheney violated the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (the law that forced First Lady Hillary
Clinton to open up her sessions on health care).
Given the importance of all of these cases (with their implications),
I've got them on my docket, and plan to follow them in the coming
weeks and months.
What Do You Think? Message Boards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the
President.
save-our-democracy
> MAY 21 AND MAY 22, 2004---UNBELIEVABLE REPORTS OF "KNOWN TORTURE" OF
> AGAIN, BUSH & CO HAVE LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH TO "COVER-UP" THEIR
> APPOINTED TOP MILITARY OFFICIALS AND MERCENARIES, WHO ORDERED THIS
> TORTURE AND DEATH OF HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS OF IRAQI MEN AND
> WOMEN....
WELL, NOW THE "TORTURE MANUAL" HAS BEEN FOUND AND SOON IT WILL BE MADE
PUBLIC..
HERE IS YOUR GOD-FEARING PRESIDENT AND HIS HENCHMEN AT WORK, PLOTTING
TO TRY
AND JUSTIFY THEIR TORTURES OF HUMAN BEINGS...THIS...YOU AMERICAN
IDIOTS, IS
WHAT I HAVE BEEN WARNING YOU ABOUT..AND....YOU REPUBLICANS...HOW DO
YOU LIKE YOUR CHRISTIAN MACHO BOY NOW? IF THE REPUBS DON'T INDICT AND
IMPEACH THIS FASCIST...THEY WON'T HAVE ONE PARTY MEMBER LEFT...BECAUSE
THE TOP REPUBS HAVE BEEN LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH TO THEIR MEMBERS.
SYLVIA
-----
Go to Original: http://www.truthout.org
Pentagon Report Set Framework For Use of Torture
****************
By Jess Bravin
The Wall Street Journal
Monday 07 June 2004
Security or Legal Factors Could Trump Restrictions, Memo to Rumsfeld
Argued.
Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president
wasn't bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents
who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn't be prosecuted by
the Justice Department.
The advice was part of a classified report on interrogation
methods prepared for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after
commanders at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained in late 2002 that with
conventional methods they weren't getting enough information from
prisoners.
The report outlined U.S. laws and international treaties
forbidding torture, and why those restrictions might be overcome by
national-security considerations or legal technicalities. In a March
6, 2003, draft of the report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal,
passages were deleted as was an attachment listing specific
interrogation techniques and whether Mr. Rumsfeld himself or other
officials must grant permission before they could be used. The
complete draft document was classified "secret" by Mr. Rumsfeld and
scheduled for declassification in 2013.
The draft report, which exceeds 100 pages, deals with a range of
legal issues related to interrogations, offering definitions of the
degree of pain or psychological manipulation that could be considered
lawful. But at its core is an exceptional argument that because
nothing is more important than "obtaining intelligence vital to the
protection of untold thousands of American citizens," normal
strictures on torture might not apply.
The president, despite domestic and international laws
constraining the use of torture, has the authority as commander in
chief to approve almost any physical or psychological actions during
interrogation, up to and including torture, the report argued.
Civilian or military personnel accused of torture or other war crimes
have several potential defenses, including the "necessity" of using
such methods to extract information to head off an attack, or
"superior orders," sometimes known as the Nuremberg defense: namely
that the accused was acting pursuant to an order and, as the Nuremberg
tribunal put it, no "moral choice was in fact possible."
According to Bush administration officials, the report was
compiled by a working group appointed by the Defense Department's
general counsel, William J. Haynes II. Air Force General Counsel Mary
Walker headed the group, which comprised top civilian and uniformed
lawyers from each military branch and consulted with the Justice
Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Defense Intelligence Agency
and other intelligence agencies. It isn't known if President Bush has
ever seen the report.
A Pentagon official said some military lawyers involved objected
to some of the proposed interrogation methods as "different than what
our people had been trained to do under the Geneva Conventions," but
those lawyers ultimately signed on to the final report in April 2003,
shortly after the war in Iraq began. The Journal hasn't seen the full
final report, but people familiar with it say there were few
substantial changes in legal analysis between the draft and final
versions.
A military lawyer who helped prepare the report said that
political appointees heading the working group sought to assign to the
president virtually unlimited authority on matters of torture - to
assert "presidential power at its absolute apex," the lawyer said.
Although career military lawyers were uncomfortable with that
conclusion, the military lawyer said they focused their efforts on
reining in the more extreme interrogation methods, rather than
challenging the constitutional powers that administration lawyers were
saying President Bush could claim.
The Pentagon disclosed last month that the working group had been
assembled to review interrogation policies after intelligence
officials in Guantanamo reported frustration in extracting information
from prisoners. At a news conference last week, Gen. James T. Hill,
who oversees the offshore prison at Guantanamo as head of the U.S.
Southern Command, said the working group sought to identify "what is
legal and consistent with not only Geneva [but] ... what is right for
our soldiers." He said Guantanamo is "a professional, humane detention
and interrogation operation ... bounded by law and guided by the
American spirit."
Gen. Hill said Mr. Rumsfeld gave him the final set of approved
interrogation techniques on April 16, 2003. Four of the methods
require the defense secretary's approval, he said, and those methods
had been used on two prisoners. He said interrogators had stopped
short of using all the methods lawyers had approved. It remains
unclear what actions U.S. officials took as a result of the legal
advice.
Critics who have seen the draft report said it undercuts the
administration's claims that it recognized a duty to treat prisoners
humanely. The "claim that the president's commander-in-chief power
includes the authority to use torture should be unheard of in this day
and age," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for
Constitutional Rights, a New York advocacy group that has filed
lawsuits against U.S. detention policies. "Can one imagine the
reaction if those on trial for atrocities in the former Yugoslavia had
tried this defense?"
Following scattered reports last year of harsh interrogation
techniques used by the U.S. overseas, Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont
Democrat, wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice asking
for clarification. The response came in June 2003 from Mr. Haynes, who
wrote that the U.S. was obliged to conduct interrogations "consistent
with" the 1994 international Convention Against Torture and the
federal Torture Statute enacted to implement the convention outside
the U.S.
The U.S. "does not permit, tolerate or condone any such torture by
its employees under any circumstances," Mr. Haynes wrote. The U.S.
also followed its legal duty, required by the torture convention, "to
prevent other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment which do not amount to torture," he wrote.
The U.S. position is that domestic criminal laws and the
Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments already
met the Convention Against Torture's requirements within U.S.
territory.
The Convention Against Torture was proposed in 1984 by the United
Nations General Assembly and was ratified by the U.S. in 1994. It
states that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state
of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other
public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture," and
that orders from superiors "may not be invoked as a justification of
torture."
That prohibition was reaffirmed after the Sept. 11 attacks by the
U.N. panel that oversees the treaty, the Committee Against Torture,
and the March 2003 report acknowledged that "other nations and
international bodies may take a more restrictive view" of permissible
interrogation methods than did the Bush administration.
The report then offers a series of legal justifications for
limiting or disregarding antitorture laws and proposed legal defenses
that government officials could use if they were accused of torture.
A military official who helped prepare the report said it came
after frustrated Guantanamo interrogators had begun trying unorthodox
methods on recalcitrant prisoners. "We'd been at this for a year-plus
and got nothing out of them" so officials concluded "we need to have a
less-cramped view of what torture is and is not."
The official said, "People were trying like hell how to ratchet up
the pressure," and used techniques that ranged from drawing on
prisoners' bodies and placing women's underwear on prisoners heads - a
practice that later reappeared in the Abu Ghraib prison - to telling
subjects, "I'm on the line with somebody in Yemen and he's in a room
with your family and a grenade that's going to pop unless you talk."
Senior officers at Guantanamo requested a "rethinking of the whole
approach to defending your country when you have an enemy that does
not follow the rules," the official said. Rather than license torture,
this official said that the report helped rein in more "assertive"
approaches.
Methods now used at Guantanamo include limiting prisoners' food,
denying them clothing, subjecting them to body-cavity searches,
depriving them of sleep for as much as 96 hours and shackling them in
so-called stress positions, a military-intelligence official said.
Although the interrogators consider the methods to be humiliating and
unpleasant, they don't view them as torture, the official said.
The working-group report elaborated the Bush administration's view
that the president has virtually unlimited power to wage war as he
sees fit, and neither Congress, the courts nor international law can
interfere. It concluded that neither the president nor anyone
following his instructions was bound by the federal Torture Statute,
which makes it a crime for Americans working for the government
overseas to commit or attempt torture, defined as any act intended to
"inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering." Punishment is
up to 20 years imprisonment, or a death sentence or life imprisonment
if the victim dies.
"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional
authority to manage a military campaign ... (the prohibition against
torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations
undertaken pursuant to his commander-in chief authority," the report
asserted. (The parenthetical comment is in the original document.) The
Justice Department "concluded that it could not bring a criminal
prosecution against a defendant who had acted pursuant to an exercise
of the president's constitutional power," the report said. Citing
confidential Justice Department opinions drafted after Sept. 11, 2001,
the report advised that the executive branch of the government had
"sweeping" powers to act as it sees fit because "national security
decisions require the unity in purpose and energy in action that
characterize the presidency rather than Congress."
The lawyers concluded that the Torture Statute applied to
Afghanistan but not Guantanamo, because the latter lies within the
"special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
and accordingly is within the United States" when applying a law that
regulates only government conduct abroad.
Administration lawyers also concluded that the Alien Tort Claims
Act, a 1789 statute that allows noncitizens to sue in U.S. courts for
violations of international law, couldn't be invoked against the U.S.
government unless it consents, and that the 1992 Torture Victims
Protection Act allowed suits only against foreign officials for
torture or "extrajudicial killing" and "does not apply to the conduct
of U.S. agents acting under the color of law."
The Bush administration has argued before the Supreme Court that
foreigners held at Guantanamo have no constitutional rights and can't
challenge their detention in court. The Supreme Court is expected to
rule on that question by month's end.
For Afghanistan and other foreign locations where the Torture
Statute applies, the March 2003 report offers a narrow definition of
torture and then lays out defenses that government officials could use
should they be charged with committing torture, such as mistakenly
relying in good faith on the advice of lawyers or experts that their
actions were permissible. "Good faith may be a complete defense" to a
torture charge, the report advised.
"The infliction of pain or suffering per se, whether it is
physical or mental, is insufficient to amount to torture," the report
advises. Such suffering must be "severe," the lawyers advise, and they
rely on a dictionary definition to suggest it "must be of such a high
level of intensity that the pain is difficult for the subject to
endure."
The law says torture can be caused by administering or threatening
to administer "mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated
to disrupt profoundly the sense of personality." The Bush lawyers
advised, though, that it "does not preclude any and all use of drugs"
and "disruption of the senses or personality alone is insufficient" to
be illegal. For involuntarily administered drugs or other
psychological methods, the "acts must penetrate to the core of an
individual's ability to perceive the world around him," the lawyers
found.
Gen. Hill said last week that the military didn't use injections
or chemicals on prisoners.
After defining torture and other prohibited acts, the memo
presents "legal doctrines ... that could render specific conduct,
otherwise criminal, not unlawful." Foremost, the lawyers rely on the
"commander-in-chief authority," concluding that "without a clear
statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on
the president's ultimate authority" to wage war. Moreover, "any effort
by Congress to regulate the interrogation of unlawful combatants would
violate the Constitution's sole vesting of the commander-in-chief
authority in the president," the lawyers advised.
Likewise, the lawyers found that "constitutional principles" make
it impossible to "punish officials for aiding the president in
exercising his exclusive constitutional authorities" and neither
Congress nor the courts could "require or implement the prosecution of
such an individual."
To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the
memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other
writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside
the laws is "inherent in the president."
The report advised that government officials could argue that
"necessity" justified the use of torture. "Sometimes the greater good
for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of
the criminal law," the lawyers wrote, citing a standard legal text,
"Substantive Criminal Law" by Wayne LaFave and Austin W. Scott. "In
particular, the necessity defense can justify the intentional killing
of one person ... so long as the harm avoided is greater."
In addition, the report advised that torture or homicide could be
justified as "self-defense," should an official "honestly believe" it
was necessary to head off an imminent attack on the U.S. The
self-defense doctrine generally has been asserted by individuals
fending off assaults, and in 1890, the Supreme Court upheld a U.S.
deputy marshal's right to shoot an assailant of Supreme Court Justice
Stephen Field as involving both self-defense and defense of the
nation. Citing Justice Department opinions, the report concluded that
"if a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an
interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate criminal
prohibition," he could be justified "in doing so in order to prevent
further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist
network."
Mr. LaFave, a law professor at the University of Illinois, said he
was unaware that the Pentagon used his textbook in preparing its legal
analysis. He agreed, however, that in some cases necessity could be a
defense to torture charges. "Here's a guy who knows with certainty
where there's a bomb that will blow New York City to smithereens.
Should we torture him? Seems to me that's an easy one," Mr. LaFave
said. But he said necessity couldn't be a blanket justification for
torturing prisoners because of a general fear that "the nation is in
danger."
For members of the military, the report suggested that officials
could escape torture convictions by arguing that they were following
superior orders, since such orders "may be inferred to be lawful" and
are "disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate." Examining the
"superior orders" defense at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war
criminals, the Vietnam War prosecution of U.S. Army Lt. William Calley
for the My Lai massacre and the current U.N. war-crimes tribunals for
Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the report concluded it could be
asserted by "U.S. armed forces personnel engaged in exceptional
interrogations except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently
unlawful."
The report seemed "designed to find the legal loopholes that will
permit the use of torture against detainees," said Mary Ellen
O'Connell, an international-law professor at the Ohio State University
who has seen the report. "CIA operatives will think they are covered
because they are not going to face liability."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go to Original
Remedies for Prisoner Abuse
Washington Post | Editorial
Monday 07 June 2004
The only way to staunch the continuing damage of the prisoner
abuse scandal is for the Bush administration to fully document and
publicly report on the dozens of cases of homicide and physical abuse
in Iraq and Afghanistan, prosecute all those directly responsible, and
hold accountable the senior military and civilian officers whose
decisions and policies led to the lawlessness. President Bush should
meanwhile rewrite prisoner interrogation policies so that they conform
to U.S. and international law and should publish the revised
procedures so that Americans, and the world, can be assured of their
propriety.
For now, there is little reason to hope for such essential
corrective actions. On the contrary: There is disturbing evidence that
senior U.S. military commanders ignored or covered up serious crimes
against prisoners, including homicides, until the disclosure of
shocking photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison forced them to act,
and that even now the Pentagon's intent is to restrict charges to a
small number of mostly low-ranking soldiers and resist all scrutiny of
senior commanders and policies. Mr. Bush, for his part, continues to
damage his credibility and America's global prestige by insisting that
the trouble concerns only a handful of soldiers at one prison in Iraq
- though more than 100 cases of misconduct in Iraq and Afghanistan
have now been reported - and to ignore the need to correct his
policies.
The Pentagon boasts that a half-dozen investigations related to
the prisoner abuses are underway, in addition to criminal procedures.
But these studies are narrow, undermined by conflicts of interest, and
leave large areas uncovered - particularly the possible culpability of
senior officers. One officer, Maj. Gen. George R. Fay, the deputy
chief of Army intelligence, has been charged with investigating the
interrogators in his own chain of command. He is likely to recommend
action against a couple of intelligence officers, but he is not
capable of seriously reviewing the decisions and policies he or his
superiors made. Only one review includes figures outside the military
chain of command, but this advisory panel, including two former
secretaries of defense, has a mandate only to advise Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld about gaps in existing inquiries and possible
changes in policy, and it has only two months to report.
The advisory panel could play an important role if it pointed out
to Mr. Rumsfeld what is clear to most outside experts: Credible
investigations of both the criminal cases and the chain of command
will require high-level and independent reviews. Regarding the abuse
cases, this could take the form of a military court of inquiry headed
by a senior officer outside Army intelligence or Central Command,
which oversees Iraq. Such a panel could conduct a fresh review of the
cases and determine, for example, whether it was correct to close
dozens of them without any charges being brought. It could also find
out why a number of prisoner death cases remained dormant - with no
death reports filed and in several cases no autopsies conducted -
until after the release of the Abu Ghraib photos.
A separate independent investigation is needed to probe how the
Bush administration altered standard Army interrogation policies after
2001 and whether the new policies helped to create the climate of
lawlessness that clearly prevailed in a number of detention centers in
Iraq and Afghanistan. The connection between CIA interrogations and
other secret operations and the abuse of foreign detainees also should
be established. Outside expert judgment is needed about whether the
secret interrogation techniques now approved for use - reportedly
including hooding, placing prisoners in stress positions, sleep
deprivation and intimidation by dogs - are legal under the Geneva
Conventions or related U.S. laws.
Since the administration is unwilling to undertake such a review,
Congress must act. Under the leadership of Sen. John W. Warner
(R-Va.), the Senate Armed Services Committee has made a start at this,
and Mr. Warner has promised more public hearings. But a means is
needed to draw conclusions, hold officials accountable and take
corrective action - including the rewriting and disclosure of
interrogation policies. Even as the committee's probe continues, Mr.
Warner and other congressional leaders should consider how those tasks
can be accomplished.
-------
Jump to TO Features for Tuesday June 8, 2004
Today's TO Features -------------- Administration Lawyers Approved
Torture Cheney Faces Grilling Over Leak as Bush Election Hopes Slump
Death Toll Mounts in Iraq Richard Clarke: Bush Administration Uses
Terror Warnings to Influence Election CIA: Pentagon Ignored
Information on Chalabi Before 9/11, One Warning Went Unheard U.N.
Urges Fish Havens as World Marks Green Day Anti-Bush Feelings in
Europe Becoming Anti-American Genocide in Darfur, Sudan: 300,000
Deaths Foretold A 9/11 Lesson: Don't Photograph the Water Bob Herbert
| Level With Americans David Kay: 'Tony Blair Is Delusional' t r u t h
save-our-democracy
> WITH THE RECENT REVELATIONS OF "REAL WAR CRIMES" TAKING PLACE IN IRAQ,
> WHICH INCLUDE "MURDER AND RAPE" OF IRAQI PRISONERS, AND ON FRIDAY, MAY
> 7, 2004, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, DONALD RUMFELD, TESTIFIES UNDER OATH
> AND ADMITS "THAT HE IS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALL OF THESE ACTS",
>
> AND THEN OVER THE PROTESTS OF SOME REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT CONGRESS
> PEOPLE DEMANDING "IMMEDIATE TERMINATION OR IMPEACHMENT OF RUMSFELD,
> PRESIDENT BUSH STATES "HE SUPPORTS RUMSFELD AND WILL NOT FIRE HIM",
> WHILE VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY HAS STATED PUBLICLY: "RUMSFELD IS THE
> BEST SECRETARY OF DEFENSE THE U.S.A. HAS HAD AND HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED
> "TO CONTINUE TO DO HIS WORK"....THE REST OF THE WORLD NEEDS NO FURTHER
> PROOF, THAT THE U.S. IS BEING GOVERNED BY "WAR CRIMINALS".
DO YOU BELIEVE RUMSFELD OR BELIEVE THIS G.I.? SYLVIA
--
From: save-our-democracy (mcs...@yahoo.com)
Subject: 12 YR. MARINE-"WE ARE COMMITTING GENOCIDE"
****************************************************
View this article only
Newsgroups: alt.culture.alaska
Date: 2004-05-17 19:02:49 PST
HERE'S YOUR LEGACY AMERICANS...ARE YOU PROUD OF YOURSELVES?
WHO ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE...A VETERAN MARINE WHO WAS ORDERED TO
"KILL INNOCENT CIVILIANS", OR A "SO-CALLED AMERICAN CITIZEN (BUSH)WHO
IS ORDERING THE KILLING" AND REFUSED TO GO TO THE "KILLING FIELDS"
HIMSELF, BECAUSE HE PREFERRED "THE OIL FIELDS" INSTEAD? HOW MANY TIMES
AND HOW MANY WAYS DO YOU MORON AMERICANS HAVE TO BE TOLD "BUSH & HIS
HENCHMAN" HAVE BEEN LYING TO YOU EVER SINCE HE SAT HIS ASS IN THE
NATION'S CAPITOL? SYLVIA
----------------
Recent Stories By Paul Rockwell
Sacramento Bee
Atrocities in Iraq: 'I killed innocent people for our government'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
By Paul Rockwell -- Special to The Bee
Published 2:15 am PDT Sunday, May 16, 2004
"We forget what war is about, what it does to those who wage it and
those who suffer from it. Those who hate war the most, I have often
found, are veterans who know it."
- Chris Hedges, New York Times reporter and author of "War Is a Force
That Gives Us Meaning"
For nearly 12 years, Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey was a hard-core, some
say gung-ho, Marine. For three years he trained fellow Marines in one
of the most grueling indoctrination rituals in military life - Marine
boot camp.
The Iraq war changed Massey. The brutality, the sheer carnage of the
U.S. invasion, touched his conscience and transformed him forever. He
was honorably discharged with full severance last Dec. 31 and is now
back in his hometown, Waynsville, N.C.
When I talked with Massey last week, he expressed his remorse at the
civilian loss of life in incidents in which he himself was involved.
Q: You spent 12 years in the Marines. When were you sent to Iraq?
A: I went to Kuwait around Jan. 17. I was in Iraq from the get-go. And
I was involved in the initial invasion.
Q: What does the public need to know about your experiences as a
Marine?
A: The cause of the Iraqi revolt against the American occupation. What
they need to know is we killed a lot of innocent people. I think at
first the Iraqis had the understanding that casualties are a part of
war. But over the course of time, the occupation hurt the Iraqis. And
I didn't see any humanitarian support.
Q: What experiences turned you against the war and made you leave the
Marines?
A: I was in charge of a platoon that consists of machine gunners and
missile men. Our job was to go into certain areas of the towns and
secure the roadways. There was this one particular incident - and
there's many more - the one that really pushed me over the edge. It
involved a car with Iraqi civilians. From all the intelligence reports
we were getting, the cars were loaded down with suicide bombs or
material. That's the rhetoric we received from intelligence. They came
upon our checkpoint. We fired some warning shots. They didn't slow
down. So we lit them up.
Q: Lit up? You mean you fired machine guns?
A: Right. Every car that we lit up we were expecting ammunition to go
off. But we never heard any. Well, this particular vehicle we didn't
destroy completely, and one gentleman looked up at me and said: "Why
did you kill my brother? We didn't do anything wrong." That hit me
like a ton of bricks.
Q: He spoke English?
A: Oh, yeah.
Q: Baghdad was being bombed. The civilians were trying to get out,
right?
A: Yes. They received pamphlets, propaganda we dropped on them. It
said, "Just throw up your hands, lay down weapons." That's what they
were doing, but we were still lighting them up. They weren't in
uniform. We never found any weapons.
Q: You got to see the bodies and casualties?
A: Yeah, firsthand. I helped throw them in a ditch.
Q: Over what period did all this take place?
A: During the invasion of Baghdad.
'We lit him up pretty good'
Q: How many times were you involved in checkpoint "light-ups"?
A: Five times. There was [the city of] Rekha. The gentleman was
driving a stolen work utility van. He didn't stop. With us being
trigger happy, we didn't really give this guy much of a chance. We lit
him up pretty good. Then we inspected the back of the van. We found
nothing. No explosives.
Q: The reports said the cars were loaded with explosives. In all the
incidents did you find that to be the case?
A: Never. Not once. There were no secondary explosions. As a matter of
fact, we lit up a rally after we heard a stray gunshot.
Q: A demonstration? Where?
A: On the outskirts of Baghdad. Near a military compound. There were
demonstrators at the end of the street. They were young and they had
no weapons. And when we rolled onto the scene, there was already a
tank that was parked on the side of the road. If the Iraqis wanted to
do something, they could have blown up the tank. But they didn't. They
were only holding a demonstration. Down at the end of the road, we saw
some RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) lined up against the wall. That
put us at ease because we thought: "Wow, if they were going to blow us
up, they would have done it."
Q: Were the protest signs in English or Arabic?
A: Both.
Q: Who gave the order to wipe the demonstrators out?
A: Higher command. We were told to be on the lookout for the civilians
because a lot of the Fedayeen and the Republican Guards had tossed
away uniforms and put on civilian clothes and were mounting terrorist
attacks on American soldiers. The intelligence reports that were given
to us were basically known by every member of the chain of command.
The rank structure that was implemented in Iraq by the chain of
command was evident to every Marine in Iraq. The order to shoot the
demonstrators, I believe, came from senior government officials,
including intelligence communities within the military and the U.S.
government.
Q: What kind of firepower was employed?
A: M-16s, 50-cal. machine guns.
Q: You fired into six or ten kids? Were they all taken out?
A: Oh, yeah. Well, I had a "mercy" on one guy. When we rolled up, he
was hiding behind a concrete pillar. I saw him and raised my weapon
up, and he put up his hands. He ran off. I told everybody, "Don't
shoot." Half of his foot was trailing behind him. So he was running
with half of his foot cut off.
Q: After you lit up the demonstration, how long before the next
incident?
A: Probably about one or two hours. This is another thing, too. I am
so glad I am talking with you, because I suppressed all of this.
Q: Well, I appreciate you giving me the information, as hard as it
must be to recall the painful details.
A: That's all right. It's kind of therapy for me. Because it's
something that I had repressed for a long time.
Q: And the incident?
A: There was an incident with one of the cars. We shot an individual
with his hands up. He got out of the car. He was badly shot. We lit
him up. I don't know who started shooting first. One of the Marines
came running over to where we were and said: "You all just shot a guy
with his hands up." Man, I forgot about this.
Depleted uranium and cluster bombs
Q: You mention machine guns. What can you tell me about cluster bombs,
or depleted uranium?
A: Depleted uranium. I know what it does. It's basically like leaving
plutonium rods around. I'm 32 years old. I have 80 percent of my lung
capacity. I ache all the time. I don't feel like a healthy
32-year-old.
Q: Were you in the vicinity of of depleted uranium?
A: Oh, yeah. It's everywhere. DU is everywhere on the battlefield. If
you hit a tank, there's dust.
Q: Did you breath any dust?
A: Yeah.
Q: And if DU is affecting you or our troops, it's impacting Iraqi
civilians.
A: Oh, yeah. They got a big wasteland problem.
Q: Do Marines have any precautions about dealing with DU?
A: Not that I know of. Well, if a tank gets hit, crews are detained
for a little while to make sure there are no signs or symptoms.
American tanks have depleted uranium on the sides, and the projectiles
have DU in them. If an enemy vehicle gets hit, the area gets
contaminated. Dead rounds are in the ground. The civilian populace is
just now starting to learn about it. Hell, I didn't even know about DU
until two years ago. You know how I found out about it? I read an
article in Rolling Stone magazine. I just started inquiring about it,
and I said "Holy s---!"
Q: Cluster bombs are also controversial. U.N. commissions have called
for a ban. Were you acquainted with cluster bombs?
A: I had one of my Marines in my battalion who lost his leg from an
ICBM.
Q: What's an ICBM?
A: A multi-purpose cluster bomb.
Q: What happened?
A: He stepped on it. We didn't get to training about clusters until
about a month before I left.
Q: What kind of training?
A: They told us what they looked like, and not to step on them.
Q: Were you in any areas where they were dropped?
A: Oh, yeah. They were everywhere.
Q: Dropped from the air?
A: From the air as well as artillery.
Q: Are they dropped far away from cities, or inside the cities?
A: They are used everywhere. Now if you talked to a Marine artillery
officer, he would give you the runaround, the politically correct
answer. But for an average grunt, they're everywhere.
Q: Including inside the towns and cities?
A: Yes, if you were going into a city, you knew there were going to be
ICBMs.
Q: Cluster bombs are anti-personnel weapons. They are not precise.
They don't injure buildings, or hurt tanks. Only people and living
things. There are a lot of undetonated duds and they go off after the
battles are over.
A: Once the round leaves the tube, the cluster bomb has a mind of its
own. There's always human error. I'm going to tell you: The armed
forces are in a tight spot over there. It's starting to leak out about
the civilian casualties that are taking place. The Iraqis know. I keep
hearing reports from my Marine buddies inside that there were
200-something civilians killed in Fallujah. The military is scrambling
right now to keep the raps on that. My understanding is Fallujah is
just littered with civilian bodies.
Embedded reporters
Q: How are the embedded reporters responding?
A: I had embedded reporters in my unit, not my platoon. One we had was
a South African reporter. He was scared s---less. We had an incident
where one of them wanted to go home.
Q: Why?
A: It was when we started going into Baghdad. When he started seeing
the civilian casualties, he started wigging out a little bit. It
didn't start until we got on the outskirts of Baghdad and started
taking civilian casualties.
Q: I would like to go back to the first incident, when the survivor
asked why did you kill his brother. Was that the incident that pushed
you over the edge, as you put it?
A: Oh, yeah. Later on I found out that was a typical day. I talked
with my commanding officer after the incident. He came up to me and
says: "Are you OK?" I said: "No, today is not a good day. We killed a
bunch of civilians." He goes: "No, today was a good day." And when he
said that, I said "Oh, my goodness, what the hell am I into?"
Q: Your feelings changed during the invasion. What was your state of
mind before the invasion?
A: I was like every other troop. My president told me they got weapons
of mass destruction, that Saddam threatened the free world, that he
had all this might and could reach us anywhere. I just bought into the
whole thing.
Q: What changed you?
A: The civilian casualties taking place. That was what made the
difference. That was when I changed.
Q: Did the revelations that the government fabricated the evidence for
war affect the troops?
A: Yes. I killed innocent people for our government. For what? What
did I do? Where is the good coming out of it? I feel like I've had a
hand in some sort of evil lie at the hands of our government. I just
feel embarrassed, ashamed about it.
Showdown with superiors
Q: I understand that all the incidents - killing civilians at
checkpoints, itchy fingers at the rally - weigh on you. What happened
with your commanding officers? How did you deal with them?
A: There was an incident. It was right after the fall of Baghdad, when
we went back down south. On the outskirts of Karbala, we had a morning
meeting on the battle plan. I was not in a good mindset. All these
things were going through my head - about what we were doing over
there. About some of the things my troops were asking. I was holding
it all inside. My lieutenant and I got into a conversation. The
conversation was striking me wrong. And I lashed out. I looked at him
and told him: "You know, I honestly feel that what we're doing is
wrong over here. We're committing genocide."
He asked me something and I said that with the killing of civilians
and the depleted uranium we're leaving over here, we're not going to
have to worry about terrorists. He didn't like that. He got up and
stormed off. And I knew right then and there that my career was over.
I was talking to my commanding officer.
Q: What happened then?
A: After I talked to the top commander, I was kind of scurried away. I
was basically put on house arrest. I didn't talk to other troops. I
didn't want to hurt them. I didn't want to jeopardize them.
I want to help people. I felt strongly about it. I had to say
something. When I was sent back to stateside, I went in front of the
sergeant major. He's in charge of 3,500-plus Marines. "Sir," I told
him, "I don't want your money. I don't want your benefits. What you
did was wrong."
It was just a personal conviction with me. I've had an impeccable
career. I chose to get out. And you know who I blame? I blame the
president of the U.S. It's not the grunt. I blame the president
because he said they had weapons of mass destruction. It was a lie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Allen
save-our-democracy wrote:
> mcs...@yahoo.com (save-our-democracy) wrote in message news:<b5dde9a1.04052...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>MAY 21 AND MAY 22, 2004---UNBELIEVABLE REPORTS OF "KNOWN TORTURE" OF
>>IRAQI DETAINEES...AND THE "NAMES OF THE TOP BRASS" WHO APPROVED IT.
>>AGAIN, BUSH & CO HAVE LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH TO "COVER-UP" THEIR
>>APPOINTED TOP MILITARY OFFICIALS AND MERCENARIES, WHO ORDERED THIS
>>TORTURE AND DEATH OF HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS OF IRAQI MEN AND
>>WOMEN....
>
Put your Far Left rhetoric into its your little private black hole on
the Internet.
save-our-democracy
> save-our-democracy wrote:
> > mcs...@yahoo.com (save-our-democracy) wrote in message news:<b5dde9a1.04052...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >>MAY 21 AND MAY 22, 2004---UNBELIEVABLE REPORTS OF "KNOWN TORTURE" OF
> >>IRAQI DETAINEES...AND THE "NAMES OF THE TOP BRASS" WHO APPROVED IT.
> >>AGAIN, BUSH & CO HAVE LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH TO "COVER-UP" THEIR
> >>APPOINTED TOP MILITARY OFFICIALS AND MERCENARIES, WHO ORDERED THIS
> >>TORTURE AND DEATH OF HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS OF IRAQI MEN AND
> >>WOMEN....
GEORGE:
> the Internet.
MY RESPONSE:
YOU HAVE MADE MY POINTS PERFECTLY:
(1)YOUR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ON SEVERAL OF MY POSTS/ARTICLES PROVE
YOU DON'T HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE TO EVEN UNDERSTAND "THE ISSUES";
(2)YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE STUPID BRAIN-WASHED REPUBLICANS WHO
HAVE BEEN CONNED BY BUSH AND NOW WANT "THE TRUTH" OF THE CRIMINAL
ACTIONS OF THE BUSH'S BURIED BECAUSE IT IS AN OUTRAGE AND YOU ARE
EMBARRASSED THAT YOU VOTED FOR HIM.
SORRY GEORGE, YOU REPUBS WHO GOT BUSH IN OFFICE ARE GOING TO HAVE
"THESE FACTS" PUT RIGHT UP FRONT AND PERSONAL, SINCE YOU ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING HIM THERE. APPARENTLY REPUBS BELIEVE THAT YOU
CAN DO ANYTHING TO THE PEOPLE THEN TRY TO COVER IT UP AND IF THAT
DOESN'T WORK YOU INTIMIDATE THE "MESSENGER", AS IN THE JOE WILSON CASE
(BUSH CLAN EXPOSING HIS C.I.A. WIFE) BECAUSE WILSON WENT PUBLIC WHEN
BUSH INTENTIONALLY LIED ABOUT IRAQ TRYING TO GET URANIUM IN NIGER.
BUT, OF COURSE, YOU DIDN'T MIND SPENDING MULTI-MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO
TRY AND IMPEACH CLINTON BECAUSE HE LIED ABOUT GETTING SEXUALLY SERVED.
IN YOOR WARPED MINDS, MASS MURDER IS NOTHING COMPARED WITH HAVING SEX
AND LYING ABOUT..DO YOU SEE HOW ABSOLUTELY INSANE THE REPUBS ARE?
OOPS, NO "YOU" COULDN'T POSSIBLY..NO INTELLIGENCE, I FORGOT.
TRY TO BE A MAN AND ADMIT BUSH CONNED YOU AND DEMAND THAT YOUR REPUB
CONGRESS PEOLE START IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. AT LEAST YOU, AND THE
REPUB PARTY WILL REGAIN SOME OF YOUR CREDABILTY, BUT "RESPECT", WILL
TAKE MUCH LONGER.
AS TO CALLING MY POSTS "FAR-LEFT WING"; YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
"REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS", LAWS, AND NEWS ARTICLES...THESE ARE
CALLED "FACTS" YOU TWIT..BUT AGAIN, YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "FACTS" AND "FRAUDULENT PROPAGANDA", OTHERWISE
WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION, WOULD WE? (RHETORICAL QUESTION,
PLEASE DON'T TRY TO GIVE AN INTELLIGENCE RESPONSE..YOU HAVE ALREADY
PROVEN YOU ARE INCAPABLE.
SYLVIA
save-our-democracy
> > mcs...@yahoo.com (save-our-democracy) wrote in message news:<b5dde9a1.04052...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >>MAY 21 AND MAY 22, 2004---UNBELIEVABLE REPORTS OF "KNOWN TORTURE" OF
> >>IRAQI DETAINEES...AND THE "NAMES OF THE TOP BRASS" WHO APPROVED IT.
> >>AGAIN, BUSH & CO HAVE LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH TO "COVER-UP" THEIR
> >>APPOINTED TOP MILITARY OFFICIALS AND MERCENARIES, WHO ORDERED THIS
> >>TORTURE AND DEATH OF HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS OF IRAQI MEN AND
> >>WOMEN....
GEORGE:
> Put your Far Left rhetoric into its your little private black hole on
> the Internet.
--------------------------
MY RESPONSE:
WELL GEORGY, WHY IS YOUR GREAT REPUB PRESIDENT SUDDENLY RELEASING 320
MORE PRISONERS....(THE FOURTH SUCH RELEASE IN THE PAST 6 WEEKS) IF
THESE PRISONERS "ARE THE TERRORISTS" THAT YOU SO WANT THEM TO BE,
INSTEAD OF WHAT THE RED CROSS HAS SAID ALL ALONG:
"70% TO 90% OF THE U.S. MILITARY'S PRISONERS IN IRAQ, "ARE INNOCENTS"?
(ARTICLE IN THIS THREAD)
***********************************************************************
OH...OR ARE YOU NOW CALLING BUSH, RUMSFELD, AND HIS HENCHMEN "FAR
LEFT-WINGERS"?
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS GEORGY..."BRAIN-WASHED REPUBS LIKE YOU,
JUST DON'T GET IT BECAUSE YOU JUST DON'T HAVE THE INTELLENCE...YOU
HAVE BEEN HAD, CONNED, DUPED, ETC. BY BUSH & CO. YOU "NEVER
QUESTIONED" WHAT THEY WERE SAYING, JUST LIKE THE REPUBS KNEW THAT YOU
WOULDN'T (TOO STUPID)...IT WORKED FOR 3 1/2 YEARS, BUT THE "JIG IS UP"
AND HOPEFULLY THE REPUBS DEMAND CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS AGAINST BUSH &
CO. TO PAY FOR THE ENORMOUS CRIMES THEY HAVE COMMITTED, UNDER THE
GUISE OF "WAR ON TERRORISM"...
DIDN'T YOU GET A CLUE WHEN BUSH WAS STRUTTING AROUND CALLING HIMSELF
"THE WAR PRESIDENT"? WHO THE HELL WANTS A PRESIDENT WHO IS "ALL FOR
WAR" INSTEAD OF "PEACE"?? TOTAL MORONS WHO OBVIOUSLY ARE STILL LITTLE
BOYS AND THINK THAT A GUY WHO IS "MACHO ACTING" IS A "REAL HERO"..ONLY
IN THE MOVIES DOES THIS WORK..IN "REAL-LIFE" THESE TYPES NEED TO
STRAIGHT-JACKETS...BUT, OF COURSE, AMERICANS HAVE BEEN LIVING IN LA-LA
LAND FOR YEARS. THEY CAN'T BE BOTHERED WITH FINDING OUT WHAT THEIR
GOVERNMENT IS DOING "IN THEIR NAME AROUND THE WORLD, MUCH LESS BOTHER
TO VOTE...WELL, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, THEY WILL WAKE UP TO THE "WORST
CASE SCENARIO NOW"..THAT IS "BEFORE BUSH PUSHES THE NUKE BUTTON".
SYLVIA
-----------------
Print This Story E-mail This Story
Go to Original: http://www.truthout.org
Toll Mounts in Iraq
The Associated Press
Sunday 06 June 2004
Baghdad - A car bomb outside an American base killed nine people
Sunday and injured 30 others, including three U.S. soldiers, and
insurgents blasted Iraqi police stations in a Shiite neighborhood of
Baghdad and in a town south of the capital. A U.S. soldier was killed
in a mortar attack.
One of the police stations, in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood,
was blown up Sunday after insurgents raked the building with gunfire,
ordered Iraqi police to leave, planted explosives and detonated them.
Two explosions were heard late Sunday in central Baghdad, but the
location and cause could not be determined.
Meanwhile, a U.S. security company confirmed Sunday that four of
its employees - two Americans and two Poles - were killed the day
before in an ambush on the main road to Baghdad airport. The company,
Blackwater USA, lost four employees in an ambush last March in
Fallujah that triggered the bloody three-week siege of the restive
Sunni Muslim city.
In London, the British Foreign Office reported Sunday that a
British security contractor was killed and three colleagues were
wounded in a drive-by shooting Saturday in the northern city of Mosul.
The four worked for ArmorGroup, a security firm with 1,000 employees
in Iraq protecting official buildings and companies.
The stepped-up attacks raise questions about the capability of
Iraqi forces to control public order after sovereignty passes to a new
interim government at the end of this month.
Iraq's new prime minister, Iyad Allawi, told British Broadcasting
Corp. television that military decisions taken after the June 30
transfer of sovereignty must be approved by the Iraqi government.
The UN Security Council is considering a U.S.-British resolution
on the blueprint for the power transfer, including the thorny issue of
how much control the Iraqis will exert over multinational military
operations.
On Monday, the council will here from UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi,
who helped put together the interim government that will assume power
on June 30.
The car-bombing occurred at the gate of the Taji air base, a
former Iraqi air force facility used by the U.S. Army about 20
kilometers north of Baghdad. It was unclear if the explosion was a
suicide attack. Ambulances, Humvees and Iraqi police rushed to
evacuate the injured, while American troops secured the area.
Meanwhile, the U.S. command reported that an American soldier was
killed Sunday morning and another wounded in a mortar attack on the
13th Corps Support Command base near Balad north of Baghdad.
Later Sunday, gunmen attacked the Karama police station in Sadr
City, the scene of clashes between the Americans and gunmen loyal to
radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The assailants ordered police
to file out of the blue-painted single story building, rigged it with
explosives and detonated the charges, engulfing the building in a
cloud of smoke.
In a similar attack, eight people disguised as police entered a
police station late Saturday in Musayyib, about 75 kilometers south of
Baghdad, and shot dead seven officers before blowing up the building.
U.S. and Iraqi officials said they were uncertain who was behind
the attack, which occurred in a mixed Shiite-Sunni area along the
Euphrates river.
Also Sunday, a vehicle carrying a crew from the Arabic-language
satellite television broadcaster Al-Jazeera was attacked by five
gunmen near Iskandariyah south of Baghdad, the station said. The team
managed to escape unharmed after a 20-minute chase.
Late Sunday, a roadside bomb exploded in Ramadi, a Sunni city west
of Baghdad, killing two policemen and injuring six others, according
to police Capt. Zyad al-Juburi.
The ambush along the airport road was the latest in a series of
attacks against civilian contractors, who provide security for private
companies in Iraq. Four men in one vehicle died on the spot. Three
others in a second vehicle managed to flag down a passing car and
escape.
Despite the continuing violence, the U.S. army released another
320
-------------------------------------------------------------------
detainees Sunday from the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, the centre of
the
------------------------------------------------------------------------
scandal involving abuse of inmates by American soldiers.
---------------------------------------------------------
It was the fourth major release since the scandal broke in April.
----------------------------------------------------------------
One bright spot, however, was the situation around the Shiite holy
cities of Najaf and Kufa, where Iraqi police have been reasserting
their control from Mr. al-Sadr's gunmen after nearly eight weeks of
fighting.
The U.S. army agreed to a request from the Najaf governor to keep
U.S. troops away from the Imam Ali Shrine in Najaf and the mosque in
Kufa where Mr. al-Sadr preaches to give Iraqi security forces a chance
to ease tensions. U.S. officials said they agreed with the request
after receiving assurances that Mr. al-Sadr's militia had been
significantly weakened in weeks of clashes with American forces.
In Baghdad, Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, deputy commander of the 1st
Armored Division, said U.S. troops had killed more than 1,000
militiamen in fighting in
----------------------------------------------------------------
Najaf, Karbala and Kut - Shiite cities where Mr. al-Sadr's gunmen had
been active.
Mr. al-Sadr launched his uprising in early April after the
U.S.-run occupation authority closed his newspaper, arrested a key
lieutenant and announced a warrant for his arrest in the April 2003
murder of a moderate cleric in Najaf.
Shiite religious and political leaders convinced Mr. al-Sadr to
pull his troops off the streets in return for assurances that the
future of his militia and the status of the arrest warrant would be
discussed in future talks with the clerical hierarchy.
RF2 (Ridiculous Frito-Boi)
hey psycho! when you disappear which mental health program do you enter?
do you really think you are making a difference in the world?
if the state of alaska paid you all the workers comp you thought you
deserve and you started drawing ssdi, would you leave the poor people of
alaska alone?
(no caps use since psycho has totally consumed the daily quota.)
save-our-democracy
--------
Go to Original: http://www.truthout.org
Calif. Guardsman Alleges Abuse in Iraq
The Associated Press
Wednesday 09 June 2004
Click to view Leaked Torture Memo: Full Text (I will post
it-sylvia)
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.
-------
save-our-democracy
LINK: THESE PHOTOS ARE JUST ABOUT ALL OF THE ONES WE HAVE SEEN ON T.V.
BUT NOW MUCH CLEARER & THEY COVER THE DOGS AND WHAT LOOKS LIKE
PRISONERS WHO HAVE BEEN BITTEN.KEEP IN MIND, THE U.S. WAS "NOT LEGALLY
AUTHORIZED" TO ATTACK AND OCCUPY THIS COUNTRY..THIS WAS A CLEAR
VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
CLEARLY "THESE SO-CALLED PRISONERS" HAD NO CHARGES AGAINST THEM, NO
LAWYERS, AND NO COURT HEARINGS. THE U.S. HAS, SINCE THESE PHOTOS WERE
PUBLISHED,RELEASED 320 OF THESE MEN AND HAD 3 OTHER RELEASES, BUT
THERE ARE STILL MANY KEPT IN THIS PRISON. SINCE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE
U.S. "DOES NOT OPERATE UNDER ANY "RULE OF LAW", ESPECIALLY THE
"INTERNATIONAL RULE OF LAWS", ANY AMERICAN G.I. WHO IS CAPTURED BY THE
SO-CALLED INSURGENTS, IN IRAQ OR ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, HAS ABSOLUTELY
"NO REASON" TO HONOR ANY INTERNATIONAL TREATIES WITH THE U.S.
DO YOU HAVE A FRIEND OR RELATIVE IN THE MILITARY OR MAYBE JUST ON
VACATION SOMEWHERE OVERSEAS..ARE YOU WORRIED? YOU SHOULD BE!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/photo/world/G33343-2004Jun11.html
AS MOST OF YOU PROBABLY KNOW THE WASH. POST PUTS THERE ARTICLES IN THE
ARCHIVES AND YOU HAVE TO PAY TO GET THE ARTICLE, SO IF YOU MUST "SAVE"
THESE IN YOUR COMPUTER IF YOU WANT TO KEEP THEM. SYLVIA
---------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32776-2004Jun10.html
washingtonpost.com > World > Middle East > Iraq > Abu Ghraib Prison
Use of Dogs to Scare Prisoners Was Authorized
----------------------------------------------
Military Intelligence Personnel Were Involved, Handlers Say
-----------------------------------------------------------
By Josh White and Scott Higham
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 11, 2004; Page A01
U.S. intelligence personnel ordered military dog handlers at the Abu
Ghraib prison in Iraq to use unmuzzled dogs to frighten and intimidate
detainees during interrogations late last year, a plan approved by the
highest-ranking military intelligence officer at the facility,
according to sworn statements the handlers provided to military
investigators.
A military intelligence interrogator also told investigators that two
dog handlers at Abu Ghraib were "having a contest" to see how many
detainees they could make involuntarily urinate out of fear of the
dogs, according to the previously undisclosed statements obtained by
The Washington Post.
The statements by the dog handlers provide the clearest indication yet
that military intelligence personnel were deeply involved in tactics
later deemed by a U.S. Army general to be "sadistic, blatant and
wanton criminal abuses."
President Bush and top Pentagon officials have said the criminal abuse
at Abu Ghraib was confined to a small group of rogue military police
soldiers who stripped detainees naked, beat them and photographed them
in humiliating sexual poses. An Army investigation into the abuse
condemned the MPs for those practices, but also included the use of
unmuzzled dogs to frighten detainees among the "intentional abuse."
So far, the only charges to emerge have been against seven MPs and do
not include any dog incidents, even though such use of dogs is an
apparent violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Army's field
manual. The military intelligence officer in charge of Abu Ghraib
later told investigators that the use of unmuzzled dogs in
interrogation sessions was recommended by a two-star general and that
it was "okay."
The newly obtained documents reinforce the picture that the abuse
falls into two categories: sexual humiliation and beatings at the
hands of MPs, and intimidation using dogs that is clearly tied to
military intelligence. The sexual abuse happened weeks and even months
before the dog incidents, some of which appear to be part of an
organized strategy by military intelligence to scare detainees into
talking, according to the statements.
Sgts. Michael J. Smith and Santos A. Cardona, Army dog handlers
assigned to Abu Ghraib, told investigators that military intelligence
personnel requested that they bring their dogs to prison interrogation
sites multiple times to assist in questioning detainees in December
and January. Col. Thomas M. Pappas, who was in charge of military
intelligence at the prison, told both soldiers that the use of dogs in
interrogations had been approved, according to the statements.
"I have talked to Col. Papus [sic] and he said it was good to go,"
Smith told an investigator on Jan. 23.
Neither Smith nor Cardona has been charged in connection with the
abuse at Abu Ghraib. "It's all under investigation," said Lt. Col.
Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman.
The men could not be reached yesterday to comment. Two officers at the
U.S. Army Trial Defense Service said that a military lawyer has been
assigned to Cardona and that a message seeking a comment would be
relayed to the attorney. The officers said they did not know whether a
lawyer from the Army's defense service had been assigned to represent
Smith.
In Army memos regarding interrogation techniques at the prison, the
use of military working dogs was specifically allowed -- as long as
higher-ranking officers approved the measures. According to one
military intelligence memo obtained by The Post, the officer in charge
of the military intelligence-run interrogation center at the prison
had to approve the use of dogs in interrogations. There is no
explanation in the memo of what parameters would have to be in place
-- for example, whether the dogs would be muzzled or unmuzzled -- or
what the dogs would be allowed to do. The Army previously has said
that the commanding general of U.S. troops in Iraq -- Lt. Gen. Ricardo
S. Sanchez -- would have had to approve the use of dogs.
Human rights experts said the use of dogs at Abu Ghraib violates
longstanding tenets regulating the treatment of prisoners and
civilians under the control of an occupying force, including the
Army's field manual, which prohibits "acts of violence or
intimidation" by American soldiers.
"Using dogs to frighten and intimidate prisoners is a violation of the
Geneva Convention," said Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human
Rights First, an international organization based in New York. "It's a
violation of U.S. policy as stated in the Army field manual, and it's
a violation of the prohibition against cruel treatment."
The dog teams at Abu Ghraib were part of a security detail that also
searched for weapons, explosives and contraband. The general in charge
of military prisons in Iraq, including Abu Ghraib, said the dog teams
were under the control of military intelligence but had no training or
experience in helping with interrogations.
Cardona's dog, a tan Belgian Malinois named Duco, was trained to be
part of a narcotics and patrol team. Cardona told investigators he
also helped military intelligence with two interrogations and later
was summoned by military police to draw information out of a detainee
on Tier 1 of the prison, site of the worst documented abuse.
Smith said military intelligence personnel asked him to instill fear
in detainees. He said that he would bring his dog, a black Belgian
shepherd named Marco, to the tier specifically to scare prisoners
after they were pulled out of their cells. At the behest of
interrogators, he said, in some cases he would bring the barking dog
to within six inches of the prisoners.
"Is using the dog in this manner an allowable tool by the MI
interrogators?" an investigator asked Smith.
"Yes," he replied.
The dog handlers arrived at Abu Ghraib in late November, sometime
after the abuse of detainees had been captured in photographs,
including the images of the naked human pyramid and forced
masturbation.
Master-at-Arms 1st Class William J. Kimbro, a Navy dog handler, said
he was summoned to Tier 1 one night in November to help search a cell
for explosives using his dog, Nicky, a black and tan Belgian Malinois.
Earlier that night -- records indicate it was Nov. 24 -- a prisoner
had allegedly been found with a weapon. When Kimbro and Nicky
concluded the search, they were called to the second floor of the
cellblock to search another cell.
"There was a bunch of yelling going on in the cell and my dog started
going ape," Kimbro told investigators, adding that interrogators were
yelling at a detainee in the corner. "I remember one of the males
saying to the detainee, if the detainee did not provide the
information the guy was asking about, then he would have me let . . .
my dog go on him."
Kimbro said he was surprised by the comment and tried to calm Nicky
down. He soon left, he said, upset that interrogators had tried to use
his dog as an interrogation tool.
"I was leaving because this is not what my dog is trained for," Kimbro
said in one of three statements he provided to investigators. "We do
not use our dogs for interrogation purposes."
Kimbro was singled out for praise in Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba's
report about abuse at the prison for refusing "to participate in
improper interrogations despite significant pressure from the MI
personnel at Abu Ghraib."
Smith and Cardona said they complied with the MI requests because they
believed the tactics had been approved by Pappas, the military
intelligence officer in charge of the prison. They told investigators
that they spent time on the cellblocks, allowing their dogs to bark at
the detainees.
They said a non-commissioned officer from military intelligence
approached them in mid-December.
"He asked us if we could use our dogs for interrogation purposes,"
Cardona said in a statement. "They were trying to get it cleared. We
went outside and saw Col. Pappas. He told us MI wanted to use the dogs
for interrogations and he told us that they had received permission to
use dogs in an interview."
Smith recalled the same conversation, saying he spoke with Pappas in
the parking lot the night after Saddam Hussein was captured -- Dec.
14. He said he was told that the use of the dogs was permitted.
Later that night, the two dog handlers took their dogs to an
interrogation booth holding a detainee. Interrogators told them the
dogs did not need to be muzzled, they said.
"When we got to the room the detainee was sitting in the doorway, with
his feet in the doorway and the door was open," Smith said. "My dog
and Sgt. Cardona's dog were both barking at the detainee and we never
got closer than 18 inches. Neither dog had a muzzle on."
Also in mid-December, the dog handlers said they were asked by one of
the MPs, Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II, for help in dealing
with an uncooperative detainee. Part of what followed was captured in
photographs that have come to define the abuse at Abu Ghraib: A naked
prisoner was up against a wall, two dogs squaring off against him.
The detainee, identified in the documents as Ballendia Sadawi
Mohammed, said he was suddenly snatched from his bed in cell No. 5 one
night and sent into the hallway handcuffed.
"They sent the dogs toward me. I was scared," Mohammed told
investigators. "The first dog bit my leg and injured me there and this
was bad luck. The bite from the first dog caused me to have 12
stitches from the doctor of my left leg as a result I lost a lot of
blood."
Spec. Sabrina D. Harman, a member of the 372nd Military Police
Company, said she saw the incident and said the detainee was bitten
after he tried to run from the dog and was cornered. Cardona, whose
dog apparently bit the detainee twice, once on each leg, justified
letting his dog go to the end of its leash because he believed the
detainee was fighting with Spec. Charles A. Graner Jr.
Military investigative records show that Frederick and Graner were key
participants in the abuse. Harman, who said she saw two other inmates
with dog bites around late December, also has been charged.
In early January, Cardona said, he used his dog during an
interrogation at the "Wood" facility at Abu Ghraib, a collection of
wooden interrogation booths set up behind the prison. Cardona said a
non-commissioned military intelligence officer asked him to bring his
dog into a booth and make it bark to scare the prisoner.
"I asked him if he wanted Duco to be in a muzzle and he said no,"
Cardona told investigators. "We went into the booth and there was a
detainee in the booth with a bag over his head. Duco barked at him for
about two or three minutes and they were asking the detainee
questions."
On Jan. 13, Spec. John Harold Ketzer, a military intelligence
interrogator, saw a dog team corner two male prisoners against a wall,
one prisoner hiding behind the other and screaming, he later told
investigators.
"When I asked what was going on in the cell, the handler stated that
he was just scaring them, and that he and another of the handlers was
having a contest to see how many detainees they could get to urinate
on themselves," Ketzer said.
Research editor Margot Williams contributed to this report.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
An unmuzzled dog appears to frighten a detainee at Abu Ghraib prison
in Iraq. Two military dog handlers told investigators that
intelligence personnel ordered them to use dogs to intimidate
prisoners. (The Washington Post)
_____Dogs at Abu Ghraib_____
• Photo Gallery: Images obtained by The Washington Post reveal
more about the treatment of Iraqi prisoners.
__ INSIDE ABU GHRAIB __
Photo Gallery: Images obtained by The Washington Post reveal more
about the treatment of Iraqi prisoners.
• More Prison Photos
Exclusive Video: Video excerpt obtained by The Washington Post and
edited for posting depicts prison abuse.
• Chronology of Abu Ghraib
Documents: Official sworn statements from Iraqi detainees in Abu
Ghraib describe their experiences.
• U.S. Army Investigation Report
• Transcript: Post Executive Editor
Post a follow-up to this message
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Google Home - Advertising Programs - Business Solutions - About Google
©2004 Google
save-our-democracy
> save-our-democracy wrote:
> > OH YEAH...YOU G.I.'S THESE "ORDERS" HAVE NOW GIVEN THE IRAQI'S AND ALL
> > ARABS THE "RIGHT TO TORTURE YOU"..RUMSFELD HAS CLEARLY ELIMINATED ALL
> > OF THE PROTECTIONS UNDER THE "GENEVA CONFERENCE" WHICH YOU GAVE "YOU"
> > THESE PROTECTIONS. NOW TELL ME AGAIN, "IN WHO'S INTERESTS ARE YOU
> > WILLING TO BE TORTURED AND DIE FOR? OH YES, THE "GOOD OLD AMERICA".
> > WELL LOOK AROUND YOU G.I.S "YOUR GOVERNMENT DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT
> > YOUR LIFE AND THEY HAVE MADE THAT AS CLEAR AS THEY CAN". THIS "WAS AN
> > ILLEGAL WAR TO START WITH...YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T "BOTHER TO FIND OUT
> > ABOUT IT BEFORE "YOU VOLUNTEERED TO DIE FOR IT"...MY SUGGESTION
> > IS....GET AN ATTORNEY AND SUE OLD UNCLE SAM FOR FRAUD, I.E. GO TO THE
> > U.S. CODE-TITLE 18-AND READ ABOUT THIS "FRAUD PERPETRATED AGAINST
> > AMERICAN CITIZENS, MEDIA AND CONGRESS". DON'T DIE FOR THE "CAUSE OF
> > THIS FASCIST GOVERNMENT'S GREED FOR OIL AND POWER".
> >
> The Geneva Convention only appliess to military personnel in uniform.
> These terrorist have no protection underthe Geneva accords. Do you think
> the Terrorist care about the Geneva accords?
The are going to keep up their war of terror. The G.I. in the field
was never give any protections by the terrorist.
>
> I don't think that all the Arabs and Iraqis are going to start torturing
> G.I.s.
=================
MY RESPONSE:
HOW ABOUT ASKING "YOUR PRESIDENT AND YOU SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ABOUT
THIS. YOUR "ARGUMENT" SHOULD BE WITH "THEM" AND OF COURSE, THE
"TREATIES" (GENEVA CONFERENCE) THAT "RUMSFELD"..."ADMITS APPLIES "RO
THE PRISONERS IN IRAQ..WHO WERE "NOT WEARING UNIFORMS", I.E. "THEY
WERE CITIZENS OF IRAQ". SYLVIA
----------
Can Rumsfeld Save Torture Lite?
------------------------------
By Steve Weissman
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Wednesday 12 May 2004
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be
inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any
kind whatever."Article 17, Third Geneva Convention
**************************************************
The TV screen showed the faces of American Prisoners of War from
Pvt. Jessica Lynch unit, the 507th Maintenance Company, out of
Fort Bliss, Texas.
Iraqi fedayeen had captured them on March 23 of last year as U.S.
troops
raced toward Baghdad, and the Iraqis proudly showed their captives to
the world.
The face I remember most was Spc. Shoshana Johnson, a 30-year-old
black woman who served as an Army cook. She looked terrified.
Earlier the same day, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was appearing
on NBC's Meet the Press, when host Tim Russert told him that the
Iraqis had announced the capture and would soon show their American
POWs.
Secretary Rumsfeld responded without missing a beat.
***************************************************
"You know," he said, "under the Geneva Convention, it's illegal to
******************************************************************
do things with prisoners of war that are humiliating to those
individuals."
*************************************************************************
Sec. Rumsfeld knew what he was saying.
The Geneva Conventions require that POWs, other detainees, and
civilians "be
*****************************************************************************
treated humanely at all times."
*******************************
Various articles forbid humiliating, coercing, and torturing them.
One provision - Article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention - would
become especially relevant.
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion,
may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information
of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be
threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous
treatment of any kind."
All that week, Pentagon officials continued to cite the Geneva
Conventions, and Rumsfeld drove them home again with an explicit
message to Iraqi government officials.
"The coalition POWs that you are holding must be treated according
to the Geneva Conventions," he warned.
"And any Iraqi officials involved in their mistreatment, humiliation
or execution will pay a severe price."
Rumsfeld and the military brass were talking nothing less than war
*****************************************************************
crimes prosecutions.
******************
Now they've changed their tune.
******************************
With ever more horrific American prison photos filling the world's
newspapers,
magazines, and TV screens, the Pentagon portrays our far greater
humiliation, coercion, and even torture of Iraqi prisoners as only a
terrible excess, the isolated work of a few rotten apples.
The hypocrisy is galling, and the rest of us - soldiers and civilians
alike -
***************************************************************************
will pay for it should we fall into enemy hands.
***********************************************
The Geneva Conventions do not enforce themselves. Americans can expect
**********************************************************************
humane treatment only if our enemies can expect it from us.
**********************************************************
But can they? Certainly not after Abu Ghraib.
********************************************
And not even after all the major military reforms that Mr. Rumsfeld is
now proclaiming.
This is the down-and-dirty of what he has said in recent days - and of
what he and the military brass refuse to say.
Testifying before the Senate Arms Services Committee last Friday,
he strongly condemned what he and the world saw in the prison photos,
and warned that we would soon see even worse.
********************************************
But he repeatedly backed away from talking about:
***********************************************
(1)the military intelligence officers,
***********************************
(2)CIA officers, and
***************
(3)private contractors
***********************
who - according to Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba - "actively requested that
M.P. guards set physical and mental conditions for favorable
interrogation of witnesses."
Senator Kennedy drew Rumsfeld's attention to confidential reports
that the International Committee of the Red Cross had provided
Pentagon officials over the last year.
The reports listed many abuses, some of them in the ICRC's opinion
"tantamount to torture."
Rumsfeld was unfazed.
********************
"The ICRC report was helpful," he said.
"The military command, as I understand it, undertook a series of
corrections."
Though he was telling the truth, he was hiding much more.
***********************
One Red Cross report, now leaked, listed several "methods of
ill-treatment"
that Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib had described.
The list read like the CIA's 1983 Human Resource Exploitation Training
Manual and the "Stress and Duress" of captives in Afghanistan and
Guantanamo.
The Red Cross was describing the humiliation, sleep and sensory
deprivation, disorientation, and physical punishment of Torture Late,
which America has been practicing - and training other to practice -
for at least 40 years.
The techniques at Abu Ghraib included:
************************************
(1) "Hooding, used to prevent people from seeing and to disorient
them,
and also to prevent them from breathing freely."
(2)"Being stripped naked for several days while held in solitary
confinement in an empty and completely dark cell that included a
latrine."
(3)"Threats (of ill-treatment, reprisals against family members,
imminent
execution of transfer to Guantanamo)."
(4)"Being forced to remain for prolonged periods in stress positions
such
as squatting or standing with or without the arms lifted."
Though less dramatic than the Abu Ghraib photos, these and other
methods that the Red Cross mentioned represent a persistent violation
of the humane treatment that the United States has committed itself to
provide.
Specifically, they appear to violate the Third Geneva Convention,
Article 17.
****************************************************************************
In the words of the Red Cross:
"These methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the
military intelligence in a systematic way to gain confessions and
extract information or other forms of co-operation from persons who
had been arrested in connection
with suspected security offenses or deemed to have an intelligence
value.'"
Were these the abuses that the American military corrected?
Rumsfeld would not say, and his silence spoke volumes.
******************************************************
We can only hope for a better answer in the forthcoming report by Maj.
Gen. George Fay, the Army's deputy chief of staff for intelligence.
In the meantime, the man now cleaning up Abu Ghraib and other
American prisons in Iraq has refused to rule out sensory deprivation
and other "aggressive techniques."
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller will only require that a general "sign off"
on them.
The former prison chief at Guantanamo, Gen. Miller had earlier
recommended that American prison guards in Iraq do all they could to
"enable" interrogations, which is what the MPs thought they were
doing.
He also insists that "Stress and Duress" falls within the bounds of
the
***********************************************************************
Geneva Conventions.
*******************
I doubt the world will agree.
Nor will other nations continue so willingly to look the other way
when
***********************************************************************
America preaches the "rule of law" while it practices Torture Lite.
****************************************************************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left
monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London,
working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and
works in France, where he writes for t r u t h o u t.
-------
© : t r u t h o u t 2004
| t r u t h o u t | forum | issues | editorial | letters | donate |
contact |
| voting rights | environment | budget | children | politics |
indigenous survival | energy |
| defense | health | economy | human rights | labor | trade | women |
reform | global |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
save-our-democracy
BY THE PENTAGON, VIA COMMANDERS OF U.S. PRISONERS THAT THE "TORTURE"
THAT WAS BEING APPLIED TO AFGHANS AND IRAQIS WERE IN QUESTION AND THEY
WANTED ASHCROFT TO GIVE THEM A "LEGAL OPINION" IF THIS "TREATMENT" WAS
VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL AND U.S. /TREATIES AND LAWS.
THIS WAS 2 1/2 YEARS AGO (JANUARY 22, 2002) CLEARLY "NOT AS STATED,
I.E. RECENT ABUSE OF PRISONERS BY JUST A "FEW" U.S. TROOPS.
ALSO, THERE WERE "MANY SUCH LEGAL OPINIONS" ALL OF WHICH PROVIDED A
TOTALLY FRAUDULENT AND INTENTIONALLY DISTORTED INTERPRETATION OF THESE
LAWS, STATING THAT "NO ONE" FROM BUSH...DOWN TO THE LOWEST RANKING
U.S. G.I. COULD BE HELD CRIMINALLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS TORTURE".
THESE DOCUMENTS ARE CLEAR PROOF OF THE DELUSIONAL AND TYRANNICAL
LUNATIC ACTIONS OF THE TOP OFFICIALS, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT, WHICH
IS RUNNING OUR GOVERNMENT. THEIR ACTIONS HAVE CLEARLY CAUSED THE
DEATHS OF MANY PRISONERS, MOST OF WHICH NEVER HAD AN AUTOPSY DONE TO
ESTABLISH "THE CAUSE OF DEATH", THUS NO EVIDENCE.
WE HAVE CONFESSED AMERICAN MURDERERS IN OUR U.S. PRISONERS FOR THE
"INSANE" WHO GIVE SIMILAR JUSTIFICATIONS OF "THEIR RIGHT TO KILL OTHER
PEOPLE". BUSH AND HIS HENCHMEN SHOULD BE IN THESE "SAME PRISONS FOR
THE CRIMINALLY INSANE" BECAUSE THEY ARE CLEARLY DELUSIONAL IN THEIR
BELIEF THAT "THEY HAVE THE GOD-LIKE POWER TO CAUSE DEATH OF ANOTHER
HUMAN BEING, WHO HAS NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME, HAD ANY
ATTORNEY, NOR HAD ANY COURT HEARINGS, MUCH LESS A JURY TO DECIDE TO
DECIDE THEIR INNOCENCE OR GUILT, "BASED ON FACTUAL EVIDENCE" WHICH IS
MANDATED VIA INTERNATIONAL AND U.S. LAWS. THE QUESTION IS: WHERE IS
THE OUTRAGE FROM CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE..OR SHOULD THE WORLD
ASSUME, THAT ALL AMERICANS "AGREE AND SUPPORT THESE TACTICS"? SYLVIA
-------------------
LEGAL OPINIONS
**************
Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn't Bind Bush
*************************************************
By NEIL A. LEWIS and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: June 8, 2004
ASHINGTON, June 7 — A team of administration lawyers concluded
in a March 2003 legal memorandum that President Bush was not bound by
either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal
antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to
approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security.
The memo, prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, also said
that any executive branch officials, including those in the military,
could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against
torture for a variety of reasons.
One reason, the lawyers said, would be if military personnel believed
that they were acting on orders from superiors "except where the
conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful."
"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority
to manage a military campaign," the lawyers wrote in the 56-page
confidential memorandum, the prohibition against torture "must be
construed as inapplicable to interrogation undertaken pursuant to his
commander-in-chief authority."
Senior Pentagon officials on Monday sought to minimize the
significance of the March memo, one of several obtained by The New
York Times, as an interim legal analysis that had no effect on revised
interrogation procedures that Mr. Rumsfeld approved in April 2003 for
the American military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
"The April document was about interrogation techniques and
procedures," said Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman.
"It was not a legal analysis."
Mr. Di Rita said the 24 interrogation procedures permitted at
Guantánamo, four of which required Mr. Rumsfeld's explicit approval,
did not constitute torture and were consistent with international
treaties.
The March memorandum, which was first reported by The Wall Street
Journal on Monday, is the latest internal legal study to be disclosed
that shows that after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks the
administration's lawyers were set to work to find legal arguments to
avoid restrictions imposed by international and American law.
A Jan. 22, 2002, memorandum from the Justice Department that provided
arguments to keep American officials from being charged with war
crimes for the way prisoners were detained and interrogated was used
extensively as a basis for the March memorandum on avoiding
proscriptions against torture.
The previously disclosed Justice Department memorandum concluded that
administration officials were justified in asserting that the Geneva
Conventions did not apply to detainees from the Afghanistan war.
Another memorandum obtained by The Times indicates that most of the
administration's top lawyers, with the exception of those at the State
Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, approved of the Justice
Department's position that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the
war in Afghanistan. In addition, that memorandum, dated Feb. 2, 2002,
noted that lawyers for the Central Intelligence Agency had asked for
an explicit understanding that the administration's public pledge to
abide by the spirit of the conventions did not apply to its
operatives.
The March memo, a copy of which was obtained by The Times, was
prepared as part of a review of interrogation techniques by a working
group appointed by the Defense Department's general counsel, William
J. Haynes. The group itself was led by the Air Force general counsel,
Mary Walker, and included military and civilian lawyers from all
branches of the armed services.
The review stemmed from concerns raised by Pentagon lawyers and
interrogators at Guantánamo after Mr. Rumsfeld approved a set of
harsher interrogation techniques in December 2002 to use on a Saudi
detainee, Mohamed al-Kahtani, who was believed to be the planned 20th
hijacker in the Sept. 11 terror plot.
Mr. Rumsfeld suspended the harsher techniques, including serving the
detainee cold, prepackaged food instead of hot rations and shaving off
his facial hair, on Jan. 12, pending the outcome of the working
group's review. Gen. James T. Hill, head of the military's Southern
Command, which oversees Guantánamo, told reporters last Friday that
the working group "wanted to do what is humane and what is legal and
consistent not only with" the Geneva Conventions, but also "what is
right for our soldiers."
Continued
1 | 2 | Next>>
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy |
Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top
save-our-democracy
Print This Story E-mail This Story
Go to Original: http://www.truthout.org
Hiding a Bad Guy Named Triple X
*********************************
By Edward T. Pound
U.S. News and World Report
Issue dated 21 June 2004
How the military treated some inmates at Abu Ghraib like 'ghosts'.
****************************************************************
The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, issued a
classified order last November directing military guards to hide a
prisoner, later dubbed "Triple X" by soldiers, from Red Cross
inspectors and keep his name off official rosters.
The disclosure, by military sources, is the first indication that
Sanchez was directly involved in efforts to hide prisoners from the
Red Cross, a practice that was sharply criticized by Maj. Gen. Antonio
Taguba in a report describing abuses of detainees at the Abu Ghraib
prison near Baghdad.
Taguba blamed the 800th Military Police Brigade, which guarded the
prison, for allowing "other government agencies" - a euphemism that
includes the CIA - to hide "ghost" detainees at Abu Ghraib.
The practice, he wrote, "was deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and
in
***********
***************************************************
violation of international law."
********************************
Taguba's report did not cite the November 18 directive issued by
Sanchez to hide Triple X, identified as a high-ranking terrorist. It
is not known if Taguba saw the directive. He declined to comment.
The Army said it could not discuss a classified order.
*****************************************************
The disclosure of Sanchez's involvement may focus more attention on
him. There have been reports that his top Army lawyers sought to curb
Red Cross access to Abu Ghraib, only weeks after the humanitarian
agency uncovered abuses and sexual humiliation at the prison late last
year.
Some Army officers, including Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the
commander of the 800th MP Brigade, have blamed Sanchez's staff for
refusing to release security detainees from Abu Ghraib even when they
were believed to pose no threat to coalition forces.
Karpinski says Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, who is Sanchez's top
intelligence officer, was a major obstacle to releasing detainees.
Fast, she says, served with her and a third officer on a detainee
release board and vetoed recommendations to release inmates from the
overcrowded facility, even after determining that they were of no
intelligence value.
"She did not want to release the next Osama bin Laden," Karpinski
says.
"She had a certain kind of paranoia."
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the top military spokesman in Iraq, denies
that Fast had veto authority and says most board decisions were
unanimous.
Overcrowding, lack of force protection in a hot combat zone, and
unsanitary conditions may have contributed to the problems at Abu
Ghraib. Internal Army records obtained by U.S. News show that the
military moved at a snail's pace in releasing security detainees from
Abu Ghraib and three other facilities.
In early December, there were 1,604 detainees kept for more than 91
days. By late January, that figure had grown to 3,016. An additional
1,500 were kept for
******************************
more than two months, the January report shows.
Karpinski didn't see eye to eye with either Sanchez or Fast. She says
that security detainees were held because they were thought to pose a
threat to, or had committed crimes against, coalition forces. But
many, she says, should not have been held for so long.
Some weren't guilty of anything, she says, pointing out that in the
wake of the
******************************
scandal, the military has been releasing large groups of prisoners
from Abu Ghraib.
According to various news reports, 1,680 prisoners have been released
since May
*******************************************************************************
14.
**
Some detainees, says Karpinski, "were in the wrong place at the wrong
time."
She explains: "MI [military intelligence] would do an initial
interrogation, find out they were passing by, borrowing a cup of
sugar, and they get policed up. They try to explain to somebody that
they were only going there to borrow a cup of sugar, but nobody
believed them."
No one is arguing that decisions on releasing detainees were easy.
Army officers point to an embarrassing incident that took place in May
2003:
An Iraqi man was released from Camp Bucca in southern Iraq after
convincing an interrogator that he was a "tomato farmer," but he
turned out to be Mohammed Jawad An Neifus, Saddam Hussein's most loyal
tribal leader. Neifus was believed to be responsible for the deaths of
thousands of Shiites, an Army officer says.
Triple X certainly fit the category of a potential threat. Sanchez, in
his directive to the 800th MP Brigade - Fragmentary Order (FRAGO) No.
1099 - identified the man by name, said he was a terrorist, and
told the brigade not to put his name in any electronic roster of
detainees.
**************************************************************************
He instructed the brigade not to disclose his whereabouts to the Red
Cross pending further notice, military sources say.
When the brigade objected, Sanchez's staff lawyers directed the MPs to
**********************************************************************
implement the order, according to a 25-page report sent to the Senate
Armed
***************************************************************************
Services Committee by Capt. Lisa Weidenbush, operations officer for
the 800th
*******************************************
MP Brigade (box).
She included only bare-bones information about the FRAGO in arguing
that the brigade was not involved in a scheme to hide detainees. She
declined comment when reached last week.
Beginning last November, the military sources say, Triple X was
kept alone, under guard in his own room, at the High Value Detention
facility near the Baghdad airport. When Red Cross inspectors visited
the facility, the military sources recall, they had no reason to know
Triple X was there, and they were not shown him. Even today, not much
is known about the man - he is said to be Middle Eastern, short,
slightly built, and in his 40s.
It is not clear why there was so much secrecy surrounding Triple
X. One senior officer says there were "all these wild rumors" last
fall that Triple X might know the location of Saddam, who had not yet
been captured. In the end, however, only a handful of people knew why
he was so valuable, Sanchez included, and they're not talking.
save-our-democracy
> ------
> Print This Story E-mail This Story
>
>
> Go to Original: http://www.truthout.org
>
> Hiding a Bad Guy Named Triple X
> *********************************
> By Edward T. Pound
> U.S. News and World Report
>
> Issue dated 21 June 2004
>
> How the military treated some inmates at Abu Ghraib like 'ghosts'.
> ****************************************************************
> The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, issued a
> classified order last November directing military guards to hide a
> prisoner, later dubbed "Triple X" by soldiers, from Red Cross
> inspectors and keep his name off official rosters.
>
> The disclosure, by military sources, is the first indication that
> Sanchez was directly involved in efforts to hide prisoners from the
> Red Cross, a practice that was sharply criticized by Maj. Gen. Antonio
> Taguba in a report describing abuses of detainees at the Abu Ghraib
> prison near Baghdad.
>
> Taguba blamed the 800th Military Police Brigade, which guarded the
> prison, for allowing "other government agencies" - a euphemism that
> includes the CIA - to hide "ghost" detainees at Abu Ghraib.
>
> The practice, he wrote, "was deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and
> Taguba's report did not cite the November 18 directive issued by
> Sanchez to hide Triple X, identified as a high-ranking terrorist. It
> is not known if Taguba saw the directive. He declined to comment.
> The Army said it could not discuss a classified order.
> *****************************************************
Print - Close Window
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:28:15 -0700
From: posting...@google.com
To: mcs...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: GOOD NEWS-BUSH &CHENEY NEED PRIVATE ATTYS
From: mcs...@yahoo.com (save-our-democracy)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.alaska
Subject: Re: GOOD NEWS-BUSH &CHENEY NEED PRIVATE
ATTYS
References:
<b5dde9a1.0406...@posting.google.com>
<b5dde9a1.04061...@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.109.197.153
Message-ID:
<b5dde9a1.04061...@posting.google.com>
> ========================================
> UPDATE: MORE EVIDENCE OF BUSH'S VIOLATIONS OF
LAWS/TREATIES:
> ----------
> UNLIKE EVERYTHING THAT BUSH AND HIS
MOUTH-PIECES HAVE TOLD THE
> AMERICAN PEOPLE, BUSH, HIMSELF WAS PERSONALLY
INVOLVED IN "TORTURE
> TECHNIQUES" AS FAR BACK AS AUGUST 1, 2002...SO
HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN
> "SURPRISED" BY THE DISCLOSURE OF TORTURE TAKING
PLACE WITH THE PEOPLE
> WHO BECAME "HIS PRISONERS".
>
> THE TELLING PART ABOUT ALL OF THIS IS THAT JOHN
ASHCROFT, "AGAIN"
> REFUSES TO TURN OVER THIS "MEMO", WHICH WAS
"NOT CLASSIFIED". AGAIN,
> "THIS SECRET SOCIETY OF CLEAR FASCIST TACTICS",
IS COMPARABLE TO
> HITLER'S POLICY AND PROCEDURES.
> CLEARLY BUSH'S HIRING OF A PRIVATE ATTORNEY "IS
NEEDED"..HE MUST SEE
> THE WRITING ON THE WALL, THAT HE CAN BE CHARGED
WITH CRIMINAL
> INDICTMENTS (VIOLATION OF U.S. LAWS AND
CONSTITUTION FOR IMPEACHMENT,
> AS WELL AS CRIMINALLY, UNDER INTERNATIONAL
LAWS.
>
> WHAT MORE WILL WE LEARN AND WILL IT BE TO LATE?
SYLVIA
> =========================================
UPDATE: JUNE 13, 2004
IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED THAT THE CIA, APPARENTLY ON
THE "ORDERS" OF
BUSH, USING HIS GOD-LIKE SO-CALLED "UNIVERSAL
AUTHORITY" TO DO WHAT HE
WANTS TO ANY HUMAN BEING, HAS TAKEN APPROXIMATELY
3,000 PEOPLE TO
COUNTRIES "KNOW FOR THEIR TORTURE TECHNIQUES" AND
USE THEM AGAINST
THESE PEOPLE. READ THE ARTICLE BELOW THIS ONE IN
WHICH THE LEGAL
PROFESSION STATE THIS ACTION CLEARLY VIOLATES
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES
AND U.S. LAWS. THIS ACTION SHOULD BE THE FINAL
PROOF NEEDED TO INDICT
BUSH, RUMSFELD, AND THE TOP MILITARY LEADERS,
INCLUDING THE C.I.A. WHO
ARE APPARENTLY TRYING TO "OUT BUSH" AND "KNOW
WHERE THE BODIES ARE
BURIED", INCLUDING THESE "MISSING PRISONERS".
AGAIN....IT TOOK THE GREAT WORK OF A UK
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER TO
UNCOVER AND EXPOSE THIS HORRENDOUS FASCIST ACTION
OF THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION.
SYLVIA
----------
Secret world of US jails
************************
Jason Burke charts the worldwide hidden network
of prisons where more than 3,000 al-Qaeda suspects have been
held without trial -
and many subjected to torture - since 9/11
Sunday June 13, 2004
The Observer
The United States government, in conjunction with
key allies, is running an 'invisible' network of prisons and
detention centres into which thousands of suspects have disappeared
without trace since the 'war on terror' began.
In the past three years, thousands of alleged militants have been
transferred around the world by American, Arab and Far Eastern
security services, often in secret operations that by-pass extradition
laws.
The astonishing traffic has seen many, including British
citizens, sent from the West to countries where they can be tortured
to extract information. Anything learnt is passed on to the US and, in
some cases, reaches British intelligence.
The disclosure of the shadowy system will increase pressure on the
Bush administration over its 'cavalier' approach to human rights and
will embarrass Tony Blair, a staunch ally of President George Bush.
The practice of 'renditions' - when suspects are handed directly into
***************************
the custody of another state without due process - has sparked
particular anger.
At least 70 such transfers have occurred, according to CIA sources.
*******************************************************************
Many involve men who have been freed by the courts and are thus
legally
***********************************************************************
innocent.
********
Renditions are often used when American interrogators believe that
harsh treatment - banned in their own country - would produce results.
The Observer has obtained details of two incidents in which men have
been detained by the US despite being found innocent by courts in
*****************************************************************
their own country.
*****************
In one, a British businessman called Wahab al-Rami,an Iraqi living in
the UK and a Palestinian seeking asylum were arrested by US and local
officers in Gambia in November 2002 as they stepped off a flight from
London.
Their seizure, which followed a tip-off from the UK security services
- came just days after they had been arrested by British police on
suspicion of terrorism and then freed by a British court.
Two were transported from Gambia to Guantanamo Bay - where they remain
today - without any legal process.
In the other incident, two Turks, a Saudi, a Kenyan and a Sudanese man
were arrested in Malawi in June 2003 on suspicion of funding terrorist
networks.
Though freed by local courts, the men were handed over to the CIA and
*********************************************************************
held for several months.
Campaigners say these incidents are 'the tip of an iceberg'.
***********************************************************
Few escape the ghost network of detention facilities, which range from
massive prison camps such as that at Guantanamo Bay
to naval vessels in the Indian Ocean, so accounts of life inside
*************************************
the new gulag are rare.
One of the most harrowing stories concerns a Syrian-born Canadian,
Maher Arar, who was arrested by US authorities in late 2002 during a
stopover in New York, on suspicion of terrorist activities.
After several days of questioning, the 34-year-old IT specialist was
flown to Jordan, where the CIA passed him on to local security
***************************************************************
officials.
He was repeatedly assaulted in Jordan before being driven to Syria,
*******************************************************************
where he was kept in solitary confinement in a 6ft by 3ft
cell for several months and repeatedly beaten with cables.
All charges were dropped on his release.
*************************************
Arar said last week that he was 'trying to rebuild [his] life'. 'I
never did anything to make me a suspect. I could not believe they
would send me
back to Syria, but they did,' he said. 'They sent me back to be
tortured.'
The ghost prison network stretches around the globe.
****************************************************
The biggest American-run facilities are at the Bagram airbase, north
of Kabul in
Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, where around 400 men are held, and in
Iraq, where tens of thousands of detainees are held.
Saddam Hussein and dozens of top Baath party officials are held
in a prison at Baghdad airport.
However, Washington is relying heavily on allies.
In Morocco, scores of detainees once held by the Americans are
*********
believed to be held at the al-Tamara interrogation centre sited in a
forest
five miles outside the capital, Rabat. Many of the detainees were
originally captured by the Pakistani authorities, who passed them on
to
the Americans.
One is Abdallah Tabarak, a militant who is alleged to have been Osama
bin Laden's bodyguard and was seized in late 2001 by the Pakistanis.
Tabarak was handed over to US agents, sent to Bagram and then to
Guantanamo, before being flown to Morocco.
Last November, Amnesty International criticised the 'sharp rise' in
********************************************************************
torture during 2003 in Moroccan prisons.
****************************************
In Syria, detainees sent by Washington are held at 'the Palestine
******** ***************************
wing' of the main intelligence headquarters and a series of jails in
Damascus and other cities.
Egypt has also received a steady flow of militants from American
installations.
******************************************************************************
Many other militants have been sent to Egypt by other countries
through
transfers assisted by the Americans, often using planes run by the
CIA.
**********************************************************************
In Cairo, prisoners are kept in the interrogation centre in the
general intelligence directorate in Lazoughli and in Mulhaq al-Mazra
prison, according to Montasser al-Zayat, an Islamist lawyer in Cairo
and former spokesman for outlawed militant groups.
Terrorists have also been sent to facilities in Baku, Azerbaijan, and
***********************************
to unidentified locations in Thailand.
*************************************
Scores more are thought to be at a US airbase in the Gulf state of
Qatar,
************************************
and a large number are believed to have been sent to Saudi Arabia,
************************************************************
where CIA agents are allowed to sit in on some of the interrogations.
********************************************************************
Elsewhere, security officials merely provide the Americans with
summaries.
The fate of high-value prisoners - such as those directly connected to
the 11 September attacks or other al-Qaeda strikes, or senior aides of
bin Laden - is unknown.
**********************
Abu Zubaydah, the Palestinian-born al-Qaeda logistics expert, was
arrested after a shoot-out in the Pakistani city of Faisalabad in
March 2002 by a joint team of American and Pakistani special forces.
After a brief interrogation, Abu Zubayda was handed over to the
Americans, who took him to Bagram and then, it is believed, flew him
on to Jordan, where he has been held, along with several other
high-value prisoners, in prisons in the capital, Amman, and in desert
locations in the east of the country.
Jordanian investigators are seen as 'professional' by Western
intelligence
**************************************************************************
services, although the nation has been repeatedly criticised for its
********************************************************************
human rights record.
*******************
Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who both helped plan
the 11 September attacks, were also transferred to American custody
soon after their capture by Pakistani security forces in September
2002 and March 2003 respectively.
They are believed to have been interrogated in Thailand.
********************************************************
The whereabouts of Riduan Isamuddin, the Indonesian activist dubbed
'the bin Laden of the Far East', who was passed to the Americans
following arrest by Thai security forces in August last year,
are unknown.
************
Jabarah Mohamed Mansur, allegedly involved in an attempt to
bomb the US and Israeli embassies in Singapore, is reported to have
been interrogated in Oman.
**************************
What is clear is that the Americans are prepared to go to
extraordinary
lengths to capture suspects and to ensure that they are taken to an
environment where information can be extracted as speedily as
possible.
In March 2003, FBI agents kidnapped a Yemeni al-Qaeda suspect from a
***********************************
hospital in Mogadishu, where he was being treated for gunshot wounds.
*********************
Two months earlier, a sophisticated operation involving a fake charity
lured a 54-year-old Yemeni to Germany, where he was detained and later
extradited to the US.
To seize Mohammed Iqbal Madni, a suspected al-Qaeda operative, in
Indonesia,
US investigators worked three states' legal systems to provide an
excuse to
************************************************************************
pick up the 24-year-old Pakistani. They then flew him to Cairo on a
**********************************
private US-run jet.
******************
The exact number of prisoners held by the Americans or their allies is
unknown, but US officials claim that more than 3,000 al-Qaeda
militants have been arrested since 11 September. Only around 350 are
held in Guantanamo Bay. Very few have been released.
The incarceration of prisoners captured by the Americans in jails in
the Middle East has enraged militants.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born terrorist leader who is
active in
Iraq, said in April that prisons in his native land had become 'the
Arab Guantanamo'.
****************
'Whoever the Americans find hard to investigate in Pakistan and
Afghanistan, they move to Jordan, where they are tortured in every
*****************************************************
way,' he said.
***
American officials are unrepentant. 'You have to break eggs to make
*******************************************************************
omelettes,' said one last week. 'The world is a bad place.'
*********************************************************
And Cofer Black, then head of the CIA counter-terrorist centre, said
*******************************************************************
last year that 'there was a before 9/11 and an after 9/11.
*********************************************************
After 9/11, the gloves came off.'
********************************
But former intelligence officers criticised the new tactics last week.
**********************************************************************
Milton Bearden, who ended a 30-year career with the CIA in 1994, said
***************************************************************
that coercion did not work.
****************************
'You just get all kinds of confessions that turn out to be completely
untrue,' he said. 'And rendition to someone who will torture a suspect
is as bad as doing it yourself.'
Wahab al-Rawi, whose brother is still being held in Guantanamo Bay,
said that he was angry at both the British government and the US
government.
'I just want to know how my own government can just give me up to the
Americans. Who do these people answer to?
'I just ask God to punish them, because there is no power on earth
******************************************************************
that they seem to be afraid of.'
********************************
Guardian Unlimited Š Guardian Newspapers Limited
2004
==========================================================================
BUSH WAS REPEATEDLY TOLD ABOUT THESE "TORTURE PLANS".-HE IS
ACCOUNTABLE.
> washingtonpost.com > World > Middle East > Iraq
> Abu Ghraib Prison
>
>
> Memo on Torture Draws Focus to Bush
> ***********************************
> Aide Says President Set Guidelines for Interrogations,
******************************************************
Not Specific Techniques
>
By Mike Allen and Dana Priest
> Washington Post Staff Writers
> Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page A03
>
>
> The disclosure that the Justice Department advised the White House in
*********************************************************************
> 2002 that the torture of al Qaeda terrorist suspects might be legally
********************************************************************
> defensible has focused new attention on the role President Bush played
**********************************************************************
> in setting the rules for interrogations in the war on terrorism.
>
> White House press secretary Scott McClellan said yesterday
**********************************************************
that Bush set broad guidelines, rather than dealing with specific
techniques.
*****************************************************************************
> "While we will seek to gather intelligence from al Qaeda terrorists
> who seek to inflict mass harm on the American people,
the president expects that we do so in a way that is consistent with
"our" laws,
*****************************************************************************
> McClellan said.
>
> White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales said in a May 21 interview
> with The Washington Post:
"Anytime a discussion came up about interrogations with the president,
. . .
*********************************************************************
the directive was,
'Make sure it is lawful.
Make sure it meets all of our obligations under:
**********************************************
(1)the Constitution,
*********************
(2)U.S. federal statutes and
************************
(3)applicable treaties.' "
*********************** >
An Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal
*******************************************************************Counsel,
addressed to Gonzales, said that torturing suspected al Qaeda members
*******************
> abroad "may be justified" and that international laws against torture
**********************************************************************
"may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation"
****************************************************
conducted against suspected terrorists.
*************************************
The document provided legal guidance for the CIA,
*************************************************
which crafted new, more aggressive techniques for its operatives
****************************************************************
in the field.
************
McClellan called the memo a historic or scholarly review of laws and
conventions
concerning torture.
"The memo was not prepared to provide advice on specific methods or
techniques," he said.
"It was analytical."
>
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft yesterday refused senators' requests
**********************************************************************
to make public the memo, which is not classified, and
************************************************
would not discuss any possible involvement of the president.
***********************************************************
In the view expressed by the Justice Department memo,
which differs from the view of the Army,
physical torture "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain
accompanying
************************************************************
serious physical injury, such as
organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."
***********************************************************
For a cruel or inhuman psychological technique to
rise to the level of "mental torture,"
***********************************
the Justice Department argued,
the psychological harm must last "months or even years."
*******************************************************
A former senior administration official involved in discussions about
> CIA interrogation techniques said
Bush's aides knew he wanted them to take an aggressive approach.
****************************************************************
> "He felt very keenly that his primary responsibility was to do everything within his power to keep the country safe, and
he was not concerned with appearances or politics or hiding behind
lower-level
******************************************************************************
officials," the official said.
*********
"That is not to say he was ready to authorize stuff that would be
contrary to law. The whole reason for having the careful legal reviews
that went on
was to ensure he was not doing that."
***********************************
> The August memo was written in response to a CIA request for legal
*******************************************************************
guidance in the months after Sept. 11, 2001,
********************************************
as agency operatives began to detain and interrogate key al Qaeda
leaders.
The fact that the memo was signed by Jay S. Bybee, head of
----------------------------------------------------------
the Office Legal Counsel, who has since become a federal judge, and is
50
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
pages long indicates that the issue was treated as a significant
matter.
-----------***********************************************************
> "Given the topic and length of opinion, it had to get pretty
> high-level attention," said Beth Nolan, commenting on the process that
> was in place when she was President Bill Clinton's White House
> counsel, from 1999 to 2001, and, previously, when she was a lawyer in
> the Office of Legal Counsel.
>
> Unlike documents signed by deputies in the Office of Legal Counsel,
> which are generally considered by federal agencies as advice,
a memorandum written by the head of the office is considered akin to a
**********************************************************************
legally binding document, said another former Office of Legal Counsel
***********************
lawyer.
>
> The former administration official said the
******************************************
CIA "was prepared to get more aggressive and re-learn old skills, but
***************************************************************
only with explicit assurances from the top that they were doing so
with the
***************************************************************************
full legal authority the president could confer on them."
*******************************************************
Critics familiar with the August 2002 memo and another, similar legal
> opinion given by the Defense Department's office of general counsel in
> March 2003 assert that:
government lawyers were trying to find a legal justification for
actions --
************************************************************************
torture or cruel and inhumane acts --
***********************************
that are clearly illegal under U.S. and international law.
**********************************************************
> "This is painful, incorrect analysis," said Scott Norton, chairman of
> the international law committee of the New York City Bar Association,
> which has produced an extensive report on Pentagon detentions and
> interrogations.
"A lawyer is permitted to craft all sorts of wily
> arguments about why a statute doesn't apply" to
a defendant, he said.
> "But a lawyer cannot advocate committing a criminal act prospectively."
> **********************************************************************
> The August 2002 memo from the Justice Department concluded that
*****************************************************************
laws outlawing torture do not bind Bush
***************************************
because of his constitutional
***************************************
authority to conduct a military campaign.
****************************************
"As Commander in Chief, the President has the constitutional authority
to
order interrogations of enemy combatants to gain intelligence
information concerning the military plans of the enemy," said the
memo,
obtained by The Washington Post.
>
> Critics say that this misstates the law, and
that it ignores key legal decisions, such as the landmark 1952 Supreme
Court ruling in Youngstown Steel and Tube Co v. Sawyer, which
said that:
the president, even in wartime, must abide by established U.S.
laws.
>
>
> Š 2004 The Washington Post Company
>
>
>
save-our-democracy
HANDLE THE TRUTH"..SYLVIA
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04165/1331166.stm
-----
Pittsburgh, Pa. Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Soldier's defense team wants 100 witnesses from
**********************************************
Cheney on down for Abu Ghraib case
***************************
Sunday, June 13, 2004
By Cindi Lash and Michael A. Fuoco, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Defense attorneys preparing for Pfc. Lynndie England's upcoming
hearing on charges she abused detainees at Abu Ghraib prison have
compiled a list of 100 potential witnesses stretching from the halls
of power in Washington, D.C., to the sand-swept vistas of Iraq.
KCNC-TV via AP
Army Pfc. Lynndie England during an interview with KCNC-TV on May 11.
By putting top government officials like Vice President Dick Cheney on
their witness list, England's attorneys are serving notice that in
defending their client, they will attempt to put on trial the Bush
administration's policies on intelligence gathering from detainees.
Like most other military police reservists charged in the abuse
scandal, England has claimed military intelligence officers ordered
the MPs to "soften up" the detainees prior to interrogations.
However, just because her attorneys want those witnesses doesn't mean
that many of them will be on the stand later this month at England's
Article 32 hearing in Fort Bragg, N.C. That's because a military
investigating officer, the presiding authority at the Article 32
hearing, will decide which witnesses are most relevant.
The goal at this stage of the military justice system is to determine
whether there is sufficient probable cause to believe a crime was
committed and whether England committed it. If the investigating
officer determines there is enough evidence to proceed to a
court-martial, he will make that recommendation to a higher-ranking
officer, who will make the final determination.
Given that, it would seem highly unlikely that the most prominent
names listed will be asked to take the witness stand at England's
hearing, tentatively scheduled for June 22.
The wished-for witness list, obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,
includes, in addition to Cheney, other high-ranking officials such as
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz and Defense Undersecretary for Intelligence Stephen Cambone;
Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and other
high-ranking Army officers; White House General Counsel Alberto
Gonzales; and Justice Department officials.
An Army spokeswoman said last week that any military personnel chosen
as witnesses by the investigating officer will be ordered to appear.
Spokesmen for Cheney and the Defense Department did not return calls
seeking comment.
England, 21, of Fort Ashby, W.Va., has become perhaps the most
recognized of the seven soldiers from the 372nd MP Company who were
charged in the prison abuse scandal. She provoked international ire
for her exuberant smile and thumbs-up sign while posing with naked,
hooded prisoners in widely published photographs. In one, she holds a
leash attached to the neck of a naked Iraqi who is on the ground.
The witness list includes 16 members of the 372nd, headquartered in
Cresaptown, Md., many of whose names will be familiar to those who
have followed the abuse scandal.
Among the group are Spc. Joseph M. Darby, the Somerset County native
who turned in the others and is not facing charges, and Spc. Jeremy
Sivits of Hyndman, Bedford County, who pleaded guilty May 19 at a
special court-martial in a plea bargain with prosecutors in which he
promised to testify against England and the six other MPs charged thus
far.
The five other charged MPs -- Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick II,
Sgt. Javal S. Davis, Spc. Charles Graner Jr., Spc. Sabrina Harman and
Spc. Megan Ambuhl -- remain in Iraq where they are performing tasks
other than jail guard duty. They are not expected to be ordered to
testify because they almost certainly would invoke their Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination if ordered to do so.
Frederick, Davis and Graner have already had their Article 32 hearings
and have had charges referred to general court-martial. A military
judge set June 21 for pre-trial hearings in their cases, where pleas
and motions must be entered.
Ambuhl has had her Article 32 hearing, at which two of four charges
lodged against her were dropped. A decision is expected by early
summer on whether she should face a court-martial.
Harman's Article 32 hearing is scheduled for June 24. An Army
spokesman in Iraq said the hearing is tentatively set to be held at
the Victory Base Courthouse outside of Baghdad but it may be moved to
the Green Zone, the heavily guarded area in central Baghdad, to
provide for additional seating.
Unlike the other charged MPs, England was transferred to the United
States because she is pregnant. She told investigators that Graner is
the father.
At this stage, prosecutors are likely to draw much of their case
against England from her own words, found in the signed, sworn
statement she gave agents from the Army's Criminal Investigation
Division at Fort Bragg on May 5. Her attorneys, who did not return
calls last week, have in the past argued that England was pressured
into giving that statement and they will try to have it suppressed.
In that statement, obtained by the Post-Gazette, England implicates
herself and five other members of the 372nd in varying types of abuse
at Abu Ghraib. She maintains they committed no crimes because they
were following orders from superior officers and that what occurred
there was widely known and, in some cases, "funny."
England acknowledged in her statement that the MPs were not given
specific orders on how to "break'' detainees for interrogation by
military intelligence officers or other government agents. But she
said those officers praised the MPs and told them to "keep it up''
with their treatment of detainees.
England's witness list also includes White House counsel Gonzales and
Justice Department officials who were involved in a controversial Bush
administration decision two years ago to deny Geneva Conventions
protections to captured Taliban and Al-Qaida combatants detained in
Afghanistan and at Guantanamo, Cuba. That paved the way for U.S.
agents to employ a new, more aggressive set of interrogation rules
that included stress and duress while they attempted to extract
information from detainees at Guantanamo and other sites.
Attorneys for England and other charged MPs, as well as administration
critics, contend that policy was gradually expanded to also cover
Iraqi detainees, creating conditions where military and civilian
intelligence officers used MP guards at Abu Ghraib to intimidate
detainees before interrogations.
Also on the witness list are 12 Abu Ghraib detainees, although what
assistance they could provide in England's defense is unclear, other
than if they would say she wasn't involved in any incidents involving
them.
One of them, Abdou Hussain Saad Faleh, is identified in CID documents
obtained by the Post-Gazette as the inmate in the iconic photo of the
abuse scandal -- hooded, standing on a box and with wires attached to
his fingers, toes and penis -- after MPs told him he would be
electrocuted if he stepped off.
Another detainee on the witness list, Abd Alwhab Youss, told CID
investigators that after he was mistakenly identified as the owner of
a broken toothbrush that could be used as a weapon, he was stripped
and six unnamed guards poured cold water on him and "forced me to put
my head in someone's urine," beat him with a broom, stepped on his
head, spit on him and yelled at him with a loudspeaker for three
hours.
The witness list also includes:
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, who supervised operations at the U.S.
Detention Center in Guantanamo before he was sent to Iraq to improve
intelligence gathering in summer 2003. In November, Sanchez
transferred control of Abu Ghraib to military intelligence and other
agencies.
Maj Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who headed a military investigation that
produced a report detailing abuses at Abu Ghraib. His report includes
MPs' contentions that their controversial treatment of prisoners was
directed by military intelligence and other government officials.
Maj. Gen. George Fay, the Army's deputy chief of staff for
intelligence, who was appointed after Taguba's report to investigate
the conduct of military intelligence officers at Abu Ghraib. Fay,
however, may be replaced by a higher-ranking general because, as a
two-star general, he lacks authority to question officers of greater
rank.
Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski, who as commander of the 800th Military
Police Brigade oversaw military prisons in Iraq, and other Army
officials who worked in the prison. Karpinski and other officers have
been reprimanded.
Col. Thomas M. Pappas, who as commander of the 205th Military
Intelligence Brigade oversaw interrogations at Abu Ghraib.
Other soldiers who were witnesses to abuse, according to CID
documents obtained by the Post-Gazette.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Cindi Lash can be reached at cl...@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1973.
Michael A. Fuoco can be reached at mfu...@post-gazette.com or
412-263-1968.)
E-mail this story Print this story
Search | Contact Us | Site Map | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy |
Advertise | About Us | Help | Corrections
Copyright ©1997-2004 PG Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved.
save-our-democracy
INTERNATIONAL LAW..
IT'S THIS "KIND OF ACTION" THAT "OUR G.I.'S WILL NOW BE TREATED
TO"...HOW MANY FAMILIES OF G.I.'S WILL BE ABLE TO TOLERATE MORE OF
THIS BLATANT ARROGANCE AND DEFIANCE OF THE "RULE OF LAW" THAT THIS
PUMPED-UP PIP-SQUEAK FACIST-LIAR ACCUSES "EVERYONE WHO HE "WANTS TO BE
AN ENEMY"???
NOW GET THIS....WHEN BUSH WAS CONFRONTED BY THE MEDIA ABOUT RUMSFELD'S
ADMISSION...BUSH SAID "WE, AMERICANS SHOULD BE PROUD THAT WE HAVE
HIM".
THIS "IS YOUR NATION'S LEADER PEOPLE"...A FULL-FLEDGED LYING FASCIST
AND YOU JUST SIT THERE AND DO NOTHING WHEN YOU SHOULD BE DEMANDING
"IMMEDIATE IMPEACHMENT". SYLVIA
======================
NOTE: WHEN YOU OPEN THIS LINK GO BACK TO PAGE (1)..PAGE 2 WILL BE
OPENED INSTEAD.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5451344&pageNumber=1
save-our-democracy
The Torturer-in-Chief
********************
By Marjorie Cohn------------HER E-MAIL CONTACT CAN BE
OBTAINED BY GOING TO
http://www.truthout.org AND
FINDING THIS STORY ON THE SITE--BOTTOM
OF OF THIS ARTICLE.
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Friday 18 June 2004
The teflon that has enveloped George W. Bush is chipping off.
Arriving in office with the promise of a "humble" foreign policy, Bush
was sitting pretty at the beginning of his term. But George’s
honeymoon has turned sour.
From the first day of his presidency, the neocons in Bush’s
cabal determined to "stabilize" Iraq for U.S. corporate investment.
Bush had his own motives to "git" Saddam for his would-be hit on
George I. The tragedy of September 11 gave them just the opportunity
they’d been waiting for.
Cloaking themselves in the "War on Terror," Bush and his minions
methodically wove an intricate web of deception to convince the
American people that Saddam was about to launch the "mushroom cloud,"
ending civilization as we know it.
It was our mission, Bush preached, to save the Iraqis from
Saddam-the-torturer. But a telling phrase in Bush’s January 2003
State of the Union Address should have prepared us for the emergence
of Bush-the-torturer.
"All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested
in many countries, and many others have met a different fate," Bush
said. "Let's put it this way," he clarified, "they are no longer a
problem for the United States and our friends and allies."
This was an implicit admission by Bush that he had sanctioned the
summary execution of the "many others."
Gradually, it became clear there were no weapons of mass
destruction. This week, the 911 Commission reported there is no
credible evidence Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda cooperated in the 911
attacks. Yet, this same week, Dick Cheney intoned that Saddam "had
long-established ties with al Qaeda." More disinformation.
Americans soon began to tire of Operation "Iraqi Freedom." Most
feel there was no good reason to suffer the deaths of nearly 1000
American soldiers and thousands of Iraqis, no need to spend billions
of precious taxpayer dollars on the Iraqi quagmire.
In the face of waning support for the war and the impending U.S.
election, the Bushies devised a strategy to hand-over "sovereignty" to
the Iraqi people on June 30. notwithstanding the titular end of the
occupation, 138,000 American troops will remain on the ground in Iraq.
Although the violence in Iraq has intensified, with Iraqis fighting
both the occupiers and other Iraqis, the June 30 date stands firm.
Meanwhile, the photographs began to emerge. The world was treated
to images of pyramids of naked Iraqis, forced masturbation, unmuzzled
dogs snarling at prisoners a few inches away, bleeding and dead
Iraqis.
Major General Antonio Taguba’s report was released. It
documented sodomy with a chemical light and simulated electric wires
attached to the penis of a nude hooded prisoner.
As fingers began to point up the chain-of-command, prisoners were
released and commanders reassigned. The cover-up got underway.
Donald Rumsfeld called it "abuse," not "technically" torture. A
few bad apples. Nothing too serious.
Seven low-ranking soldiers were quickly charged with crimes under
the Uniform Code of Military Justice - the fall guys and gals.
And then "the leaks" began. The photographs and testimonials of
torture had empowered those on the inside to contact the media with
the bombshells. We learned that Bush’s hired guns had secretly
penned two tomes, one for the Defense Department and the other for the
Justice Department. Both documents purport to justify the use of
torture under the President’s war-making power, notwithstanding
the Constitution’s clear mandate that only Congress can make the
laws.
The Congressional powers enumerated in the Constitution: "Congress
shall have the power - to define and punish - offenses against the law
of nations; to declare war - and make rules concerning captures on
land and water; - [and] to make rules for the government and
regulation of the land and naval forces."
As commander-in-chief, however, the President has a
"constitutionally superior position" to Congress, according to the
memo written for the Defense Department. It seems the
president’s men have now taken on the tripartite Separation of
Powers doctrine enshrined in the Constitution.
Their constitutional apostasy flies in the face of the landmark
ruling in the Korean War case, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,
where the Supreme Court held, "In the framework of our Constitution,
the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully
executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker." For, as the
Court noted, "The Founders of this Nation entrusted the law making
power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times."
Try as they might, the lawyers commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld and
presidential counsel Alberto R. Gonzales were unable to find a
loophole in the Torture Convention’s absolute proscription on
torture. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of
war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other
public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture,"
according to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The Torture Convention, ratified by the United States, is part of
the supreme law of the land under the Constitution. Congress
implemented our obligations under this treaty by enacting the Torture
Statute, which provides 20 years, life in prison, or even the death
penalty if death results from torture committed by a U.S. citizen
abroad. The USA PATRIOT Act added the crime of conspiracy to commit
torture to the Torture Statute.
Bush’s lawyers used tortured reasoning to opine that the
Torture Statute cannot be utilized to prosecute Americans in
Guantanamo because it lies within the "territorial jurisdiction of the
United States, and accordingly is within the United States."
The Bush administration has hypocritically taken the opposite
position in denying the Guantanamo prisoners access to U.S. courts to
challenge their indefinite detention.
The Torture Convention prohibits the intentional infliction of
severe physical or mental pain or suffering on a person to (a) obtain
a confession, (b) punish him, or (c) intimidate or coerce him based on
discrimination of any kind. To violate this treaty, the pain or
suffering must be 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."
Ashcroft’s legal eagles redefined torture, narrowing it to
require the infliction of physical pain "equivalent in intensity to
the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure,
impairment of bodily function, or even death." For mental pain or
suffering, they would require "significant psychological harm of
significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years."
The Istanbul Protocol of 9 August 1999 is the Manual on the
Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It sets forth
international guidelines for the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights.
Included in the Protocol’s list of torture methods are rape,
blunt trauma, forced positioning, asphyxiation, crush injuries,
humiliations, death threats, forced engagement in practices violative
of religion, and threat of attacks by dogs. The photographs and
reports from prisoners in Abu Ghraib include all of these techniques.
Moreover, the Defense Department analysis maintained that a
torturer could get off if he acted in "good faith," not thinking his
actions would result in severe mental harm. If the torturer based his
conduct on the advice in these memos, he would, according to this
argument, have acted in good faith.
Who authored the "whorific" rationalizations for the Justice and
Defense Departments? A Washington Post editorial called it "a shocking
and immoral set of justifications for torture." William J. Haynes II,
Bush’s nominee for a lifetime seat on the Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeal, oversaw the preparation of the report for the Department of
Defense. And another Bush nominee for a federal judgeship, former
Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee, now a permanent judge on the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, drafted the document for the
Department of Justice. How cozy.
Not only has Bush received legal [sic] advice on how to get around
our obligations under the Torture Convention and the Torture Statute.
His lawyer Alberto Gonzales, opining on whether to apply the Geneva
Conventions to Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners, told Bush the "new
paradigm" of the war on terror "renders obsolete Geneva’s strict
limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some
of its provisions."
Evidently the Bush administration thinks prohibitions on torture,
and Congress’ lawmaking authority in our own Constitution, are
quaint.
Gonzales, who is often mentioned as a prospective Bush nominee for
the Supreme Court, went on to assure his boss that "your determination
[to bypass the Geneva Conventions] would create a reasonable basis in
law that Section 2441 [the War Crimes Statute] does not apply, which
would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution." So
Bush’s own decision to bypass Geneva gives him a defense to
violating Geneva.
One year ago, Bush repudiated torture in a statement on the United
Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture: "Torture
anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere," he assured us
disingenuously.
Trying to calm the mushrooming public relations disaster
occasioned by the leaking of the legal opinions, Bush said flippantly,
"The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought
to comfort you." But last week, when Bush was asked whether he had
seen the Justice Department memo, he answered, "I don’t
remember."
Rumsfeld, who, according to a Defense Department spokesman,
approved 24 of 35 interrogation techniques in a classified directive,
refuses to state publicly what he sanctioned. Ashcroft defied
Congressional requests to release the legal policy memo prepared at
his instigation.
"There are some extremely damaging documents around, which link
senior figures to the abuses," according to former New York Bar
Association chairman Scott Horton, who is advising dissenters at the
Pentagon. He maintains, "The biggest bombs in this case have yet to be
dropped."
If Bush knew or should have known about the torture, and failed to
stop or prevent it, he could be liable for "command responsibility" if
prosecuted under the War Crimes Act or the Torture Statute. A federal
court in Miami in July 2002 held two retired Salvadoran generals
liable for torture, even though neither had perpetrated or ordered it.
On January 21, 2004, a prisoner gave a sworn statement to the
Washington Post about his experience in Abu Ghraib. He reported being
beaten on his kidneys and ear until he lost consciousness, being tied
to the window with his hands behind his back until he lost
consciousness, and being sodomized with a stick about 2 centimeters
into his anus.
Sgt. Greg Ford, a California National Guardsman, said he
repeatedly revived prisoners who had passed out after being choked in
an Iraqi police station. Ford saw a soldier stand on the back of a
handcuffed detainee’s neck and pull his arms until they popped
out of their sockets. "Twice I had to pull burning cigarettes out of
detainee’s ears," according to Ford.
Another former National Guardsman was choked and beaten to the
point of brain damage, while acting as a detainee being beaten by
fellow military policeman during training at Guantanamo.
These accounts do not describe conduct befitting a civilized
country.
George W. Bush came into the White House - albeit through the back
door - pledging to restore honor to the White House. Instead, he has
dishonored America by leading us into an illegal war under false
pretenses.
In light of the Defense and Justice Department documents, there is
probable cause to believe that the commander-in-chief condoned the
methodology of torture to secure information from prisoners.
The Constitution mandates the impeachment of a President for high
crimes and misdemeanors. There is no higher crime than a war crime.
Willful killing, torture and inhuman treatment constitute grave
breaches of the Geneva Convention, which are considered war crimes
under The War Crimes Act of 1996. Even if Bush’s lawyers could
successfully parse the meaning of torture, they cannot deny that the
atrocities we’ve seen constitute inhuman treatment.
Bush impliedly admitted sanctioning willful killing, torture and
inhuman treatment in his 2003 State of the Union Address. He would be
liable under the doctrine of command responsibility for war crimes
committed in Iraq as well. The captain goes down with his ship. It is
time to call for the Impeachment of George W. Bush.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marjorie Cohn, is a contributing editor to t r u t h o u t, a
professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president
of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the
executive committee of the American Association of Jurists.
-------
Jump to TO Features for Friday June 18, 2004
Today's TO Features -------------- Marjorie Cohn | The
Torturer-in-Chief War Crime? Rumsfeld Ordered POW Hidden New York
Times | The Plain Truth: No Iraq - Al Qaeda Link Robert Fisk | Iraq,
1917 Elizabeth Holtzman | Bush Has a Lot to Answer for on Iraq Torture
35 Dead, 138 Hurt in Iraq Car Bomb Blast Carmakers Mull Suit Over
California Emissions Plan Le Monde | Lies About Iraq Prison Tactics a
Longtime Dilemma For Israel More Incriminating Enron Tapes Pentagon
Broke Contract Laws To Help Halliburton Now with Bill Moyers: The
Hidden Cost of War t r u t h o u t Home
Print This Story E-mail This Story
save-our-democracy
******************
Bush has a lot to answer for on Iraq torture
********************************************
BY ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN
Elizabeth Holtzman is a former congresswoman, New York City
comptroller and Brooklyn district attorney. She served on the House
Judiciary Committee during impeachment of President Richard Nixon.
June 16, 2004
At a Senate hearing last week, Attorney General John Ashcroft claimed
that President George W. Bush never ordered torture in connection with
abusive interrogations of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan and
violated no criminal laws of the United States. But the attorney
general did not describe what the president did order with respect to
these interrogations - and he refused to turn over key documents to
the Senate.
The attorney general's self- serving sweeping denial disqualifies him
from investigating and holding accountable those responsible for these
interrogations. Ashcroft should appoint a special prosecutor to do so.
Under a little known statute, any American involved in the
mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, including the president of the United
States, could be guilty of a federal crime.
The War Crimes Act of 1996 punishes any U.S. national, civilian or
military, who engages in a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. A
grave breach means the "willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment"
of prisoners. If death results, the act imposes the death penalty.
The possibility of prosecution must have haunted President Bush's
chief lawyer, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. In order to reduce
"the threat" of prosecution for the brutal interrogations of Taliban
and al-Qaida members, Gonzales urged President Bush (in a January 2002
memo) to opt out of the Geneva Conventions for the war in Afghanistan.
Although Gonzales doesn't mention that top officials could be targets
of prosecutions under the War Crimes Act, plainly that is his concern.
The president followed his advice.
Gonzales' logic was simple: Whenever the Geneva Conventions applied,
so did the War Crimes Act of 1996. Since President Bush has repeatedly
stated that the Geneva Conventions apply to Iraq, the War Crimes Act
clearly applies to willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment of
Iraqi prisoners. Whether the gimmick of opting out of the Geneva
accords precludes War Crimes Act liability for Afghanistan remains to
be seen.
Clearly, U.S. personnel subjected Iraqi detainees to inhuman
treatment, such as forcing hooded prisoners into stressful positions
for lengthy periods of time, using dogs to intimidate and bite naked
prisoners, dragging naked prisoners on the ground with a leash around
their necks, forcing prisoners to engage in or simulate sexual acts,
beatings and on and on.
There is no shortage of evidence to document the inhuman treatment,
including the notorious photos of Abu Ghraib prisoners as well as Maj.
Gen. Antonio Taguba's inquiry, which found "sadistic, blatant and
wanton criminal abuses." The UN high commissioner for human rights
recently reached similar conclusions. The International Red Cross
repeatedly protested the treatment of Iraqi detainees.
The key question is how high up the responsibility goes for these
abhorrent acts. The War Crimes Act covers government officials who
give the orders for inhuman treatment as well as those who carry them
out. Since the War Crimes Act punishes for inhuman treatment alone,
prosecutions under that act can by-pass any disagreement over the
exact meaning of torture - and whether the Justice Department's
absurdly narrow definition is correct. In addition, under
international law, officials who know about the inhuman treatment and
fail to stop it are also liable.
We need to know what directives Bush gave for CIA and military
interrogations in Iraq. We also need to know what the president and
his subordinates, such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, knew
about the inhuman treatment of Iraqi prisoners - and when they knew it
and what they did about it.
Bush must stop claiming that the problems lie with just a few bad
apples. That is simply not true. We know that orders for inhuman
treatment came directly from Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top
military officer in Iraq. But we don't yet know where he got his
orders. Similarly, the president should disclaim the contention that
his powers as commander-in-chief override U.S. criminal laws; it
smacks of President Richard Nixon's unsuccessful claim of "national
security" during the Watergate scandal, and is baseless.
We simply cannot prosecute only the "small fry" for this scandal that
has undercut our mission in Iraq and besmirched our reputation. We
have to demonstrate that the rule of law applies to everyone
responsible, including the president, if the evidence warrants - as we
did in Watergate. There must be a thorough investigation of the
higher-ups, and that requires a full congressional inquiry and the
appointment of a special prosecutor.
The horrendous mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners has disgraced the
United States and endangered our troops and citizens. The best way to
vindicate our country and undo the damage done to Iraqi prisoners is
to ensure that everyone responsible is held accountable - without
exceptions. We may pay a terrible price if we fail to do so.
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc. | Article licensing and reprint
options
save-our-democracy
*******************************************************************
Charges U.S. Corporations Conspired With Officials To Torture
Detainees in Iraq
Opinions and Documents
Al Rawi v. Titan (PDF) 2 MB
Synopsis
Two U.S. corporations conspired with U.S. officials to humiliate,
torture and abuse persons detained by U.S. authorities in Iraq
according to
a class action lawsuit filed June 9, 2004, by the Center for
Constitutional
****************************************************************************
Rights (CCR) and
***********
the Philadelphia law firm of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker and Rhoads.
**********************************************************************
The suit, filed in federal court in San Diego, names as defendants the
Titan Corporation of San Diego, California and CACI International of
Arlington, Virginia and its subsidiaries, and three individuals who
work for the companies.
It charges them with violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
*******************************************************************
Organizations Act (RICO) and alleges that the companies engaged in a
wide range
*************************************************************************
of heinous and illegal acts in order to demonstrate their abilities to
obtain
*************************************************************************
intelligence from detainees, and thereby obtain more contracts from
the
***********************************************************************
government.
**********
The lawsuit charges that three individual defendants, Stephen
Stephanowicz and John Israel of CACI, Inc. and Adel Nahkla of Titan,
directed and participated in illegal conduct at the Abu Ghraib prison
in Iraq. Further it alleges that CACI International and Titan created
a joint enterprise with a third party that became known as Team Titan.
The joint enterprise was hired by the U.S. to provide interrogation
services in Iraq.
The action also brings claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA),
and the 8th, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as well
as other U.S. and international laws.
According to the Complaint, the plaintiffs in the case suffered at the
hands of Defendants and their co-conspiring government officials.
Plaintiffs endured the following:
• Being hooded and raped
• Being forced to watch their father tortured and abused so
badly that he died
• Repeated beatings, including beatings with chains, boots and
other objects
• Being stripped naked and kept in isolation
• Being urinated on and otherwise humiliated
• Being prevented from praying and otherwise abiding by their
religious practices
CACI and TITAN are publicly traded corporations that provide
interrogation and translation services to U.S. government agencies.
According to the complaint, beginning in January 2002, and continuing
to the present, the two companies began providing services ranging
from interrogation and interpretation to intelligence gathering and
security. The complaint reveals that both companies were increasingly
dependent on government contracts for revenue. Titan, for example,
developed a unit known as “National Security Solutions,”
which added 21 percent to its revenue growth in 2003.
“We believe that CACI and Titan engaged in a conspiracy to
torture and abuse detainees, and did so to make more money,”
said Susan Burke of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker and Rhoads, an
attorney for the plaintiffs. “It is patently clear that these
corporations saw an opportunity to build their businesses by proving
they could extract information from detainees in Iraq, by any means
necessary. In doing so they not only violated a raft of domestic and
international statutes but diminished America’s stature and
reputation around the world.”
Jeffrey E. Fogel, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional
Rights, said, “CACI and Titan perpetrated brutal human rights
abuses to obtain information, a practice that is not only barbaric but
leads to false confessions.
The modern way to describe this is outsourcing torture; in the old
days we’d
**************************************************************************
call these people mercenaries.”
*****************************
Barbara Olshansky, Deputy Legal Director of the Center for
Constitutional Rights, said, “There is no excuse for delaying an
investigation into the actions of corporations acting overseas on
behalf of our government. Those involved in these human rights abuses
must be immediately called to account for their immoral and illegal
actions.”
Shereef Hadi Akeel of Melamed, Dailey & Akeel, said, “America is
about accountability, and this lawsuit is intended to hold accountable
those who are responsible for the wrongs they committed against our
clients.”
Also representing the plaintiffs in this action are: attorneys
Michael Ratner, Jennifer Green and Judith Chomsky and human rights
fellow Steven Watt of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Joyce
S. Meyers of Montgomery, McCracken
Home | What's New | Legal Programs | Education and OutReach |
Publications and Resources | Donations | Viewpoints | Newsroom | About
Mailing List | Calendar of Events | Funders | Contact Us | Feedback |
Search
© 2004 CCR
save-our-democracy
> CCR FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST PRIVATE CONTRACTORS FOR TORTURE CONSPIRACY
> *******************************************************************
> Charges U.S. Corporations Conspired With Officials To Torture
> Detainees in Iraq
>
> Opinions and Documents
>
> Al Rawi v. Titan (PDF) 2 MB
>
> Synopsis
>
> Two U.S. corporations conspired with U.S. officials to humiliate,
> torture and abuse persons detained by U.S. authorities in Iraq
> according to
> a class action lawsuit filed June 9, 2004, by the Center for
> Constitutional
> ****************************************************************************
WASHINGTON, June 17, 2004
CIA Employee Charged
*******************
David A. Passaro, 38, of Lillington, N.C., in undated family photo.
(Photo: CBS)
Two detainees died at the U.S. military's main Bagram base, north of
Kabul, in December 2002. Both were ruled homicides after autopsies
found the men had died from "blunt-force injuries."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered a detainee held without an
ID number and without notifying the Red Cross, at CIA director Tenet's
request. (Photo: AP)
(CBS/AP) A contractor working for the CIA has been indicted by a
federal grand jury on charges stemming "for brutally assaulting an
Afghan detainee," Attorney General John Ashcroft said Thursday.
David A. Passaro, 38, of Lillington, N.C., was arrested Thursday
morning in Fayetteville and was expected to appear before a federal
magistrate later in the day.
An indictment returned by a grand jury in Raleigh, N.C., charged
Passaro with two counts of assault with a dangerous weapons and two
counts of assault resulting in serious bodily injury. Each count
carries a maximum 10-year prison sentence and $250,000 fine.
Ashcroft said Passaro was working with the U.S. military at a base
near Asadabad in northeastern Afghanistan, near the Pakistani border
— an area "in which remnants of al Qaeda and the Taliban have
been active."
The detainee, Abdul Wali, was a suspect in rocket attacks on the base.
He surrendered voluntarily and on June 19-20, 2003, Passaro
interrogated him.
"It is alleged that Passaro beat Wali repeatedly using his hands, feet
and a flashlight," Ashcroft said. Wali died on June 21, 2003.
Passaro's ex-wife told CBS Affiliate WRAL in Raleigh-Durham, N.C. that
her ex was a violent man.
"I wasn't surprised,'' said Kerry Passaro. "Because he's a very
violent person. He's a very violent person. He was in Haiti, too, and
I'm sure he did stuff there. And he's, I don't know how to describe
it, but he was abusive to the kids, abusive to me."
The case was among three referred by the CIA inspector general to the
Justice
**************************************************************
Department for prosecution.
Ashcroft said the Pentagon has also referred a case.
**************************************************
Those investigations are ongoing, and will be coordinated by the U.S.
attorney
********************************************************************************
of Virginia's eastern district.
****************************
At the request of CIA Director George Tenet, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld directed Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of
occupation forces in Iraq, to imprison an admitted terrorist without
reporting him to the International Red Cross.
The Senate voted Wednesday to make clear that the United States will
not use
********************************************************************************Torture
against detainees.
*************************
That followed disclosures last week of Bush administration memos
contending the
********************************************************************************
government may not be bound by international anti-torture principles
in the war
******************************************************************************
against terror.
**************
The Senate, by a 54-43 vote, defeated legislation that would have
forced the
***************************************************************************
Defense Department to cut back on its use of civilian contractors, who
are
*****************************************************************
accused along with military troops of having mistreated Iraqis at a
prison outside of Baghdad.
A National Guard commander told a mental health counselor to change an
***********************************************************************
evaluation to show that a serviceman who accused fellow soldiers of
abusing
****************************************************************************
Iraqi prisoners was mentally unfit, another soldier says. The
commander has
**********************************
****************
refused to comment on the allegation.
***********************************
The military said Monday that it is changing procedures at its jails
in Afghanistan following a review prompted by prisoner abuse
allegations, although it declined to give details of the changes.
The military is acting on the interim findings of an American general
who visited American jails across the country, without waiting for his
final report, spokesman Lt. Col. Tucker Mansager said.
"We're taking action on those (findings) as they come forward,
evaluating them, implementing some of them, deferring some of them and
planning some of the rest of them out," Mansager told a news
conference in Kabul.
He declined to describe the report's suggestions or the changes made.
The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. David Barno, ordered
the review last month as the scandal over detainee abuse in Iraq drew
new attention to alleged mistreatment in Afghanistan, including three
deaths in custody.
Brig. Gen. Charles Jacoby, Barno's deputy operational chief, visited
all of the about 20 American holding facilities, most at bases in the
south and east where 20,000 U.S.-led troops are battling Taliban and
al Qaeda insurgents.
Jacoby will give his final report to Barno in the coming days, and
some of the findings will be made public by early July "after a review
process," Mansager said.
"It'll come out as a consolidated, cohesive and comprehensive
package," he said.
Earlier this month, Barno pledged rapid action if Jacoby finds faults
in the secretive prison network, but said details of techniques used
on suspects will remain classified.
*****************************************
******************
Two detainees died at the U.S. military's main Bagram base, north of
Kabul, in December 2002. Both were ruled homicides after autopsies
found the men had died from "blunt-force injuries."
The military says it has made a number of unspecified changes to its
prisons as a result of the deaths. But it has yet to release results
of its criminal investigations.
The death of another detainee in eastern Afghanistan in June 2003 is
also under investigation by the Central Intelligence Agency, and the
military is probing allegations of mistreatment brought by two former
detainees last month — including beatings, the use of hoods and
sexual abuse.
The military says some 2,000 prisoners have been held at the jails
since U.S. troops entered Afghanistan in late 2001. At least 390 are
currently in custody.
Facing pressure to open jails to outside scrutiny, the U.S. military
announced last week it would allow the International Committee of the
Red Cross to visit its holding facility in the main southern city of
Kandahar.
It has previously allowed the group access only to the jail at Bagram.
********************************************************************
The U.S. military has so far refused to allow Afghanistan's human
rights commission into any of its prisons.
The investigation of Afghan prisons followed revelations of apparent
sexual abuse, and the death of at least one detainee, at Abu Ghraib
prison in Baghdad. Connections between the U.S. prisons in Iraq and
Afghanistan have come to light, including the fact the some of the
interrogators at Abu Ghraib previously worked in Afghanistan.
ŠMMIV CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. Prisoner Photos
New Images: A new set of photos reveals more details of prisoner
abuse. (Viewer Discretion)
Abuse At Abu Ghraib
Investigation timeline, the chain of command, POW rules, global
mistreatment of prisoners and video reports.
Military 101
Basic training to learn all about America's fighting force.
Video
A civilian interrogator who worked for the CIA in Afghanistan was
indicted today on federal charges of fatally beating a prisoner, David
Martin reports.
Video
Attorney General Ashcroft took tough questions from a Senate
committee about leaked internal documents that argue that torture can
be legally justified, David Martin reports.
Video
The Pentagon says it is investigating at least 33 cases of prisoner
death, eight more than first stated, and the first video of abuse at
Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison has emerged, David Martin reports.
---
save-our-democracy
READ ALL OF THE ABOVE "STATEMENTS BY BUSH'S HENCHMEN, INCLUDING THE
MILITARY" AND THIS LATEST PIECE OF CRAP, I.E. "HOW BUSH OBEYS THE
"RULE OF LAW"..THERE HASN'T BEEN "ANY LAW THAT BUSH & CO. HAS OBEYED
SO FAR", NOT EVEN THOSE "THEY MADE UP FOR THEMSELVES".
HANG'EM...HANG'EM HIGH", OR AS BUSH, HIMSELF SAID:
"WANTED: DEAD OR ALIVE". SYLVIA &:>
===================
WASHINGTON, June 22, 2004
(CBS/AP) The White House has decided to release a thick file of papers
documenting its internal deliberations on rules for interrogating
prisoners in facilities from Abu Ghraib in Iraq to Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba.
The two-inch stack of papers was to be released late Tuesday. It is
intended to counter what White House aides fear is a growing
perception that the administration authorized torture as an
interrogation technique.
"We believe it's important for the American people to have an accurate
picture of the policies that we put in place and an accurate picture
of the techniques that were approved by the Pentagon. It's important
to set the record straight," said White House spokesman Scott
McClellan.
President Bush "has never and has no intention of ever" authorizing
torture in questioning prisoners, McClellan said.
"The president recognizes that his most important responsibility to
the American people is their safety and security," McClellan said.
"We are a nation that is at war but we are also a nation of laws and
the
***********************************************************************
president expects our government to comply with laws and our treaty
******************************************************************
obligations."
**********
White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales intended to brief reporters
on the documents.
The documents are meant to show "the White House's deliberative
process" in arriving at rules for complying with the Geneva Convention
and rules on interrogation techniques, one senior official said,
requesting anonymity on grounds that Gonzales was to talk on the
record later Tuesday.
The administration decided to release the papers to fight the
"constant drip on this issue" — a continuous stream of leaks and
accusations that the administration had stepped outside the bounds of
international law, the official said. "Everyone reached the conclusion
that the administration had authorized torture," he said.
The official, saying the United States is facing a new kind of war
with an
**************************************************************************
enemy that does not respect or operate under the rules of the Geneva
*******************************************************************
Convention, pointed to the kidnapping and beheading of American
civilian
***********************************************************************
engineer Paul M. Johnson Jr. in Saudi Arabia last week.
******************************************************
The papers being released Tuesday show that the White House and other
agencies are wrestling with "how best to address that foe," one
official said.
In other developments:
*********************
A military judge Tuesday refused to dismiss charges against Staff Sgt.
Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II, one of seven American soldiers accused in
the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
Frederick had asked for a new Article 32 hearing, the military
equivalent of a grand jury session.
Accepting Frederick's motion would have been tantamount to dismissing
the original charges.
---------------
The U.S. Army also scheduled the military equivalent of a grand jury
hearing for Spc. Sabrina Harman, the U.S. command said Tuesday.
The session, known as an Article 32 hearing, will determine if she
will face court-martial. The session will be held Thursday, said a
military spokeswoman, Lt. Beatriz Yarrish.
-------------
Three months after a get-tough U.S. general took command of the
Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects,
prisoners began a flurry of suicide attempts, according to military
records.
****************************************************************************
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller took over as commander at Guantanamo
**************************************************************
in November 2002 after interrogators criticized his predecessor for
being too solicitous for the detainees' welfare.
Between January and March 2003, 14 prisoners at Guantanamo tried to
kill
************************************************************************
themselves, according to Pentagon figures.
*********
That's more than 40 percent of the 34 suicide attempts by 21 inmates
since the prison was opened in January 2002.
Miller is now in charge of all military-run U.S. prisons in Iraq,
****************************************************************
a job he took after news broke of beatings and sexual humiliations
last fall at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.
Miller had visited Abu Ghraib in August and September and recommended
**********************************************************************
interrogation techniques that military lawyers said had to be modified
to
**************************************************************************
comply with the Geneva Conventions on treating prisoners of war.
*************************************************************
Human rights groups say the suicide attempts at Guantanamo Bay may be
evidence that conditions there amounted to torture.
The White House documents cover a period of several months and were
generated by several agencies, including the Department of Justice.
One set of papers alone spans 50 pages.
Among the papers are some that have already been seen by the public,
including previously confidential memos in which Justice Department
lawyers concluded that Taliban and al Qaeda fighters are not protected
by the Geneva Conventions
******************************************************************************
governing the treatment of prisoners of war because they do not
satisfy four
***************************************************************************
main conditions of the treaty itself.
*************************************
Democrats criticized those memos as laying the legal foundation for
Iraqi prisoner abuses, but administration officials said they were
aimed mainly at showing that international treaties banning torture do
not apply to al Qaeda
***************************************************************************
and Taliban prisoners.
*********************
At a June 10 news conference, Mr. Bush sidestepped questions about
whether he
*****************************************************************************
had seen or authorized the Justice Department papers.
***************************************************
"The authorization I issued was that anything we did would conform to
U.S. law and would be consistent with international treaty
obligations. That's the message I gave our people," Mr. Bush said in
Savannah, Ga.
"I can't remember if I've seen the memo or not, but I gave those
instructions."
******************************************************************************
That memo, which surfaced earlier this month, intensified criticism
from congressional Democrats and human rights activists about what
they consider a concerted effort to circumvent U.S. and international
laws against torture during the fight against terrorism.
Human rights lawyers took the unusual step of filing a racketeering
lawsuit this month against U.S. civilian contractors who worked at the
Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. The suit alleges contractors conspired
to execute, rape and torture prisoners during interrogations to boost
profits from military payments.
A series of government lawyers' memos, many of them still secret but
leaked to the media this month, said the president had the legal
authority to allow torture of detainees during interrogations.
Administration officials, however, said such a policy never was
adopted.
But some of the papers to be released Tuesday have never been
disclosed, a senior official said.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters last week he
ordered an alleged member of an Iraqi militant group held without
notifying international authorities in a timely fashion, as required
under the Geneva Conventions.
He did so at the request of CIA Director George Tenet. The defense
secretary said such a decision would be made to prevent the prisoner's
interrogation from being interrupted.
©MMIV CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not
be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated
Press contributed to this report.
save-our-democracy
washingtonpost.com > Opinion > Editorials
A Partial Disclosure
********************
Thursday, June 24, 2004; Page A24
THE BUSH administration has taken two important steps toward
correcting its policies on the handling of foreign detainees.
On Tuesday administration officials renounced earlier legal opinions
that justified the use of torture, and President Bush stated that the
United States will not condone its use.
At the same time, the Defense Department released its current
procedures for prisoner interrogation at Guantanamo Bay, where the
administration considers itself unbound by the Geneva Conventions.
******************************************
Both the revised procedures and the administration's statements about
them give some cause for concern, and many important questions remain
unanswered.
*********************
But President Bush deserves credit for accepting that some
administration policymaking was, as his counsel put it,
"controversial" and "subject to misinterpretation," and for breaking
with a self-defeating policy of secrecy
***********************************************
about the rules for interrogation.
Now that the current Guantanamo procedures are public, Americans and
foreign observers alike can see that most are the same as those used
by the U.S. military for decades, without controversy and without
leading to abuse.
Of the seven additional techniques now allowed by the Pentagon under
certain circumstances, several -- including "environmental
manipulation" and "isolation" --
are considered inhumane or illegal by human rights groups and other
*******************************************************************
governments, as the official policy statement acknowledges.
***********************************************************
In our view, the administration ought to reconsider whether the
intelligence fruits of such questionable techniques, reportedly
meager, are worth the political costs and the damage they do to
America's reputation, or whether they too should be publicly
renounced.
A deeper concern is the administration's continuing failure to
disclose the
**************************************************************************
interrogation policies applicable outside Guantanamo, including those
used by
****************************************************
the military in Iraq and Afghanistan and those employed by the CIA at
its secret detention centers outside the United States.
**************************************************
A statement Tuesday by White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales
appeared to diminish Mr. Bush's broad assurance on torture:
Mr. Gonzales said that the administration considers torture to be "a
specific intent to inflict severe physical or mental harm or
suffering."
That narrow definition, according to the administration's previous
reasoning, would allow the infliction of pain short of death or organ
failure, and even
****************************************************************************
this would be acceptable if the pain were not the interrogator's
primary
************************************************************************
purpose.
******
If Mr. Bush's pledge is to have credibility around the world, more
detailed and restrictive guidelines on torture should be adopted and
made public -- or legislated by Congress.
***************************************
Questions also remain about how the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib
prison and elsewhere came about.
***********
The documents confirm that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
approved a
*************************************************************************
number of harsh interrogation techniques for use in Guantanamo in
December
**************************************************************************
2002, including hooding, requiring nudity, placing prisoners in stress
****
positions and using dogs.
After military lawyers objected that these "violated international
law", Mr.
*********************************************************************
Rumsfeld suspended their use a month later.
But all these techniques, as well as the restricted practices now
approved for
*************************************************************
Guantanamo, appeared in an interrogation policy issued for Iraq by
command of
******************************************************************
Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez in September 2003.
*********************************************
Nearly word for word, the harsh methods detailed in memos signed by
Mr.
**********************************************************************
Rumsfeld -- which even administration lawyers considered violations of
the
**************************************************************************
Geneva Conventions -- were then distributed to interrogators at Abu
Ghraib.
***************************************************************************
The procedures in turn could be read to cover much of what is seen in
the photographs that have scandalized the world.
How did this spread of improper and illegal practices occur? The Bush
*********************************************************************
administration has yet to offer a convincing answer -- or hold anyone
*********************************************************************
accountable for it.
*******************
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Fuzzy Footie
Do yo think by posting the same "information" twice under two
"different" threads it will "be" more likely to "be" read?
Come on!! You've got "a" whole lot more "people" to harass in the
"Great Northwest" than are in Alaska. Go bother "them".
Or... Did your "neighbors" threaten to have you committed if you kept
"bothering" them?
Believe it or not, there is not one single person who reads ACA that
stands on your side. Don Quixote also tilted at windmills, but he got
some nice songs written about him. All you will be remembered for is
being a total loonie.
Oh, yes. I forgot so here goes: "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" .
We have to keep the quote consumption up. Both you and I get a penny a
pair.
--
Footie
George Allen
save-our-democracy wrote:
> -------
snip
Saddam complains about treatment
He is not being housed in one of his luxurious apartments that he used
the oil money of the people of Iraq to buy. He's being treated like any
other security detainee according to the Geneva Conventions."
save-our-democracy
DEATH SCENE; COVERED UP DEATH; REMOVED BODY; NO I.D. OF
PRISONER..SYLVIA
============================================MP Captain Tells of Efforts to Hide Details of Detainee's Death
**************************************************************
By Jackie Spinner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 25, 2004; Page A18
BAGHDAD, June 24 -- The company commander of the U.S. soldiers charged
with abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison testified Thursday that
the top military intelligence commander at the prison was present the
night a detainee died during an interrogation and that efforts were
made to conceal the details of the detainee's death.
Capt. Donald J. Reese, commander of the 372nd Military Police Company,
said he was summoned one night in November to a shower room in a
cellblock at the prison, where he discovered the body of a bloodied
detainee on the floor. A group of intelligence personnel was standing
around the body, discussing what to do, and Col. Thomas M. Pappas,
commander of military intelligence at the prison, was among them,
Reese said.
Reese said an Army colonel named Jordan sent a soldier to the prison
mess hall for ice to preserve the body overnight. Lt. Col. Steven L.
Jordan was head of the interrogation center at the prison, but it was
unclear whether he was the officer to whom Reese referred.
No medics were called, Reese said, and the detainee's identification
was never recorded.
Reese testified that he heard Pappas say at one point, "I'm not going
down for this alone."
An autopsy the next day determined that the man's death was caused by
a blood clot resulting from a blow to the head, and the body
subsequently was hooked up to an intravenous drip, as if the detainee
was still alive, and taken out of the prison, Reese recalled. There is
no known record of what happened to the body after that.
Reese's testimony came during the first day of an investigative
hearing for Spec. Sabrina Harman, one of seven Army reservists from
the 372nd charged with abusing detainees at the prison late last year.
During investigations of alleged abuse at Abu Ghraib, statements by
other witnesses have described the death of the detainee, and the
corpse appears in photographs documenting abuse at the prison. But no
testimony or evidence had previously indicated Pappas was in the
shower room on the night the detainee died.
During an earlier hearing for another soldier in the 372nd, Spec.
Jason A. Kenner testified that a Navy SEAL team and officers from
other government agencies -- referred to as OGA, a common designation
for CIA operatives -- brought the detainee in alive with a bag over
his head. Kenner said he later saw that the man had been severely
beaten on his face.
Intelligence officers took the detainee to a shower room used for
interrogations, Kenner said, and shackled him to a wall. "About an
hour later, he died on them," Kenner testified. "They decided to put
him on ice. There was a battle between [OGA] and MI [military
intelligence] as to who was going to take care of the body. A couple
days later, he was finally disposed of."
Harman appears in two photographs that military prosecutors are using
as evidence against her, including one in which she is smiling and
giving the thumbs-up with the corpse in the shower room.
The Army has accused her of taking photographs of a pyramid of naked
detainees and photographing and videotaping detainees who were ordered
to strip and masturbate in front of other prisoners and soldiers,
according to her charge sheet. She is also charged with jumping on
several prisoners as they lay in a pile; with writing "rapeist" on a
prisoner's leg; and with attaching wires to a prisoner's hands while
he stood on a box with his head covered. She told him he would be
electrocuted if he fell off the box, the documents allege.
A former pizza shop assistant manager from Alexandria, Harman, 26,
told The Washington Post last month that members of her military
police unit took direction from Army military intelligence officers,
CIA operatives and civilian contractors who conducted interrogations
at the prison.
She was not called to testify on Thursday, but Reese said military
intelligence clearly controlled the cellblock where Harman and other
members of her military police platoon worked the night shift.
"My MPs, they were directed by the MI people for what they wanted and
how they wanted it," he said.
Earlier this week, a U.S. Army judge accepted a request by attorneys
for three other soldiers charged in the Abu Ghraib case to question
the top commanders in Iraq and their subordinates. The judge issued
the rulings at pretrial hearings for Sgt. Javal S. Davis, Cpl. Charles
A. Graner Jr. and Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick.
Spec. Jeremy C. Sivits, the first soldier to face a court-martial,
pleaded guilty last month and was sentenced to a year in prison.
Defense witnesses testified that Harman was a good soldier, quiet and
well liked by the Iraqis she encountered when the 372nd was based in
Hilla, south of Baghdad, before being transferred to the prison.
"She was very friendly," Sgt. 1st Class Shannon Snider testified at
the Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a preliminary
hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence to convene a
court-martial. "Anytime we were out on the streets in al-Hilla, people
would ask, 'Where's Sabrina? Where's Sabrina?' "
Reese said he never had a problem with Harman. "She did a good job,"
he said. "I never witnessed anything hostile. I never saw any show of
force."
Harman's hearing was held in a small courtroom at Camp Victory, a U.S.
Army base near Baghdad International Airport. Harman, petite with her
brown hair pulled back into a tight bun, listened quietly as the
charges against her were read. When the investigating officer asked
her a question, she answered, "Yes, sir," barely above a whisper.
Throughout the hearing, she scribbled notes on a white legal pad.
Graner and Spec. Megan Ambuhl, also charged with abuse, sat in a
corner at the back of the courtroom.
Two other soldiers testified that they saw detainees being abused but
only one reported it to a superior. Both said Harman was present the
nights they saw detainees being mistreated.
Spec. Matthew Wisdom, a military policeman, said he saw Frederick
strike a detainee in the chest.
Spec. Israel Rivera, a military intelligence soldier, said he also was
bothered after watching the military police soldiers order three naked
detainees to crawl low enough so that their genitals would scrape the
floor.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Col. Thomas M. Pappas, left, was present the night a detainee died,
Capt. Donald J. Reese testified. (Army and AP Photos)
__ INSIDE ABU GHRAIB __
Photo Gallery: Images obtained by The Washington Post reveal more
about the treatment of Iraqi prisoners.
• More Prison Photos
Exclusive Video: Video excerpt obtained by The Washington Post and
edited for posting depicts prison abuse.
• Chronology of Abu Ghraib
Documents: Official sworn statements from Iraqi detainees in Abu
Ghraib describe their experiences.
• U.S. Army Investigation Report
• Transcript: Post Executive Editor
User Agreement and Privacy Policy | © Copyright 1996-2004 The
Washington Post Company
George Allen
save-our-democracy wrote:
Snip
This is war. People die in war.
save-our-democracy
Posted on Thu, Jul. 01, 2004
http://www.truthout.org
Lawsuit: Iraqi in Abu Ghraib saw captors rape, kill detainees
*************************************************************
SETH HETTENA
Associated Press
SAN DIEGO - An Iraqi-born Swede's allegations of rape, sexual
humiliation and abuse in Abu Ghraib prison were added Thursday to an
ongoing lawsuit in San Diego against U.S. defense contractors.
The man, identified only by his last name, Saleh, says during his
three months in captivity last fall he saw guards fire into a crowd of
inmates, killing five. He says he also witnessed the rape of two young
male detainees by one of his captors, said his lawyer, Shereef Akeel.
Eight other Iraqis and the estate of an Iraqi man who allegedly was
tortured to death are suing San Diego-based Titan Corp. and CACI
International Inc. of Arlington, Va. Employees of the two firms worked
as government translators and interrogators.
The lawsuit accuses U.S. civilian contractors at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib
prison in Iraq of conspiring to execute, rape and torture prisoners to
boost corporate profits from military payments.
CACI rejected and denied the allegations as "a preposterous lie."
Titan called the lawsuit "frivolous." Both companies have promised to
fight the charges.
The alleged abuse occurred in the same prison where Saleh, a
42-year-old car dealer, says he was tortured in the 1980s for opposing
Saddam Hussein. He fled to Sweden, but returned to Iraq last year
following the U.S.-led invasion to invest in a car dealership or
mechanic's shop.
Upon arrival in September, he was arrested and spent three months in
U.S. custody, according to his lawyers.
In November, Saleh says in the lawsuit that he saw guards shoot
randomly into a crowd of Abu Ghraib detainees. Saleh said he saw two
men wounded in the shooting die slowly, without receiving medical
treatment, according to the lawsuit.
The Army's investigative report into Abu Ghraib by Maj. Gen. Anthony
Taguba notes that in November three detainees were killed and nine
wounded when guards opened fire to quell a riot in the prison. Nine
U.S. soldiers were injured.
On another occasion, Saleh claims in the lawsuit, he watched as an
unidentified man wearing a T-shirt and military fatigues stripped two
young male detainees naked, bound their hands and raped them in front
of Saleh and 30 other detainees, Akeel said. Saleh and the others were
warned that if they told anyone they would be raped too, the lawsuit
said.
The abuses Saleh allegedly suffered in Abu Ghraib included:
_ A belt tied around his neck and he was dragged 70 feet;
_ Left naked and hooded for extended periods of time;
_ Urinated on and sodomized while his hands were tied over his head;
_ Shot in the chest with plastic bullets as he tried to pray;
_ Roped by the genitals to 12 other naked prisoners;
_ His penis was stretched with a rope and beaten with a stick.
Saleh did not want his full name used because of the shame he feels,
Akeel said.
At night, Saleh says in the lawsuit that he heard the screams of
female prisoners whom he believes were being raped.
The lawsuit calls for payments for the alleged victims, a ban on
future government contracts for Titan and CACI and triple damages
allowed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
the 1970 law that often is used by government prosecutors to go after
organized crime.
Wil Williams, a Titan spokesman, accused the lawyers of "fraud" for
cutting-and-pasting information about a job description and an
unrelated contract from Titan's Web site to form one exhibit in the
lawsuit. The exhibit was removed Thursday.
Saleh, who has returned to Sweden, also has filed an administrative
claim against the U.S. Army, Akeel said.
His allegations were first reported by National Public Radio in May.
His lawyers declined to make him available for comment Thursday.
"He's just keeping to himself right now," Akeel said. "He's gone
through so much."
email this print this
News | Sports | Entertainment | Business | Technology | Lifestyles |
Classifieds | Jobs | Cars | Real Estate
About The Mercury News | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use
& Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright
save-our-democracy
Rumsfeld gave go-ahead for Abu Ghraib tactics, says general in charge
********************************************************************
By Julian Coman in Washington
(Filed: 04/07/2004)
The former head of the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad has for the first
time accused the American Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, of
directly authorising Guantanamo Bay-style interrogation tactics.
Brig-Gen Janis Karpinski, who commanded the 800th Military Police
Brigade, which is at the centre of the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse
scandal, said that documents yet to be released by the Pentagon would
show that Mr Rumsfeld personally approved the introduction of harsher
conditions of detention in Iraq.
Brig Gen Karpinski [left] with Donald Rumsfeld, after Guantanamo chief
jailer Maj Gen Miller's visit to Iraq
In an interview with The Signal newspaper of Santa Clarita,
California, which was also broadcast on a local television channel
yesterday, Gen Karpinski was asked if she knew of documents showing
that Mr Rumsfeld approved "particular interrogation techniques" for
Abu Ghraib.
Gen Karpinski was interviewed for four hours by Maj- Gen Antonio
Taguba, who was ordered to investigate abuse at Abu Ghraib and
produced a damning report, which heavily criticised Gen Karpinski for
a lack of leadership at the prison.
During inquiries into the scandal, she has repeatedly maintained that
the treatment of Iraqi detainees was taken out of her hands by
higher-ranking officials, acting on orders from Washington.
"Since all this came out," she replied, "I've not only seen, but I've
been asked about some of those documents, that he [Mr Rumsfeld] signed
and agreed to."
Asked whether the documents have been made public, Gen Karpinski
replied "No" and went on to describe the methods approved in them as
involving "dogs, food deprivation and sleep deprivation".
The Pentagon has consistently denied that Mr Rumsfeld authorised the
transfer of harsher techniques of interrogation and detention from
Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib, where all prisoners are supposed to be
protected by the Geneva Conventions.
Replying to Gen Karpinski's allegations, a spokesman for the Pentagon
told The Telegraph: "Mr Rumsfeld did not approve any interrogation
procedures in Iraq. The Secretary of Defence was not in the approval
chain for interrogation procedures, which would have remained within
the purview of Central Command, headed by Gen John Abizaid."
The Bush administration has been dogged by suspicions that harsh
interrogation methods employed at Guantanamo were transferred to Abu
Ghraib, as Iraqi insurgents began to score significant hits against
coalition forces last year. In May, before the Senate armed services
committee, Stephen Cambone, the under-secretary of defence for
intelligence, publicly denied charges that Mr Rumsfeld had approved
Guantanamo-style interrogations in Iraq.
Last month, the White House took the unusual step of releasing
hundreds of internal documents and debates concerning interrogation
procedures at Guantanamo. Extreme interrogation techniques at the
camp, it was revealed, now require the explicit approval of Mr
Rumsfeld. The Bush administration insists, however, that the notorious
abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was an aberration on the part of a
handful of rogue soldiers. A Pentagon spokesman said that all relevant
documents on interrogation techniques in Iraq would be made public but
could not say when.
Gen Karpinski has been suspended from duty pending ongoing
investigations into abuse of prisoners at the Baghdad prison. In a
recent interview with the BBC, she complained of being turned into a
scapegoat for the scandal, arguing that the running of the prison was
taken out of her hands.
In a separate embarrassment for the Department of Defence last week,
six recent studies, leaked to the Los Angeles Times, heavily
criticised the military for failing to screen adequately potential
recruits with violent and even criminal backgrounds.
The reports were written by a senior Pentagon consultant. One was
delivered in September 2003, weeks before the worst abuses of Iraqi
prisoners took place. The title of the report was Reducing the Threat
of Destructive Behaviour by Military Personnel.
In it the author, Eli Flyer, a former senior analyst at the Department
of Defence, stated: "There are military personnel with pre-service and
in-service records that clearly establish a pattern of sub-standard
behaviour. These individuals constitute a high-risk group for
destructive behaviour and need to be identified."
According to a 1998 report by Mr Flyer, one third of military recruits
had arrest records. A 1995 report found that a quarter of serving army
personnel had committed one or more criminal offences while on active
duty. In his 2003 study, Mr Flyer said that military personnel
officers had been reluctant to toughen up screening procedures,
fearing that the result would be a failure to meet recruitment goals.
Curtis Gilroy, who oversees military recruiting policy for the
Pentagon, told the Los Angeles Times: "It's hard to pick out all the
bad apples, but we are striving to improve the system and are doing
so."
27 June 2004: Disgraced Abu Ghraib guard claims she is seen as a
heroine
25 June 2004: US Abu Ghraib officer blames 'CIA' for abuse
24 June 2004: Pentagon sanctioned harsh interrogation of suspects
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2004. Terms & Conditions of
reading.
Commercial information. Privacy and Cookie Policy.
save-our-democracy
By Philip Sherwell, Chief Foreign Correspondent
(Filed: 27/06/2004)
Lynndie England, the young American soldier who became the reviled
face of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, has acknowledged that she will
never escape notoriety as "the girl with the leash".
In the most infamous image to emerge from the jail near Baghdad,
England was photographed holding a lead tied around the neck of a
cringing, naked Iraqi prisoner as if he were a dog.
"I think I'll always be the girl with the leash," she admits in an
American television interview to be broadcast next month. "But
hopefully people can forget it and go on, so that I can go on with my
life."
The woman demonised as a "smiling savage" in American newspapers faces
15 years in jail after being charged with assaulting Iraqi detainees
and conspiring to mistreat them. England and her mother, Terrie, blame
her superiors for ordering her to pose for the pictures recording the
abuse of prisoners. She says that her family have received both hate
mail and public support.
"I get a lot of people that come up and shake my hand and thank me.
And it's really weird," England tells the interviewer, Daphne Barak.
"They love me. They just think I'm great, I'm the heroine of Baghdad."
Does she feel that way? asks Barak. "Not really," England replies.
England's court martial, due to take place this week, has been
postponed for a month. She is six months pregnant by Charles Graner,
another of the accused military policemen, and fears that stress may
harm her unborn child.
A fortnight ago, she discovered that she is expecting a boy, whom she
intends to call Carter. The most important thing in her life, she
says, is to "make sure he gets here all right and doesn't come early,
that he's healthy".
England believes that none of the seven low-ranking soldiers who face
courts martial deserve a prison sentence. "I feel none of us should go
to jail," she says. She does not reply when asked if the officers whom
she says gave the military police orders to "loosen up" prisoners for
interrogation should be jailed, but insists that she was following
orders from higher-ranking personnel.
"What you have learned is that even if people give you orders, maybe
you should say no?" Barak asks. "Right", England replies. Her mistake
was in trusting the wrong people. Asked if she felt like a victim or
scapegoat, she replies: "All of it. I am going to pay the price."
According to Mrs England, her daughter told her: "Mom, the only thing
that kept running through my mind is if I disobey an order or what I'm
told to do, I'm going to be court martialled."
England, who joined the army to pay for college and worked in Iraq as
a clerk, is often little more than monosyllabic during the interview.
Her pregnancy ensured that, unlike her fellow accused, she was brought
back from Iraq. She is living in army barracks in Fort Bragg, North
Carolina, where she shares a small room with her mother and has been
put to work as a cleaner.
According to Mrs England, the army did not tip them off about the
impending scandal: the family learned of it only after the abuse
photographs were shown on America's 60 Minutes programme in May.
Her sister, Jessica Klinestiver, says that England still had no idea
of the furore when they spoke two days after the 60 Minutes broadcast.
"She's like, 'I'm fine. There's nothing wrong.' 'There's nothing
wrong? Your face is everywhere. You turn to CNN, you turn to Fox,
you're there.' She couldn't believe it, because she didn't have TV."
Only when England was eating in a local Burger King and saw her face
appear on a giant television screen did she realise the extent of the
scandal. "She was trying to put her head down to eat," Jessica said.
"Trying to see if everybody was watching, and everybody was."
Barak asks how she coped. "I just continued eating, and got up and
left," England responds. "I'm just not emotional. I've always been
like that. I don't like to share."
She said she rarely confided even in her mother about events at Abu
Ghraib, fearing to "unload" in case it threatened her pregnancy.
Even now, she never cries. "I make myself not," she said, "because of
the baby. I am scared to lose him."
At Fort Bragg, the Englands live on burgers, pizzas and microwave
meals, and watch Harry Potter films on DVD. "At the weekend, we go to
the park and feed geese," England says. "And we go shopping for the
baby and for me it relaxes me, distracts me from the media, the
trial."
Her future is uncertain, to say the least. Asked if Graner was still
her fiance, she replies: "Yeah. No. Let's not talk about that. I am
not allowed to talk about him." She has told her mother that she fears
more explicit photographs of her - according to US senators, they show
her having sex with Graner and other partners - may be revealed during
the court martial.
Mrs England is prepared to look after the baby should her daughter end
up in jail, a prospect England is reluctant to discuss, but a fate
that looks likely. Jeremy Sivits, another soldier, has already been
sentenced to a year in prison simply for taking the photographs.
Over and out
save-our-democracy
By Toby Harnden at Camp Victory
(Filed: 25/06/2004)
The American officer who commanded the troops charged with abusing
Iraqi inmates in the Abu Ghraib jail told a court yesterday that
"military intelligence" and "other government agencies" had directed
his soldiers.
"I controlled the MPs [military police] inside but it was run by the
MI [military intelligence] folks," Capt Donald Reese told a
preliminary hearing at Camp Victory, a United States military base
outside Baghdad.
"They had the ultimate say-so as to what went on there." Capt Reese
recounted details of an incident in which an inmate was apparently
murdered during an interrogation and a colonel tried to cover up what
had happened.
The hearing was to decide whether Specialist Sabrina Harman, 26, a
former manager of a pizza shop from Lorton, Virginia, should be sent
for court martial. Harman was photographed grinning in front of the
prisoner's corpse.
Capt Reese said the man had been brought into the prison after an
insurgent attack on the Red Cross in Baghdad.
He was one of three alleged perpetrators captured; the other two had
been killed. The first Capt Reese saw of him, he said, was when he saw
his dead body in a shower.
The body had been "bleeding from the head, nose, mouth" but "I was
told at that point it was a heart attack". A post mortem examination
the next day found that the cause of death was "a blood clot from
trauma".
Capt Reese named Col Thomas Pappas, the commanding officer of 205th
Military Intelligence Brigade, as saying "I'm not going to go down
alone for this" during a discussion about what to do with the body.
According to Capt Reese, "the OGA guys [who had been conducting the
interrogation] were visibly upset this had happened". An acronym for
"other government agencies", OGA, is commonly used to refer to CIA
operatives.
The body was packed in ice overnight and left in the shower, giving
Harman the opportunity to pose for the photograph during her night
shift.
The next day the body was fitted with an intravenous drip and taken
away.
"I was told the reason they did that was they didn't want the other
inmates to get upset he had passed during the interrogation," said
Capt Reese, who confirmed that the dead detainee was a "ghost inmate"
with no name or number.
Capt Reese said prisoner abuse had taken place before his unit went to
the jail and he noticed that detainees were naked or had women's
underwear on their heads the day he arrived.
Specialist Israel Rivera told the court that he saw Harman involved in
abusing prisoners as early as October when he witnessed three
detainees being forced to drag their genitalia along the ground after
they had been accused of raping a boy of 15. He said he bitterly
regretted never reporting what he had seen.
The hearing continues.
save-our-democracy
By Alec Russell in Washington
(Filed: 24/06/2004)
The White House has conceded that the Pentagon sanctioned harsh
interrogation techniques for terrorist suspects. The methods included
stripping them, questioning them for 20 hours at a time and
threatening them with dogs.
But it said the approval for such measures was later rescinded and,
although an official memo had argued that President George W Bush had
the right to sanction torture, he had never done so.
After two weeks on the defensive following the leak of the 2002
justice department memo justifying the use of torture against
terrorist suspects, the White House sought to regain the initiative by
releasing hundreds of documents which it argued showed their careful
deliberations on how to question detainees "humanely".
A senior administration official conceded that there was a growing
belief that they sanctioned torture, an impression the White House
knows it has to scotch quickly as Mr Bush's ratings in the fight
against terrorism reach a new low.
Asked why he had decided to release the files, Mr Bush made his most
outspoken remarks yet since the row over torture began a fortnight
ago. "We do not condone torture," he said. "I have never ordered
torture. I will never order torture. Torture is not a part of our soul
or our being."
The justice department memo that argued that torture on detainees
could be justified to defend America against terrorists is to be
rewritten.
But included in the thick file of released papers were memos detailing
tough interrogation techniques for al-Qa'eda suspects at the US base
in Guantanamo Bay that risk further embarrassment for the
administration. Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, in a Nov 27,
2002, "action memo" approved techniques including the "removal of
clothing" and "inducing stress by use of detainees' fears (e.g.
dogs)," methods which appear to conflict with the Geneva Conventions.
He also approved the placing of detainees in "stress positions"
including standing for up to four hours although his jottings on the
memo suggest that he did not regard this as a hardship. "I stand for
8-10 hours a day. [He works at a stand-up desk.] Why is standing
limited to four hours? DR."
Mr Rumsfeld rescinded the approval in January 2003 and after a review
by a Pentagon panel, he issued a new set of guidelines in April 2003.
These banned stripping detainees, and also required official approval
for four techniques: isolation, alternating friendly and unfriendly
questioners, use of rewards or privileges, and insulting the ego of
detainees.
Critics have seized on the memos, arguing that they paved the way for
the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. But the administration hopes
the American public will accept that the fear of another terrorist
attack justified the approval of controversial interrogation
techniques.
"It's important to set the record straight," said Scott McClellan, the
White House spokesman. Mr Bush "has never and has no intention of
ever" authorising torture in questioning prisoners. "The president
recognises that his most important responsibility to the American
people is their safety and security. We are a nation that is at war
but we are also a nation of laws and the president expects our
government to comply."
• The Bush administration yesterday dropped attempts at the
United Nations to extend the exemption for American peacekeepers from
prosecution for war crimes at the International Criminal Court.
Security Council members had signalled that they could not back a
third year's exemption. The decision will not affect troops in
Afghanistan and Iraq but it could affect future UN peacekeeping
operations.
22 June 2004: Military chiefs are drawn into prison abuse trials
save-our-democracy
SCV NEWSMAKER OF THE WEEK:
Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski
Fmr. Commander, 800th Military Police Brigade
Interview by Leon Worden
Signal City Editor
Sunday, July 4, 2004
(Telephone interview conducted June 29, 2004)
**MEDIA—MANDATORY CREDIT: The Signal newspaper of Santa Clarita,
Calif.
**OK to republish in whole or part for news purposes WITH CREDIT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Newsmaker of the Week" is presented by the SCV Press Club and
Comcast, and hosted by Signal City Editor Leon Worden. The program
premieres every Wednesday at 9:30 p.m. on SCVTV Channel 20, repeating
Sundays at 8:30 a.m.
This week's newsmaker is Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, former
commander of the U.S. Army's 800th Military Police Brigade in Iraq.
The following interview (rt: 2:10) was conducted by telephone on
Tuesday, June 29, 2004.
Signal: Gen. Karpinski, thank you very much for joining us today.
Karpinski: My pleasure. Thank you for your interest.
Signal: Please give us a thumbnail sketch of your background. You live
in South Carolina now; where did you grow up?
Karpinski: I grew up and I lived most of my life in New Jersey. My
sisters and my brothers all still live in New Jersey, so I'm up there
quite a bit. Went to school in New Jersey.
Signal: Did you go to college before joining the Army?
Karpinski: Yes I did. I studied English and secondary education.
Signal: Did you ever teach high school?
Karpinski: I did, as a long-term permanent substitute for about a year
and a half.
Signal: And then — you up and decided to join the Army?
Karpinski: No, it wasn't a spur-of-the-moment thing. I'd really been
interested in the military since I was about five years old. My best
recollection of that — I didn't grow up in a military family or
anything, but my best recollection of that is, I saw some photographs
that my mother had in a box in what we called the "cedar closet," and
I was going through that box when I was really young, and I saw a
picture of my father with his uniform on. And I thought, gee, this is
so neat, and I talked to him about it. And in that same box was his
hat, one of his hats that he had worn, and I put that thing on my
head, and my mother said that I would wear it around the house as
often I could get away with it.
Signal: At the risk of dating you, who was president when you signed
up?
Karpinski: When I signed up? Gee, that's something I should know right
away, right? I think it was probably Nixon.
Signal: Did you come from a Republican or Democratic household?
Karpinski: My mother was, as far as she was concerned — she was
part of the Republican Committee in New Jersey, and then she was a
committeewoman for Union County in New Jersey. My grandfather was part
of the Republican Committee for the state of New Jersey and went to
all of the Republican national conventions. My mother believed that
there was one party, and I grew up in that kind of environment.
Signal: You're Army Reserve now, but you signed up with the regular
Army?
Karpinski: Yes, I did.
Signal: How long did you serve?
Karpinski: Just short of 10 years. It was something that I —
like I said, I was very interested in being in the military, and then
managed to do that when I realized I probably did not want to teach
school at that particular point in my life. And everything fell into
place. The recruiter stopped by; I talked about going to jump
(airborne) school, and he said I could probably do that; the only
limitation was that I was a female — and that wasn't about to
change. But we worked through that, too, and I went off to basic
training down at Ft. McClellan, Ala.
At that time they still had the Women's Army Corps, but they cased
the colors and they closed that program. They retired the Women's Army
Corps while I was actually going through training at Ft. McClellan.
And then we went into full integration — it was supposed to be a
seamless integration — to mainstream us into the different
branches that were open to women at the time. And we were not always
welcome with open arms by any of those organizations.
Signal: Was it kind of a boys' club?
Karpinski: Oh, absolutely. We were intruders. And my first company
commander — I was a lieutenant, had just come from jump school
and arrived at Ft. Bragg, and my first company commander told me that
he didn't agree with women being in the military police. He didn't
agree with women being in any of the branches. "Go back to being
WACs." And actually he was married to a woman who wanted to be a
mother and be a wife, and that's the position he thought all women
should be in.
Signal: Why did you ultimately leave the Army?
Karpinski: Why did I opt to leave the army?
Signal: Yes, after 10 years.
Karpinski: Well, it was just short of 10 years, and I kind of put that
mark on the wall — that if I didn't feel like there (were) going
to be opportunities, and the outside world was more interesting or
presented more opportunities, then I was going to do that. So I did.
Signal: As a civilian, what do you do for a living?
Karpinski: Well, I was doing a lot of training in different
corporations and doing corporate improvement programs. I don't mean to
say that I got into it by default — but when I was living in
Atlanta, I was doing, on a voluntary basis, I was doing Volunteers in
Literacy, and I had the opportunity to teach some — provide
reading lessons to some pretty powerful people. And then I left and
went over to the Middle East during Desert Storm because I was a
reservist at the time.
Signal: What did you do in 1991 Desert Storm?
Karpinski: Well, I was assigned to 3rd United States Army; the
headquarters was at Ft. McPherson, Ga. And they deployed — the
concept that 3rd Army applies is — and it really does work
— they have active components, they have reserve components, and
they have a civilian work force, and everybody works together. When
you have a uniform on, there is no distinction between whether you are
a reservist or whether you are active component because you have a job
to do and you make a contribution. So they deployed an early entry
cell. I was a targeting officer for 3rd Army. And Gen. Schwarzkopf
wanted the targeteers there as early as possible, so we deployed very,
very early on, after the Iraqis crossed the border and invaded Kuwait.
Signal: In addition to an operational background, don't you have some
kind of background in military intelligence?
Karpinski: I do, but it's really from a different perspective. As a
targeting officer, I looked at the types of targets; we prepared what
they called target folders — it talked about the construction
materials; it talked about the value of hitting that particular
target; that kind of thing.
And my other experience with intelligence was at the tactical
level, because I had a tour with special operations, so I had to
develop the intel for the locations that they were going to.
Signal: Fast-forwarding, how did you become commander of the 800th
Military Police Brigade? Basically, you were America's chief jailer in
Iraq, right?
Karpinski: I was. Yes. I was.
Signal: Is that something you asked to do? You wanted to be a prison
warden?
Karpinski: No. As a matter of fact, I was over in the Middle East
— following Desert Storm, I stayed as an adviser in the United
Arab Emirates, for developing women's military training programs. I
stayed there for almost six years and learned a tremendous amount
about Islam and about the Arab mentality, and about how their culture
is. I have tremendous respect for them.
Then I was getting ready to come back to the United States and I
got a packet to put in for command opportunities as a battalion
commander. So I applied for command of a military police battalion and
was selected, and my battalion was in Tallahassee, Fla. And it was an
EPW, an Enemy Prisoner of War, battalion. So I spent my time as a
battalion commander doing EPW-type of training. And then I left there
and went into really operational assignments, generic kind of
assignments, chief of staff, branch and material, as they call them.
So when I was eligible for general officer, my battalion, even as
a reserve battalion, was subordinate to the 800th Military Police
Brigade. The commander at the time asked me, what did I see in the
future? What did I want to do? And I said, "I really love operations,
and then eventually I'd like to take your job." So he said, "Well,
this is the best MP assignment in the reserve component." So that was
my first choice.
You have to — the process for applying for different
positions as a general officer is a little bit complicated and it's
not really that important, but that was my first choice. So I was
actually very pleased when I came out on the general officers list and
I was selected for command of the 800th Military Police Brigade. It
was a privilege and I was just absolutely thrilled with that
opportunity.
Signal: What was you military rank at that time?
Karpinski: I was a colonel. I was an 0-6, and I was the chief of staff
to the largest reserve command in the United States. So I was selected
and I knew that they were already deployed, and did as much homework
as I could on the status of the units and how many people they had
cross-leveled and their numbers and everything. It was not a good
picture, actually, but I wanted to go and serve with my soldiers in a
combat zone. I really wanted to do that.
Signal: So when you took over, many of your soldiers were already
deployed in Iraq?
Karpinski: Yes. The units had already been deployed for six months,
seven months, by the time I got there.
Signal: You got there when?
Karpinski: Middle of June of 2003, and I took command on the 29th of
June.
Signal: So you didn't see action during the "major hostilities" of the
months before.
Karpinski: No, no. Because the 800th MP Brigade and subordinate units
were primarily located in the south of Iraq. They were located very
close to the border with the largest EPW camp — that was Camp
Bucca — and they were at two other locations just north of that
location.
Signal: So in late June, you're in charge of how many prison
facilities?
Karpinski: Well, at that particular time we had an EPW camp, a large
one, where they had held about 8,000 prisoners total, and the majority
of them had been released. And then there were three other facilities.
But we were taking control of 16 prisons and correctional facilities
located throughout Iraq.
Signal: Were all 16 in use in June?
Karpinski: No, they were not. As a matter of fact, most of them were
not. They'd been so heavily looted, there were practically — in
all of the facilities there were no doors, there was no
infrastructure. When Saddam opened the doors to all of the prisons in
November of 2002 and released all the prisoners, it didn't take long
for all of the locals to come and take everything of any kind of value
— to include, in one large facility, they came and took sections
of the wall away.
Signal: The major looting throughout Iraq had just happened before you
got there, right?
Karpinski: Yes, it did. But not only that, but, I mean — they
would go into, like, the electrical lines. Say you have a conduit with
all of the electrical lines and the cables. Well, they would go in and
they would loot the copper wires. So it rendered all of that
functional conduit useless. It was — we went in and there were,
like I said, no doors — everything of any kind of value was
completely taken away.
The first time I got to Abu Ghraib, which was the first week of
July, I was literally — I was walking with the company commander
— who was an outstanding company commander; he was a National
Guardsman out of Nevada; Capt. Armstrong, his name was — and he
walked the grounds with me of Abu Ghraib, and it was unbelievable. We
were actually wading in nearly knee-deep concrete, rebar, glass,
everything that was a result of the heavy looting out at Abu Ghraib.
I said to him at one point, "Do you think you can do anything out
here?" And he said, "Yes, ma'am, now that you're here, we'll be able
to function." And I said, "What do you mean? Who has been taking care
of you?" He said, "Well, nobody's been taking care of us." They were
assigned to a different headquarters at that time — an
active-duty military police brigade — and they never even
bothered to go out and check on that unit.
Signal: When you arrived, there were 8,000 prisoners in this one
detention center?
Karpinski: There had been up to 8,000, but the vast majority of them
had been released. There (were) about 3,500 remaining at that time.
Signal: How many troops were under your command?
Karpinski: I had 3,400 soldiers assigned to the 800th MP Brigade.
Signal: So when you got there, the prisoner ratio was about 1-1, but
then — what? They started arresting a lot of people?
Karpinski: There was a complete change. Our mission down at the one
prison facility was specifically EPW, Enemy Prisoners of War, because
they policed up during the conflict.
Signal: Which facility was that?
Karpinski: That was at Camp Bucca, which was down near the Kuwaiti
border. That was the function that the brigade had been deployed to
handle. That was their mission. So when the vast majority of those
prisoners were released after the end of hostilities, the CJTF-7
(Coalition Joint Task Force-7) — the headquarters up in Baghdad
— that was (Lt. Gen. Ricardo) Sanchez's command — at that
time it was (Lt.) Gen. (William) Wallace; Gen. Wallace left and Gen.
Sanchez came in and replaced him. He requested the 800th MP Brigade to
come north to Baghdad to take on this prisons mission, and they kept
us. By design. The CFLCC (Coalition Forces Land Component Command)
commander, Lt. Gen. (David D.) McKiernan, insisted that we remain
assigned to CFLCC, because he was concerned that the CJTF-7
headquarters was going to break us up and use us in lots of different
military police functions.
So even though — and I went and spoke to a general who was
the theater support command commander down in Kuwait — I went
and spoke to him twice about my concerns about taking this new
mission, when we were not equipped, nor were we of the strength,
personnel-wise, to take on this new mission. And he said to me both
times, as I was leaving the meeting, "We understand that this is not
your usual mission. But you're the best that we have. And that is why
you are going up there to do this."
Signal: What did you understand the mission to be?
Karpinski: Well, it was no longer involving EPWs, because major
hostilities were finished. This was not only to detain Iraqi criminals
— regular criminals — as we came to call them,
Iraqi-on-Iraqi crimes — it wasn't only to detain them, but it
was to restore and rebuild all of the prison facilities so we could
house this criminal element.
Signal: Was Abu Ghraib in use as a detention facility when you
arrived?
Karpinski: No, it was not. There was about — I have to say,
correctly — that there (were) about 25 criminals being held
there. But they were being held in a very, very austere,
triple-strength, concertina-wire-type of a thing, only because they
had been policed up in that particular area and dropped off at that
prison facility, and we had an MP company there, so they were holding
them. But that was it. There (were) only about 25. But that prison,
260 acres, was not ready to hold any prisoners at that time.
Signal: Because of the conditions from the looting?
Karpinski: Absolutely. Absolutely. The only advantage was, No. 1, the
size; and previously it had been every level, from minimum security
all the way to maximum security, and of course the death chamber was
there. But it had a 20-foot wall, pretty much intact, all around the
whole compound. So we had the ability — or, the contractors were
going to start form scratch.
Signal: Speaking recently to Torin Nelson, one of the interrogators at
Abu Ghraib last fall, he felt Abu Ghraib wasn't appropriate for use as
a detention center because of its proximity to town and because it
generally wasn't secure. How do you see that?
Karpinski: I agree with him completely. We went and made that argument
to (Maj.) Gen. (Walter) Wodjakowski, the deputy commander of CJTF-7.
We made that argument to Gen. Sanchez. We made that argument to the
ambassador (Paul Bremer).
Signal: Before opening the facility?
Karpinski: The facility was in the middle of a combat zone. A hostile
fire zone. It was being mortared almost every single night. An MP
brigade — in this particular case, a battalion and a company
— they are not equipped with the personnel, and they are not
equipped with the combat platforms to provide the kind of response to
that kind of shelling and attack. Nobody helped us. Nobody wanted to
hear our problems. They didn't care. They wanted Abu Ghraib because it
was convenient for the division commanders. When they policed up
criminals, they wanted the division commanders to be able to drop them
off at a central location.
It makes no sense whatsoever, none whatsoever, to operate a
detention facility in the middle of a neighborhood where the criminals
were the ones throwing the mortars in at you, two weeks before you
policed them up.
Signal: What alternative did you propose?
Karpinski: Well, we were working very closely with the prisons
department in the Coalition Provisional Authority, the CPA, because
detention operations for Iraqi criminals was their responsibility. But
until they could get enough personal in, civilian contractors, to take
on those responsibilities, the military police assigned to me were the
ones that were doing their job. So in conjunction with them, we
briefed Ambassador Bremer many times. We briefed Gen. Sanchez many
times. I routinely went to Gen. Wodjakowski with my concerns, and his
usual response to me was, "Figure it out, Janis."
They were still running combat operations in response to the
increasing insurgencies. And detention, like usual, is not a priority
for anybody. So as a result, when the first mortars managed to come
over the wall — and it killed six prisoners and injured more
than 40 — I explained to the deputy commander, Gen. Wodjakowski,
that this was typical now. The mortars were coming over; they were
getting to be better shots; and (it) was placing the prisoners and the
military police personnel in harm's way. To say nothing of the medevac
operations — that was a textbook operation; there were nine
medevac flights conducted that night — and every one of those
crews were put at great risk because nobody really knew if the area
was cleared or not.
Signal: And then the United Nations headquarters were bombed Aug. 19
and the top U.N. official was killed.
Karpinski: Right, Mr. (Sergio Vieira) de Mello. He was a friend and he
was a champion of our cause. He understood. And the reason he
understood was because he had been out to Abu Ghraib a half a dozen
times with me, and he understood the circumstances we were facing out
there.
And I can't say that for Gen. Sanchez, and I certainly can't say
that for Gen. Wodjakowski. They never bothered to come out there and
see what we were facing.
Signal: How did the bombing of the U.N. change things in terms of
detention operations? How was the climate evolving?
Karpinski: Well, the climate — when they hit the U.N.
headquarters — the headquarters was downtown, just outside the
Green Zone — they specifically requested that they not have a
military presence, force protection platforms, around their building,
because they were not a combatant and they didn't want to give the
impression — apparently they don't in any location where they
set up.
So when that building was hit, in a relatively protected zone
— even though they didn't have force protection platforms, like
I said, right on site — we knew that we were more vulnerable
than we had even imagined. It forced the military police battalion and
the companies that were operating out there to be extra vigilant. It
forced the issue of getting a combat unit out there to be our force
protection. It was promised countless times, but we never received
them. And we took measures ourselves, to the extent that we could, to
reinforce our entry control points, to get appropriate weapons to the
extent we were able in the towers, to get sandbags around the tents
for the prisoners so at least they would have a chance of defending
themselves if anything happened again. And mortars came in every
night.
Signal: How was the prisoner population changing? Were there more
dangerous people? Were there more numbers of people?
Karpinski: At that time, in mid-August, no. What we were planning to
do, and what was working out at Abu Ghraib at that time was, we had a
very good contractor working out there, an Iraqi man with his team,
and he was restoring the cells. And as indoor cell capacity became
available, we transferred our criminals from outside, under tents in
an EPW kind of template — you know, concertina wire and tents
— we were transferring them out of those facilities in the hard
site. And we were down to less than 150. And we projected that they
would be out of the wire within a week.
And then Gen. Wodjakowski told me — I briefed that one
night, and he said, "Don't close the camp." The name of the camp was
Ganci. We had another one that was originally designed for an
overflow, but we really didn't need to use it to any extent. He said,
"Don't close Vigilant and don't close Ganci." I said, "Sir, we're
about finished." He said "No, we're doing these raids, and we're going
to put them into your compound."
Signal: Meanwhile, at some point here, you became a brigadier general.
Karpinski: Right.
Signal: When was that?
Karpinski: Well, in the military, if you are assigned to a position,
especially a command position, and you are promotable, which I was,
you are frocked. They give you the rank, and people can use that
title. So on the day before I took command of the military police
brigade, I was frocked. So I was Brigadier General Janis Karpinski.
But I was not officially promoted or paid until the 7th of November.
Signal: And that requires Senate confirmation, right?
Karpinski: Nope. Senate confirmation comes before you can even be
frocked. My Senate confirmation was complete before I even deployed.
Signal: So is it fair, then, to say that a year ago June, or May, both
the Army and the Senate had confidence in your abilities to lead?
Karpinski: Absolutely. And not only that, but my confirmation was
pretty seamless, because I knew that my record was straight. I knew
that there wasn't anything in my record that would make them question
my ability to take this position. And my confirmation came through
very smoothly. So I was confirmed, and I knew that when my promotion
date came up, I would be promoted. Because the confirmation is the
thing that people sometimes hold their breath about, and it can delay
a promotion for several years, in some cases.
Signal: A year later, there has been an investigation. Maj. Gen.
Antonio Taguba has questioned your ability to command. What happened
in the last year?
Karpinski: Well, I don't know. Because I never received an explanation
from the people who would have known. My — it was a
dysfunctional line of command. We remained, the 800th MP Brigade, me
included, remained assigned to CFLCC, the Coalition Forces Land
Component Command. We were working in Iraq, and Iraq was the territory
of the CJTF-7, or Gen. Sanchez's command. But we were not — we
were attached to them, we were never assigned to the CJTF-7.
So, Gen. Sanchez never once — not once did he ever mention
to me his concerns about my leadership ability. He never mentored me,
he never suggested that I try something differently, he never
criticized me, not once. Gen. Wodjakowski, the deputy, who I briefed
every other night, never mentioned any concerns. As a matter of fact,
he complimented our efforts a lot of times. He said to me at one
point, "You're traveling on the road an awful lot." I said, "I have
facilities all over Iraq, sir," and he turned around and he said,
"Well, be careful out there. It's dangerous."
Signal: In layman's terms, when you say you were attached to Sanchez's
—
Karpinski: Headquarters.
Signal: Headquarters. Sanchez was not your boss. You're not in the
same chain of command?
Karpinski: Right. That's correct. But he owned that theater. He owned
Iraq. So he was not my boss, but I answered to him. When he had
questions about detention operations or jail operations, he asked me.
In fact, the first time I met him I was with my predecessor, Brig.
Gen. Paul Hill, and Gen. Sanchez specifically said that he wanted to
know who the senior military police officer was in his theater so he
would have one person to go to if there was ever a mistaken release,
or a mistake made by anybody in the military police field. He wanted
to go to one person, and who was the senior person? And my
predecessor, Gen. Hill, said, "That would be Gen. Karpinski."
But then we very quickly explained to him that we had completely
separate functional areas. There were three MP brigades, and never the
three shall meet, so to speak. One was assigned to CJTF-7; it was an
active component brigade; they were responsible for law enforcement in
Baghdad and for training the Iraqi police officers. One brigade was
down in Kuwait; they were responsibile for escorting the convoys north
to Iraq. And the 800th MP Brigade, my brigade — we were
responsible for the entire theater, the entire country of Iraq, and 17
different prison facilities.
Signal: How many prisoners?
Karpinski: When we were getting ready to leave, we were compiling
statistics. And our population at that time was about 14,000 of
security detainees, and then a separate group of 3,800 that we were
securing, and then the rest of them were Iraqi criminals.
Signal: How successful were you in adding troops to your command of
3,400 people?
Karpinski: There was no process in place to do that. We had no
replacement system. And I voiced that concern not only to Gen.
Wodjakowski and to Ambassador Bremer, but the person who was able to
make that happen, or should have been able to make that happen, was
Brig. Gen. (Michael J.) Diamond, who was down in Kuwait. And he said
to me, "There is no replacement system. So when you send somebody
home, if they're broken or sick or there's an emergency, you don't get
a replacement." And I said to him, "Gen. Diamond, I can't manage this
way." And he said, "I know, I know. I don't know what to tell you."
You know, my personnel strength was dropping. When my units were
getting ready to rotate home, I might be sending a company of 180
home, and I was replacing them with a company of 110. Or fewer. And
nobody would help us. The prisons department in the CPA, in the
Coalition Provisional Authority, was supposed to be taking over the
role of running the Iraqi prisons and jails. And they did not.
They had three people that they hired, they did a straw man, as
they called it, they did a proposal, requiring 83 people. It was
approved by the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. And they
received funds. But by the beginning of December of 2003, they had
three individuals. (...) arrived on the 10th of December, and then the
first three went home on holiday leave.
Signal: In late August and early September, a couple of weeks after
the U.N. bombing, you got a visit from Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller,
the commander at Guantanamo Bay. What was that about?
Karpinski: Well, Gen. Miller was one of several visitors that we got
that came for a review of our operations. But as it worked out, Gen.
Miller came to visit the military intelligence officer of the
headquarters; that was Brig. Gen. (Barbara) Fast. And he was there to
help them enhance and improve their interrogation operations.
The reason we were included at any point in his visit was because
he wanted to visit several of my prison facilities. So as a
professional courtesy he included us on the in-brief, and then he
briefed me before he briefed Gen. Sanchez on what his plan was.
Signal: What was his plan?
Karpinski: Well, during the in-brief, he made reference several times
to his plans to "Gitmo-ize" the interrogation operations. And he was
the commander down at Guantanamo Bay; he was extremely successful,
apparently, in getting actionable intelligence from the interrogations
that were being conducted there. And he was going to use that template
of operations in Iraq.
So, I was concerned, and like I said I was really a guest at the
in-brief, but I had to talk. I had to speak up. Because, I said to
him, "Sir, excuse me," I said, "I'm Janis Karpinski, I'm the commander
of the 800th MP Brigade, but the situation in our facilities is a
little bit different that your situation down in Guantanamo Bay. Some
of our locations are being fired on at night. We don't even have
funding enough to buy a jumpsuit for every one of our detainees. We
have thousands of prisoners and not nearly enough MPs to guard them."
And he was looking at me like I was some kind of a brainless idiot or
something. He was waving his hands at me almost as if he was
dismissing me. And he said, "Those things are not a problem. My annual
budget is $125 million, and I'm going to give the military
intelligence people whatever funds they need. We're going to take care
of all that. But first we have to find a location. And we have reduced
the list to three or four, and we're going to be out there visiting
them." And — obviously I didn't have a voice with him. Because
what I was telling him was inconsequential to his plan to "Gitmo-ize"
the interrogation operation.
Signal: Was Abu Ghraib the only place where interrogations were
happening?
Karpinski: Under my control, yes. We had interrogations of a much
different nature down at Camp Bucca, when the prisoners of war were
being housed there, and then we had a very limited — we didn't,
but the military intelligence people had — a very limited
interrogation cell at our HVD facility, which was the High-Value
Detainees. It was a much smaller operation. That was what people
referred to as the "deck of cards."
Signal: Describe, if you would, the responsibility of military police
in the interrogation process?
Karpinski: Well, up to the point of Gen. Miller's visit, the military
police role in supporting interrogation operations was extremely
limited, extremely conservative, and by the book. They were detaining
— we were responsible for detention operations and all of the
things implied. Feeding them, getting them medical attention, getting
them showers, those kinds of things. Military police personnel would
take the prisoner out of the cell, turn them over to the interrogation
team; they would sometimes escort them to where the interrogation was
going to be conducted — usually a small room or something
— but they were not involved in the interrogation. They didn't
wait while the interrogation was taking place. They were certainly
never used as they were after Miller's visit to enhance the
interrogation effort. Ever.
Signal: During or after Gen. Miller's visit, what was your
understanding of what he expected the MPs to do with regard to
interrogations? And since he's not in your chain of command, how did
you take his — what would you call it, advice?
Karpinski: Well, I couldn't even call it advice, because he was
dictating that there were going to be changes made at Abu Ghraib.
First, he told me he was going to take Abu Ghraib, and I told him that
Abu Ghraib was not mine to give him. And he cleared the room and he
told me that we could do it his way, or we could do it the hard way.
And I said to him, "Sir, I'm not being difficult; I am telling you,
Abu Ghraib is not mine to give you. It belongs to the CPA, the
Coalition Provisional Authority. If Ambassador Bremer relinquishes
control of that facility to you" — he said, "Ric Sanchez said I
could have whatever facility I wanted, and I want Abu Ghraib, and
we're going to train the MPs to work with the interrogators."
I said, "Sir, the MPs have never worked interrogation missions. It
is not like it is down at Guantanamo Bay." I said, "I've been down
there" — I visited one time — "and you have 640 prisoners
and 800 military police personnel." Two MPs escort every detainee when
they leave the cell. They're in leg irons and hand irons and a belly
chain. I said, "We don't use leg irons and hand irons and belly
chains. The MPs don't feel that it's necessary to move our prisoners
around that way."
He said — you know, again, he's waving his arms at me, as if
he is dismissing me — and he is saying, "It's not going to be
your concern. I'm leaving a CD, a compact disk, with training
information, and I'm leaving printed material. They're going to get
all the training they need, we're going to select the MPs who can do
this, and they're going to work specifically with the interrogation
team."
Signal: Who selected MPs to do this?
Karpinski: Well, after Gen. Miller left — because he was not
listening to anything I was saying — he went in, apparently, to
brief Gen. Sanchez on what his plan was. I made sure that my battalion
commanders knew that Gen. Miller was going to be leaving training
information, that they needed to find out what that was, because the
MPs were going to be working specifically with the interrogation team.
And every couple of days, I'd have the battalion commander or the
operations officer call me and say, "Ma'am, have you heard anything
about this?" And I said, "Not anything from me, ask the MI (military
intelligence) people."
Signal: Did somebody select MPs to work with MI people at that time?
Karpinski: Not to my knowledge, but it is unusual, the way that the
MPs ended up working in cellblock 1A and 1B. Because in the military,
you would normally task a first sergeant with the mission. And the
first sergeant then would say, "OK, first squad, or first platoon, or
whatever part of the organization, you're going to be doing cellblock
1A or 1B, you're going to be working with the outside compounds,"
whatever. It's up to the first sergeant, because the first sergeant
knows the strength of the different squads. That didn't happen.
Because it was two from the first squad, three from the second squad
— that company hadn't even been in the mission at Abu Ghraib for
very long when these photos allegedly were taken.
So I know, sincerely, I know in my heart, that these MPs were
instructed to do what they did, what has been widely published in
photograph form. And they believed that the orders that they were
being given, were being given by people authorized to give them those
orders.
Signal: Did you ever see what was on the CDs that Gen. Miller left?
Karpinski: No. As a matter of fact, I asked the MI brigade commander,
Col. (Thomas M.) Pappas, if he was ever going to conduct training with
this information that Gen. Miller left, and he told me, he said,
"Ma'am, he didn't leave any information with me." He said, "We're
supposed to have these interrogators that he's sending up from
Guantanamo Bay, and they're going to give some kind of training to my
interrogators and to your MPs."
Signal: Is it correct that Gen. Miller led a 17-member team of
interrogators from Guantanamo Bay?
Karpinski: That's correct. I asked — he brought a JAG officer
with him, and I said —
Signal: He, who?
Karpinski: Gen. Miller. One of the members of the team was a JAG
officer, a lawyer from down there. And I said to her — she was a
lieutenant colonel, I believe — and I said to her, "You know,
we're having problems with releasing some of these prisoners. What are
you doing?" And she said, "Oh, we're not releasing anybody." And I
said, "What's going to be the end state?" And she said, "Most of these
prisoners will never leave Guantanamo Bay. They'll spend the rest of
their lives in detention." And I said, "How do they get visits from
home?" She said, "These are terrorists, ma'am. They're not entitled to
visitors from home."
I was stunned. I thought, we'll never get out of Iraq at this
rate.
Signal: Your MPs were trained, were they not, in the application of
the Geneva conventions?
Karpinski: Absolutely.
Signal: How was that training delivered?
Karpinski: Well, see, they were trained and they were validated at
what they call mobilization stations and deployed before I even knew
that I was even going to take command of the 800th MP Brigade. So all
of that was orchestrated and approved and validated before those units
deployed over to Kuwait and then subsequently to Iraq.
Signal: So those would have been classes that they took stateside?
Karpinski: Right. But — it's not only, get to the "mob" station,
get a class; they're trained throughout the year and it's part of the
qualifications. And in addition to that, my brigade JAG officers and
my battalion JAG officers would routinely do refresher training with
them, to remind them of — and a lot of times the MPs would go to
the JAG officers and say, "What are we doing with the Iraqi criminals?
Are they entitled to the same things?" Because their prisoners are
asking questions. And the reasons they were asking questions was
because every prisoner was provided with a copy of the Geneva-Hague
conventions in their language. So they knew what their rights and
privileges were.
Signal: Every prisoner?
Karpinski: Every prisoner.
Signal: Was given a copy of the Geneva conventions?
Karpinski: Yes. And it was posted on the wall of the cellblocks, and
it was posted in each one of the compounds. Even, I mean, the
concertina wire — each compound had a compound representative
who could speak some English, and if they had any questions or
concerns, they would bring the questions to the NCOIC, the
noncommissioned officer in charge of that particular compound. That's
the way it works.
Signal: A month or two after Gen. Miller's visit, the ICRC
(International Committee of the Red Cross) spent a lot of time in the
prison system — where? At Abu Ghraib? Other prisons?
Karpinski: The ICRC routinely visited all of our facilities. And I
will tell you this, that not only at Camp Bucca during, when the EPWs
were being held, but every one of our facilities, and we welcomed them
into our facilities. Because it was another set of eyes. We never
wanted to communicate to the ICRC, or anybody else from any of the
other humanitarian organizations, that we were hiding anything, or
that we were not being up front with them.
Look, we were in the middle of a hostile fire zone, conditions
were austere, and it was about 140 degrees at the heat of the day, at
the highest point of the day. They understood that. But they also knew
that we were doing everything we could to make conditions acceptable
for our detainees and for our soldiers.
Signal: The ICRC report didn't go public until it was leaked sometime
after the Taguba report was leaked. The ICRC took some heat in the
foreign press for keeping its findings secret and sharing them only
with the U.S. Army.
Karpinski: That's correct.
Signal: What did the ICRC communicate to you last fall?
Karpinski: The mechanism for them communicating — if there was
anything extraordinary, they would come, before they left the
location, they would ask to speak to me, or they would come to my
office or ask me to come to them. It only happened on two occasions.
And neither one of them were out at Abu Ghraib. Both of those
occasions were over at the HVD facility, the "deck of cards" facility.
And the reason for that was, the conditions were extremely austere
there for the first four months of the operation, and the average age
of the detainee was higher, it was about 62. So the ICRC had some
particular concerns, and we were able to resolve them to them.
But the report at Abu Ghraib, they didn't come to me. They didn't
ask me to come to them. I've heard, from several different people,
that they did go to Col. Pappas. Because they went into the cellblock
1A and 1B —
Signal: And he was the military intelligence commander at Abu Ghraib
—
Karpinski: At Abu Ghraib. And when they were in cellblock 1A, Lt. Col.
(Steve) Jordan, who works for Gen. Fast, but specifically ran the
interrogation operation, escorted the ICRC representatives through
cellblock 1A, and they did speak to him.
Signal: To Lt. Col. Jordan.
Karpinski: Yes. But neither Col. Jordan nor Col. Pappas relayed any of
those concerns to me. And the only reason I knew anything about it was
because the report finally made its way through the system at CTJF-7
and it was already reviewed by the military intelligence people and
Col. (Marc) Warren, the CJTF-7 staff judge advocate, before they even
presented it to me. And as Col. Warren put it into my hands, because
he just happened to have a copy of the report with him when we were
talking about this, he said, "Don't worry, ma'am, because we're
already working on the response to this report." And I turned to Col.
Pappas and I said, "Gee, that's kind of convenient; when we had the
responsibility of responding to these reports, my battalion commander
and my JAG would have to put the draft together for my review. You get
one visit out at Abu Ghraib and you get a whole team of people putting
a response together for you."
Signal: I understand there was a meeting in November with Gen. Sanchez
and Col. Pappas and there was a reply to the ICRC report, and
apparently the reply bore your signature?
Karpinski: They told me that — the reason they showed me the
report at all was because Col. Warren explained that even though the
prison was under the control of Col. Pappas at the time, when the
visit occurred, it was actually under the 800th MP Brigade, and rather
than make an issue of them transferring the prison to the military
intelligence command, they just wanted me to agree to sign the
response.
Essentially my JAG officer, my judge advocate general — I
had several of them — they reviewed the first attempts at
responses and they were in total disagreement.
Signal: In a nutshell, what did the response that you signed, say?
Karpinski: Well, the first draft of the response said that — it
was very limiting to the ICRC, and it was suggesting that they
schedule time when they were going to be in cellblock 1A or B; that
these were security detainees that were awaiting or undergoing
interrogation or isolation, and their dropping in, in an unannounced
fashion, could interrupt the process and limit or reduce the value of
any isolation underway. So my JAG officer said, "No way. We're not
putting any limitations on the ICRC." If you want to choose words that
say, "we would prefer," or, "it might enhance the value of isolation,"
give them an understanding — and the military intelligence
people didn't want to say that. So, I mean, they went back and forth
over the correct way to respond to their concerns.
Signal: You mentioned that you were no longer in command at Abu Ghraib
when that letter was signed —
Karpinski: I was no longer in command of Abu Ghraib when that letter
was signed. That's correct.
Signal: Lt. Gen. Sanchez on Nov. 19 issued a fragmentary order, or
FRAGO, essentially — well, how did you perceive it? Did you
understand it to mean that Abu Ghraib was being taken away from you
and put under the command of military intelligence?
Karpinski: Well, at that time, yes. Because — and I'll tell you
why. Because at that time, since the mid part or late September, the
military intelligence people had been increasing the population,
considerably, of security detainees being held out there. Our outside
compounds, as we referred to them, our general population compounds,
were completely security detainees awaiting or having completed
interrogation. And cellblock 1A and B, our maximum-security cells,
were not only occupied exclusively by military intelligence detainees,
but they were being run by military intelligence interrogation teams.
With the exception of the detention piece, my MPs were still doing
that.
So we wanted to move towards getting our Iraqi criminals into hard
facilities anyway, and the population out at Abu Ghraib was at least
90 percent security detainees. So it was no surprise to me that
— and Col. Pappas was living out there — so it was no
surprise to me that they actually wanted to take over the whole
compound.
I asked Col. Pappas how he found out about it, because I wasn't
even in Baghdad when the FRAGO was cut. Nobody talked to me about it;
nobody said to me, "This is what we're going to do or why we're going
to do it," so I said, "How did you find out about it?" He said,
"Ma'am, I found out about it the day after the FRAGO was published."
And I said, "Did Gen. Fast talk to you about it?" And he said, "Oh,
no, ma'am. She wanted Abu Ghraib, and she wanted the interrogation
operation run a certain way, and this was her solution."
Signal: When did some higher-up talk to you about it?
Karpinski: Never. I went to Gen. Fast and I said to her, "You know,
this is news to me, and apparently it's news to Col. Pappas." And she
said, "Oh, it's not news to Col. Pappas. He understands why we're
doing this. Because we're going to run interrogations the way we want
them run." And I said, "Well, I talked to Col. Pappas about the
responsibility of the MPs," and she said, "That's administration." She
said, "You handle the administrative part of it any way you want. You
want to still rate them, you want them under your control, that's up
to you."
And this is never a good thing. Officers and soldiers are entitled
to a clear line of command. And they didn't have it. So we already had
a bad situation with our chain of command — did we belong to
CFLCC or did we belong to CJTF-7? — and now they were just
layering another problem on top of it.
Signal: So what was your understanding of how command was supposed to
work?
Karpinski: Col. Pappas and his XO (executive officer), a major by the
name of Williams, both told me, probably within a week of that FRAGO
or 10 days of that FRAGO being cut, that they wanted clarification,
and they got it from Gen. Fast, and Gen. Fast told them — not
suggested to them, told them — that they were in charge of Abu
Ghraib. And Col. Pappas told me, "Ma'am, I'm learning more about
detention operations than I ever thought I'd ever want to know. (Lt.)
Col. (Jerry) Phillabaum is doing a great job. He's spending time with
me every day, explaining why they do things a certain way and why they
can't do other things."
So that was what Gen. Fast told Col. Pappas. That was Col. Pappas'
understanding, and subsequently it became my understanding.
Signal: So you were informed that military intelligence was in charge
of Abu Ghraib — you were informed by the military intelligence
officers themselves.
Karpinski: That's correct.
Signal: How did you respond? What instructions did you or your
subordinates then issue to the MP guards?
Karpinski: I talked to Col. Phillabaum and to his XO, who is a major,
Mike Sheridan, and to the operations officer, and I told them that
administratively, they were still under the 800th MP Brigade, but the
instructions would be coming from Col. Pappas; that the vast majority
of the prisoners out there were security detainees; and they all had
the same understanding. I mean, it was obviously something that they
had talked to Col. Pappas about. And I told them, I said, "This is
what we're going to do: We are going to transfer all of the civilian
criminals that are remaining out here, we're transferring them to
other facilities." Because, you know, never the two shall meet. "This
program out here is — there is no way to release them; there's
going to be 15,000, unless Gen. Fast gets this thing under control, so
whatever Col. Pappas wants you to do."
Signal: Not that you necessarily could have changed things, but did
you instruct your subordinates to answer to Col. Pappas?
Karpinski: I guess I implied it, yes. I didn't tell them not to. But
let me give you an example.
I was out there visiting the MPs on Christmas Day, and when I was
walking through the compound, a couple of the NCOs saluted me, which
was different than anything I'd ever seen before. So I said, "What's
going on?" And they said, "Oh, Col. Pappas said we have to put
courtesies in place." I said, "Hold on a second. I don't want my head
blown off, OK?" And they said to me, "Ma'am, we understand, but"
— I said, "I'll talk to Col. Pappas." Which I did. And I
explained to him, "When I'm out here, I do not want them saluting me,
and if anybody reports to you that the MPs were not saluting me, I
don't want to get into trouble. This is why." And he said, "Oh, oh.
That sounds like a good point." One day, these guys are going to be
back out on the street again, and the last thing you want them to know
is that the MPs, the soldiers, were saluting you, because then your
head becomes very valuable. He said, "You know, that's a good point."
I said, "Nowhere in detention operations do they salute in a
compound." He said, "Oh, that's something else I've learned now." I
mean, just like that.
They also did a capabilities demonstration that day, one of his MI
long-range surveillance teams, and they had helicopters assigned. So
they did a capabilities demonstration to dissuade, I think, the
prisoners from any ideas of an escape or anything. And they do that by
rappelling out of helicopters. So they told me that they were going to
do it about noontime, and they had rehearsed it, and they were going
to do it over by the wall, they had the spots marked and everything.
Well, we were out there visiting, and these helicopters came in.
Now, one of the helicopters went directly to the right spot. The
other helicopter decided to hover over one of the compounds. And it
blew three of the detainees' tents down and scattered clothes that
they had just washed all over the place. So I called Col. Pappas and I
told him what I thought about that, that that kind of negligent
behavior causes prisoners to get excited. And my MPs are the ones who
have to deal with it afterward. And he said, "Oh, ma'am, I'm sure it
was just a mistake." I said, "How do you make a mistake? A mark on the
ground close to the wall, or hovering over compounds where there's
obviously detainees? How do you make that mistake?" He said, "Well, I
wasn't in that helicopter." I said, "You tell him, if he ever does it
again, then he's going to deal with me."
Signal: So the MPs truly were answering to Col. Pappas and military
intelligence.
Karpinski: Yes.
Signal: All MPs at Abu Ghraib?
Karpinski: Yes.
Signal: And this only applied to Abu Ghraib, correct?
Karpinski: Right.
Signal: The FRAGO.
Karpinski: Right.
Signal: And that date was Nov. 19.
Karpinski: That's correct. But prior to that, Pappas had already been
living out there, and he was running operations in cellblock 1A and B.
Signal: How often did you visit Abu Ghraib prior to Nov. 19?
Karpinski: At least — it was in Baghdad, so I was out there
probably two or three times a week. And some of that was because we
were escorting visitors or delegations out there.
But I — if I was on my way back from one of my other
locations, I would routinely stop in to see how things were going.
Because it was a mess. And we were getting more detainees and they
were getting more restless because there was no legal representation
for them. They didn't even know why they were being held, in some
cases. It was a mess.
Signal: After Nov. 19 — you're still the commander of the
military police personnel who are at Abu Ghraib, even though they're
not under your command.
Karpinski: That's correct.
Signal: So how often after Nov. 19 were you at Abu Ghraib?
Karpinski: Less. Much less. Probably — I'd stop in one day a
week. Maybe two afternoons a week. Much less time. Because I did not
want to get at odds with Col. Pappas. He knew that I was senior to him
but he didn't work for me, and I routinely talked to the battalion
commander and the XO out there, and I told them, "If there's anything
that, you know, you need to talk to me, you still have a clear line of
communication with me." But they were, as the XO told me, "He's
trainable. We're teaching him what he needs to know."
Signal: Was Col. Pappas in Gen. Sanchez's direct chain of command?
Karpinski: I believe he must have been, because Col. Pappas worked for
Gen. Fast, and Gen. Fast worked for either Gen. Wodjakowski or Gen.
Sanchez.
Signal: The CD that Gen. Miller left behind in September — you
don't know whether it was disseminated.
Karpinski: That's correct. And Col. Pappas himself told me he never
saw the CD.
Signal: To your knowledge, after Nov. 19, what were the instructions
from Col. Pappas to MPs in the context of their involvement with
interrogations?
Karpinski: To my knowledge there was none. He left it to the
interrogation teams and the interrogators to tell the MPs what they
needed them to do.
Signal: The statement of one of the civilian interrogators, Steve
Stefanowicz, has been leaked to the press. It indicated that the
interrogation teams would leave written instructions for MP guards. Do
you have any personal knowledge of that kind of instruction?
Karpinski: No. And I will tell you that I find that doubtful, because
I still would go through the prison facility, and I would drop in on
the MPs at cellblock 1A or B or anywhere else at Abu Ghraib, and I'd
look at their books, their SOPs, I'd ask them if there (were) any
questions. I'd walk down the hallways and talk to some of the
different detainees, and I never saw a set of instructions. I never
saw written instructions from interrogators. I just didn't. And the
MPs never told me that they had instructions from the interrogators. I
do know that the interrogators told them verbally, because I read the
Taguba report.
Signal: There has been talk about special "interrogation rules of
engagement," which aren't out of the military playbook. Evidently,
under these rules, if interrogators wanted to use particular
techniques, they had to get the personal approval of Gen. Sanchez.
Karpinski: That's correct.
Signal: Did you see those "interrogation rules of engagement" posted
on the walls at Abu Ghraib?
Karpinski: No, I did not. I never saw a list of rules for
interrogators. When they said that they were posted on the walls, I
said, what wall might they have been posted on? In the military
intelligence operations office? Because they weren't posted in the
cellblocks.
Signal: Col. Pappas has testified that those rules were developed as
an outgrowth of Gen. Miller's visit in September. Do you have any
knowledge of that?
Karpinski: Well, that would be consistent with what Gen. Miller said,
that he was going to give them the instructions. But he talked about
his interrogators, the ones that he was going to send up from
Guantanamo Bay and the ones that he brought with him, that they knew
what the rules were, and that they would share them with the
interrogation team.
Signal: When did you first learn of the abuses?
Karpinski: I was up in another location outside of Baghdad. We had a
different kind of security mission. And it was about an hour and a
half away from Baghdad. We were meeting with the leaders at that
location, and we finished the meeting — they liked to meet late
at night. So we finished the meeting at about 11 o'clock, 11:30 at
night. I went back into the operations office up there and I checked
my e-mail, and there was an e-mail there from the CID (Army Criminal
Investigation Division) commander. So I opened it up and I said, what
the heck is this? And it said — that was the first time, and it
was almost as if he thought of me as an after-fact or an afterthought.
Signal: This was when?
Karpinski: This was on the 16th of January. And it said, "Ma'am, just
wanted to let you know, I'm going in to brief Gen. Sanchez on the
progress of the investigation at Abu Ghraib. This is the one about the
potential — or, the allegations of abuse, and there's pictures."
And really, my mouth dropped open. I said, "What is this?" So I called
to my operations officer, who was back in Baghdad. He said, "I don't
know anything about it." And I said, "We're coming back tomorrow."
And we went out to Abu Ghraib, and all of the people that would
have been knowledgeable had been suspended and the MPs had been
removed from their positions. They wouldn't allow me to speak to them.
The people that were sitting — the MPs that they used to replace
them were obviously shaken by all of these allegations. And they said,
"Ma'am, we heard the rumors, but I don't" — the one NCO told me
— "Ma'am, I didn't see anything. I worked in here a couple of
times and I can tell you, we were never involved in anything like
they're talking about."
Signal: This is literally two or three days after the photos were
brought to the attention of someone —
Karpinski: Right. Of Gen. Sanchez.
Signal: So this MP guard, Spc. Joseph M. Darby —
Karpinski: He was trying to make copies — this is what I was
told by the CID commander — this MP was trying to collect
photographs from their tour in Iraq. They'd spent about eight months
at a different location, down with the multinationals, and he wanted
to collect — make copies of photographs that other soldiers had
taken. So he asked his fellow soldiers in the unit, "If you have any
pictures on disks, can you loan them to me? I want to make copies." So
he had this one disk, and it had these pictures, and he opened some of
them up, and he was surprised.
So he went back to the NCO that had given him this disk and he
said, "Hey, man, you know, I don't know what this is about." And he
said, allegedly, "I'll take care of it." Well, nothing happened. So he
started to get nervous, I guess, and he felt an obligation, so he took
the disk and gave it to the CID resident officer who was out at Abu
Ghraib — they have small office out there — and said
— slid it under the door because it was late at night —
and said, "If you need to get in touch with me, I'm Spc. Darby."
So the CID agent opened it up and called his boss right away, the
colonel, and the colonel went out there and got the disk and took it
to Sanchez. And that was on the 13th of January.
Signal: Were you aware of any allegations of abuse that were separate
from what was depicted in the photographs?
Karpinski: No. The only time I saw any reference to anything was in
that ICRC report. It was either the last week of November or the first
week of December when that impromptu meeting took place and they gave
me this report.
Signal: So there was an indication in the Red Cross report —
Karpinski: In that report, yes, that a detainee who was in isolation
was told to wear women's underwear on his head. And when I said to
Col. Pappas, I said, "What is this all about?" And one of his
operations officers said, "Oh, ma'am, I told the commander to stop
giving the detainees those Victoria's Secret catalogs because they'll
make up stories like this." And I said to all of them, I said, "I
don't think the ICRC would appreciate that kind of response."
Signal: So you communicated that to Col. Pappas —
Karpinski: Yes, I did.
Signal: Expecting him to take care of it?
Karpinski: Well, he — they then went into this relatively
elaborate explanation that detainees — every one of them is
innocent and they'll make up all kinds of stories. And they said,
"Where would they get women's underwear?" I said, "Is there any truth
to this?" And they immediately jumped to — the MI people said
— "No, no, absolutely not. I mean, where would this come from?"
That's the kind of thing that they were saying. I can't say they gave
an absolute, like "no truth at all." They sidestepped it.
And Col. Warren, the JAG officer, was in there very quickly
saying, "You know, this is true with all detainees; if you put them in
isolation then they'll say that they've been tortured and beaten, and,
you know, we've heard those reports before." And I said, "But there
has never been foundation."
We know that, too. Now, I do know that when you put a detainee in
isolation, a lot of times, they want to take control. So they'll take
all their clothes off and they'll refuse to put them back on. And
sometimes the interrogators take their clothes away from them so they
don't feel like they're in charge. "OK, you don't want to wear your
jumpsuit? We're going to take it away from you," that kind of thing.
But, I mean, I have never heard of them stripping anybody naked,
and that was, you know, implied in the report from the ICRC, as well.
Signal: When the ICRC made this allegation in late November or early
December, did you talk to anybody besides Col. Pappas? Did you talk to
your own MP personnel directly about it?
Karpinski: I talked to the XO. He called me, as a matter of fact. He
said to me, "I've gone and spoken to the MPs, and for this particular
visit, Col. Jordan and people from the MI command were escorting them.
The MPs said that they do know that occasionally a detainee will take
his clothes off, but they have no knowledge about women's underwear on
their heads or anything else."
So I'll tell you, when I saw the pictures for the first time
— and I saw the pictures for the first time on the 23rd of
January — I was shocked. I felt sick to my stomach. Because of
the expressions on the military police personnel's faces. I was
shocked that they would photograph themselves doing such criminal
things.
And not that they were torturing these people, but this was
absolute humiliation of a sexual nature, and their faces seemed to
reveal that they were enjoying it. And I was sickened by that
behavior. And I said, out loud, to the CID commander, "What would make
a soldier do this? What would make a solder do this?" And I said it
three or four times in frustration, I guess, just absolute shock. And
he said, "Well, ma'am, that's what the investigation is going to tell
us."
Signal: A lot of dates have been thrown around — October to
December, November to January — when these things were supposed
to have occurred. We've identified Nov. 19 as a watershed date; that
was when MI took control at Abu Ghraib —
Karpinski: Right.
Signal: Do you know whether the things that were depicted in the
photographs happened before Nov. 19 or after Nov. 19?
Karpinski: Well, I was, you know, immediately going to those — I
even asked the CID commander, "What's the date on the pictures?" And
he said, "Well, we're trying to work it out, but we believe that it
was sometime in late October or November." And I said, "Well, the MPs
that are in these pictures haven't been at Abu Ghraib all that long."
For them to get up to Abu Ghraib and go to work, and decide that
they're going to abandon everything that they know to be right, and
start taking pictures like this? I said, "This doesn't make any sense
at all."
And I've clarified that by checking with my operations people,
since then, about dates. And that unit would have been at Abu Ghraib
for not longer than three weeks. So, (they) served successfully in
another location for about eight months, moved to Abu Ghraib —
very dangerous location, no doubt that they were prepared, you know,
well in advance, by all the people, saying, "Oh, you're going to Abu
Ghraib, what a horrible location," and everything else — but
that would mean that in three weeks, get their feet on the ground, go
to work, and decide that they could do these things and get away with
it because they felt so comfortable with their surroundings? I don't
believe it.
Signal: Where were they the eight months prior?
Karpinski: They were down with the multinationals in (Al) Hilla and Ad
Diwaniyah, which is in the southern part of Iraq.
Signal: Were they doing prison duty?
Karpinski: Yes. Iraqi prisons.
Signal: Do you have any indication that they did the same kinds of
things there?
Karpinski: No. As a matter of fact, I called the battalion commander
the next day and I said to him, "Any indications that they were out of
control?" He said, "Absolutely not, ma'am. They served fine, they were
dedicated; they often worked longer hours because we were short
people." I said, "Any indication at all?" He said no. He said
occasionally a soldier would get frustrated with the 365-days program
but, you know, other soldiers would get him back on track and
everything. And he said, "No, nothing like this."
Signal: There have been rumors of alcohol abuse among the MPs. Was
alcohol flowing freely at Abu Ghraib?
Karpinski: I — not to my knowledge. And, look. We — not
under my control, but I will tell you that the 800th MP Brigade had
its share of problems early on with people consuming alcohol and
getting caught. And that's a violation of General Order No. 1. So
around the holidays and, because they were being mortared every night,
they were understaffed, they were not getting a break and there was so
much work going on out at Abu Ghraib with all these contractors coming
in and everything, you know, commanders knew to be particularly aware
of that possibility.
But Abu Ghraib was a closed facility. It wasn't like you could go
to the package store and pick up a bottle of booze. It would take a
concerted effort for soldiers to get alcohol and then to consume it. I
just — now, on the other hand, the military intelligence people
were pretty much free to come and go. And if they were bringing booze
out there, I wouldn't have been knowledgeable of it unless my MPs were
drinking with them. And I just didn't get any reports to that effect.
Signal: These pictures — they aren't pictures of interrogations;
they are pictures of freakish things that were done to detainees in
the hallways, in the hard cells. So there are the pictures, and then
there are interrogation sessions, and they aren't the same thing.
Karpinski: No, they are not.
Signal: Do you have any personal knowledge of improper interrogations?
Karpinski: No. I observed one interrogation underway one time, and it
looked perfectly routine, perfectly acceptable. There (were) three
people as part of the interrogation team; one of them was an
interpreter; and they had a prisoner in there. He was in his jumpsuit,
and he was slumped down in the chair, not being very cooperative
— not being uncooperative — but there was no physical
contact, there was no roughing up. They were going through the motions
of getting information, and I could see it from a one-way mirror. So,
I mean, I observed it for 15 or 20 minutes.
Signal: We've discussed how the MPs were under the command of Col.
Pappas and military intelligence after Nov. 19, and how, after Gen.
Miller's visit, MPs were supposed to help with the interrogation
process —
Karpinski: Right.
Signal: But when it comes to the pictures themselves, are you
suggesting that there was a connection between the pictures, or what
was depicted, and interrogations?
Karpinski: Well, not being an interrogator — and I can also tell
you this, that to my knowledge, the interrogations — because I
was there when they were constructing the interrogation facility. So
to my knowledge, the interrogations were supposed to take place in one
of those rooms, in the interrogation facility, which was outside of
cellblock 1A and B.
Now, those pictures, I believe, were staged, or set up —
nonetheless, they are humiliating acts, OK? But I believe that they
were staged and set up to be used to show to a detainee as they were
getting ready to undergo interrogation. And you project that up on a
wall, or you show that to them in living color, in 8x10 glossy, or you
show it to them on a computer, and you tell them, through the
interpreter, this is what has happened to some of your friends —
Signal: So you believe the pictures had a purpose, and the purpose was
for them to be used to intimidate prisoners.
Karpinski: Yes.
Signal: Future subjects of interrogations.
Karpinski: Yes. I do. And I believe that those pictures were planned,
were programmed, that they used the MPs to get the detainees out of
their cells, and that there was an official set of photographs being
taken.
Signal: Why do you believe that?
Karpinski: Because — I don't — and I don't mean this to
sound anything differently than what I mean — but I don't see
interrogation taking place in those photographs. I see humiliation. I
see an opportunity for an interrogation team to exploit those
photographs in an effort to get information quickly, more quickly and
more efficiently, from a new detainee. I mean, if you can get a
detainee to start talking within a couple of hours, as opposed to two
or three months, then, if this is being used to do that, then that, to
me, is enhancing the interrogation effort.
Signal: While I haven't spoken with her personally, Pfc. Lynndie
England, the young MP who is seen in some of the more bizarre photos,
reportedly said in a recent interview that she thought it would be fun
to take some pictures.
Karpinski: And I believe that.
Signal: What do you think of that idea?
Karpinski: I haven't spoken to Lynndie England, either. But, you know,
when I look at possibilities, when I look at, you know, what makes
sense — these are sensible people. These are sensible soldiers.
And they've proven themselves capable. So what made them go berserk,
or whatever you'd want people to believe? Well, they were taking
instructions.
Let's say they were taking instruction and they believed that the
instructions were being given to them by an authorized person. They're
looking at this and they're saying, "You know, there's a photographer
over there, taking pictures, and we're not supposed to be taking
pictures of detainees, but as long as they are, I guess we can, too."
So I would imagine one of the soldiers, one of the NCOs, most likely,
flipped out one of those digital cameras, pocket size, and said, "Hey,
England, get over there and give me a thumbs-up. Give me a big smile.
We need proof of this when we get back home." And when nobody stopped
them from taking one picture, then it became a dozen, or maybe 100, or
several hundred eventually. "They're not going to believe this back in
West Virginia. They're not going to believe this back in" wherever
they're going home to.
"Happy snaps" is what they've come to call them. You know, in a
digital camera, when you press the button, it will just continue to
take pictures until you remove your finger from the button.
Signal: You said these happened in late October or early November. Was
this an isolated incident? Was it just a few bad apples who were doing
this? Did it happen more than once?
Karpinski: I don't know. I believe that they're — it looks like
they were all taken on one night, at one setting. And likely, when
those pictures surfaced via the CID commander to Gen. Sanchez, he
probably was shocked.
Now, I'm not suggesting that there's not a possibility that he
didn't know photographs were being taken and that those photographs
were going to be used at the leading edge of an interrogation. But
when he saw those souvenir photos on personally owned compact disks,
he was probably shocked.
And I don't think that this was six or seven bad apples. I think
that this was six or seven individuals who may have been specifically
selected. Because they were likely to participate. I don't know.
Signal: Last week the Pentagon released memos showing Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved particular interrogation techniques
for use at Guantanamo Bay. To your knowledge, are there documents
showing he also approved particular interrogation techniques for Abu
Ghraib?
Karpinski: I did not see it personally, but since all of this has come
out, I've not only seen, but I've been asked about some of those
documents, that he signed and agreed to.
Signal: About Abu Ghraib?
Karpinski: Yes. About using the same techniques that were successful
in Guantanamo Bay, at Abu Ghraib.
Signal: Those documents have not been released yet.
Karpinski: No.
Signal: What can you characterize about them?
Karpinski: I know that Col. Pappas, on three occasions, sent a request
to Gen. Sanchez to escalate their interrogations, and that involved
using — and he lists them. And in one case he said they wanted
to use dogs, and they wanted to increase the length of time that they
could be isolated, food deprivation, that kind of — sleep
deprivation. And in at least two of those cases, there is a signature
of approval from Gen. Sanchez.
Signal: And you've seen these documents.
Karpinski: Yes, I have.
Signal: When Mr. Rumsfeld tells us that the next set of photos and
videos to be released will be a lot worse, what are they going to
show?
Karpinski: I have no idea. I have no idea. I can only imagine. Umm, I
heard a reference to a video clip of a soldier actually having sex, or
what appeared to be having sex, with one of the prisoners. But I have
not seen it. I asked the CID commander about it specifically, and he
said they heard rumors about it, too, but had not uncovered any such
photos at that point.
Signal: Four military intelligence people are identified in the Taguba
report as having been "directly or indirectly responsible for the
abuses" — Col. Pappas and Lt. Col. Jordan, along with two
civilian contractors, Steve Stefanowicz, an interrogator, and John B.
Israel, a translator. As I believe you know, here in Santa Clarita,
John Israel is a local resident.
Karpinski: Uh-huh.
Signal: Did you ever know or meet either John Israel or Steve
Stefanowicz?
Karpinski: I did meet Steve Stefanowicz.
Signal: Would you know John Israel, too?
Karpinski: No. I may very well know him, but I don't know him by that
name.
Signal: Do you know why Maj. Gen. Taguba singled out these two
civilians in terms of being responsible?
Karpinski: No. And as a matter of fact, I will tell you that I saw
Steve Stefanowicz out in what they called the intelligence
coordination element, which was a separate facility all together. I
never saw him during an interrogation, and I never saw him in
cellblock 1A or B. Ever.
Signal: John Israel was provided to the Army by Titan Corp, which has
an estmiated 4,400 translators in Iraq. Did you have Titan translators
working for your MP brigade?
Karpinski: Yes, I did.
Signal: How does the chain of command work?
Karpinski: We have no control over them at all.
Signal: How does it work?
Karpinski: Titan Corp. would — my guy who was the point of
contact for the brigade would call them and tell them, "We need six
more interpreters." And then he would say, "But here's the
limitations: They're going to be working out at, for example, at Abu
Ghraib; they won't be able to leave; we'll take care of feeding them,
housing them, blah blah blah blah blah," and they'll find interpreters
that will agree to those conditions.
And they will remain at the facility — because the
interpreters are not vetted successfully. If you get one in there that
can speak English and speak the language and he hasn't been vetted
successfully or completely — or at all, in most cases — if
they leave, they could be giving information to the insurgency or the
opposition or whatever.
So that was the only control. But their work schedules or their
uniforms or what they did or — we had no control over them at
all.
Signal: There has been discussion recently that some of these
contracting firms are basically acting as employment agencies for the
military.
Karpinski: That's exactly what they're doing.
Signal: And that may not conform strictly to federal guidelines.
Karpinski: No, I'm sure it doesn't. I was extremely frustrated with it
because, you know, we'd look for the interpreter — and we didn't
have nearly enough interpreters — but I'd look for one and
they'd say, "Oh, he's sleeping." Or, "He doesn't usually come in on
time." And we couldn't fire them, we couldn't — and they were so
— the military in Iraq — was so desperate to get more
translators that they were — the divisions were asking for more
and more and more translators, and they were the priority, and they
didn't have nearly what they needed. So these people, these
contracting — Titan Corp. and I guess there were similar
corporations — they had practically a blank check.
Signal: There are chain of command issues, too —
Karpinski: There was none for them.
Signal: Reading through the Army regulation, "Contractors Accompanying
the Force," evidently the contracting company is supposed to provide a
job site manager to supervise the civilian employees, and the Army
would designate a liaison to confer with the manager —
Karpinski: Right. Or Col. Jordan would.
Signal: So in the field, when contractors were assigned to the MP
brigade, would the MP person in charge ever give direct orders to
civilians?
Karpinski: No.
Signal: How did it work?
Karpinski: Well, if there was a problem with the interpreter —
or, like, for us, because we didn't have interrogators — but for
interpreters, they would call my point of contact in the brigade and
he would try to get it resolved. And the job manager, or the site
manager, was down in the CPA building. They were never out at the
site. Never.
But the battalion commander or the company commander would voice
those concerns to my lieutenant commander, who would work on getting
it resolved. But even documentation to poor performance or poor
English language skills or whatever, it was just a document. Nobody
was ever fired.
Signal: And as you've mentioned, not all the translators were
Americans who were shipped over there. A lot of native Iraqis were
among the civilians.
Karpinski: Right. And then — initially, the first ones that were
brought over were from the United States, from throughout the United
States. They were paid very, very well. Which is why they were —
like a lot of contractors over there, they agreed to work under those
hostile fire conditions because they were paid extremely well.
Signal: How well is extremely well? What did they earn a month?
Karpinski: A month? At least $12,000 (to) $20,000. Sometimes they were
paid $100 an hour, depending on what location they were in.
Signal: Translators?
Karpinski: Yes. Now, I don't know what the interrogators were paid. I
can't even begin to imagine.
Signal: Taguba determined that "third country nationals" were involved
in the interrogation process at Abu Ghraib. Reading Army policy, it
looks like you're not supposed to have foreigners around the
intelligence gathering process.
Karpinski: That's right. Gen. Miller's position is, this is a war.
Extraordinary measures have to be taken.
Signal: Gen. Miller's position?
Karpinski: Yes.
Signal: And of course Gen. Miller is in charge of — he basically
has your job, right?
Karpinski: That's right.
Signal: Today.
Karpinski: That's right.
Signal: He's in charge of the prisons in Iraq.
Karpinski: Yup. He sure is.
Signal: Did you have any knowledge of third-country nationals around
the interrogation process at Abu Ghraib?
Karpinski: No. Because — I knew that there were third-country
nationals out there, and we had contractors coming out to Abu Ghraib
to do a lot of work, and then — I mean, the MPs were vigilant in
keeping them away from the detainees. But occasionally a detainee
would slip a note out to one of them, or put it in the food bucket as
it was being returned to the contractor or whatever it was. But there
were literally hundreds of contractors out there, third-country
nationals.
Now, the ones that were around the interrogation? I don't know. I
was visiting an interrogation facility one time — not under my
control, but I was escorting a four-star. And he wanted to go back and
observe an interrogation that was taking place. They asked me if I
wanted to go and I said no. So I was standing there and, you know, the
usual conversation, just kind of chit-chat, there (were) three
individuals there and two of them had DCU pants on, one had a pair of
blue jeans on, but they all had T-shirts on. They did not appear to be
military people. And I said to one of the — one of them asked
me, "So what's new?" Or, "What's challenging about being a female
general officer over here?" And I said, "Oh! Too long a story, but
it's all fun." And I said to this guy who was sitting up on the
counter, I said to him, "Are you local?" Because he looked like he was
Kuwaiti. I said, "Are you an interpreter?" He said, "No, I'm an
interrogator." And I said, "Oh, are you from here?" And he said, "No,
actually, I'm from Israel." And I was kind of shocked. And I think I
laughed. And I said, "No, really?" And he said, "No, really, I am."
And — but it was — I didn't pursue it, I just said, "Oh, I
visited your country a couple of years ago and I was amazed that
there's so little difference between the appearance of Israelis and
Americans," and — I really was just kind of making chit-chat at
that point.
But it didn't strike me as unusual, I guess, until after the fact.
And I remember making a comment to him, I said, "Wow, that's kind of
unusual." And he said, "No, not really." Like that.
So — I do know for a fact that at least in that one case
— now, I didn't ask him for identity papers or anything. It was
none of my business. But that's what he said.
Signal: And that was an interrogator at —
Karpinski: At an interrogation facility, yes.
Signal: He said he was from Israel.
Karpinski: Right.
Signal: Did you have any indication that there were any foreign secret
operations going on at Abu Ghraib?
Karpinski: No. No indication whatsoever.
Signal: What about CIA activities? Specially, Mr. Rumsfeld's recent
acknowledgement that he hid a so-called "ghost detainee" at another
detention facility in Baghdad at the request of ex-CIA director George
Tenet.
Karpinski: Right.
Signal: Did you have knowledge of that?
Karpinski: I certainly did.
Signal: So you knew at the time that there was a ghost detainee.
Karpinski: I absolutely did. And we objected.
Signal: How? Why?
Karpinski: Well, because we follow the procedures. And the procedure
is, when you take a prisoner into your facility, you process them. And
that means they get an identification number, and their basic data is
entered into the database. And that's how we account for all of our
detainees.
Signal: The purpose for hiding the detainee — Mr. Rumsfeld was
hiding this person from the Red Cross so the Red Cross wouldn't find
out the person existed. Do you know why?
Karpinski: No, but I heard speculation about it, and all of it was
believable.
Signal: How many ghost detainees, to your knowledge, were there last
year?
Karpinski: To my knowledge, we had that one, and we were directed to
hold him. And we had three other detainees that were allegedly Saudi
citizens, and they were hiding them, as well.
Signal: Gen. Taguba's investigation ball-parked it at six to eight
ghost detainees at Abu Ghraib.
Karpinski: Well, you know, Gen. Taguba probably took that information
from a person who didn't know what they were talking about, and he
recorded it. Because if he had just done a little bit of work, he
would have found that FRAGO instructing us to hold that detainee, and
that FRAGO was signed by Gen. Sanchez. And he didn't bother to do
that.
So what he — again, another hole in his report was that we
were not processing appropriately all of our detainees and we had
"ghost detainees" that we were hiding. And that's not true. We did
have ghost detainees, but we were directed to not process them into
the facility.
As I told Gen. Taguba, we always knew where they were. They
weren't ghosts to us. But they were not processed because we were
directed not to process them.
Signal: I'm sorry, who was it who directed you not to process those
detainees?
Karpinski: Gen. Sanchez signed the FRAGO.
Signal: Specifically not to process those ghost detainees.
Karpinski: Yes.
Signal: Was there a place, would it have been appropriate for you to
complain to somebody?
Karpinski: We did. And I went back to Gen. Wodjakowski and I went back
to Gen. Fast — and I went to Col. Warren, Gen. Sanchez's SJA
(staff judge advocate), and I said, "You need to get this resolved or
I'm going to process this guy. We can't hold him any longer. We need"
— I said, "The MI people got Gen. Sanchez to sign that FRAGO; he
did; we've been holding the guy now for three months, and we need to
do something. You either need to release him — he's not charged
with anything, he's not even on the system. If somebody came in, in
the middle of the night, and shot him, there would be no record of
him." He said, "Well, nobody's going to do that." I said, "I'm making
a point."
So in two days they told us what to do, and we processed the guy.
I think. Released the guy. We held the guy. My operations officer is
correcting me on that point.
Signal: (Laughter) Yeah — is this interview authorized by the
United States Army?
Karpinski: Sure. I haven't said anything that's not already public
record. You know, I — nobody has risen to my defense from the
military, so I felt an obligation to do this for the 3,400 soldiers
who served courageously with me.
Signal: Gen. Taguba made some specific allegations about you. For one
thing, he said you were emotional during four hours of interview.
Karpinski: Yeah, right. I said to my lawyer in Germany, I said, "I
kind of take exception with that." Because, first off, he made it
sound like I was blubbering and crying the whole time I was being
interviewed, like I was an out-of-control, emotionally distraught
woman. Well, I can tell you this: that the only time there were tears
in my eyes, and I did get emotional, was when I was defending my
soldiers. And I would do it again today, I would do it again next
week, I will always do it. Because they deserve it. And I felt like
all of their accomplishments were being pulled away from them, by
design, for something that they didn't do or have any participation
in, with the exception of the six or seven who were so vividly
photographed.
But it wasn't me who was overwhelmed. Every man in that room
— and there were six of them — was in tears when my
statement was finished. Every one of them. Including Taguba. And I
think that they were embarrassed by that, and that's why he made that
comment in the report.
Signal: Whatever it was that you said to Taguba in your reply has not
yet been released publicly.
Karpinski: No, of course not. Because it makes sense.
Signal: Basically he accused you of not being able to command. He
found that the "performance of the 800th MP Brigade had not met
standards set by the Army," and essentially that you had not provided
training to people, and on and on.
Karpinski: And my response addressed every one of his findings. And
every one of his findings was so weak, I thought he did it
intentionally so it would be easy for me to reply to it. I mean,
naively, that's what I thought. Because every one of them was shot
full of holes.
What he was suggesting — maybe he didn't realize that I
wasn't deployed with the 800th MP Brigade. Maybe he didn't realize I'd
only been in command since the 1st of July. Or the end of June.
Because he didn't do his homework. He didn't check. And nobody told
him.
Maybe he didn't realize that, because he didn't take the time. And
the reason I believe he didn't take the time was because he went to
see Gen. Sanchez who said to him, words to the effect, "I want
Karpinski to be blamed. And I want you to go out and do an
investigation to support that. She's a terrible leader because she
allowed all these things to happen. Now go out and do an investigation
to support that conclusion." That's what I believe.
And his findings against me — to include that idiotic
psychiatrist who sat in on every one of the interviews — that's
medical information. When a doctor gives his opinion, that's medical
information. And they released that to the public. I have nothing to
hide.
And if I'm emotional about my troops, then that's a credit to my
leadership abilities and my leadership skills and my compassion for my
soldiers. But, I did what I needed to do as a leader. And I know how
to lead, and I know how to take care of soldiers. And I can tell you
that every one of the basic tenets of leadership were violated by
those people who were criticizing me.
And I'll just give you a very basic example. A mess hall is the
heartbeat of an organization. It is traditionally the place where
commanders and soldiers are equal. Because you go through the serving
line, you eat the same food, you eat at the same table. You have the
same complaints or the same compliments for the chef. Gen. Sanchez was
in the mess hall twice. Once on Thanksgiving and once on Christmas
Day. His entire CJTF-7 staff, with the exception of Defore (ph), who
is the logistics officer, had their meals delivered to them in their
offices because they didn't want to go eat with their soldiers. I made
a point, no matter where I was on the road, no matter what facility I
was visiting, I had at least one meal in the mess hall with not only
my soldiers, but other soldiers who took the time to come over and
shake my hand because they'd heard about this female general who was
commanding in a combat zone.
That's my legacy. And that's what Sanchez wants to take away from
me.
Signal: Taguba writes, "I totally concur with LTG Sanchez's opinion
regarding the performance of BG Karpinski." It seems like it's one
thing to make a finding, but to use that language — "I totally
concur with" this other general?
Karpinski: Yeah. Of course. And you know, I didn't even know what
Sanchez's opinion was of me. So now I have Taguba "totally" agreeing
with him. Now, for any other male commander in that theater of
operation, they would be applauded and decorated for being able to
think out of the box and resolve problems as they were confronted with
them. But I was chastised for doing things that they'd never heard of
in their military career.
Well, I've never heard of a personnel replacement system not
existing, in my military career. But that's what we were served up.
Because we were reservists.
Signal: What kinds of outside-the-box things did you do?
Karpinski: Well, we had this — I had to move people around as
the mission at different locations suggested. I mean military people.
So when Phillabaum was showing signs of battlefield stress, I gave him
a break and I brought in another battalion commander whose unit was
getting ready to go back to the states, to serve for a couple of
weeks, because he was a seasoned battalion commander, he knew what he
was doing, and he knew detention operations. And Phillabaum was on the
verge of a nervous breakdown. I needed to give him a break, and I did.
Well, Taguba criticized me for that. "You mean to tell me that you
took a guy" — I said, "Sir, I took a guy out who was on the
verge of a breakdown, and I put another seasoned battalion commander
in his position." He was just shaking his head, like this was totally
incomprehensible to him.
I took people from a prison facility and used them in another
prison facility because the population was increasing. He couldn't
believe that. I said, "I had to use MPs as construction engineers
because we were expected to rebuild the facility and I don't have
engineers assigned to me," and the headquarters was not giving me an
engineer battalion until very late in the whole mission. I mean, those
are creative solutions. That's what I do as a civilian. And he
criticized me for it.
Signal: Things seem to have changed for Gen. Sanchez. Just like there
was a full-blown inquiry into your 800th MP Brigade, now there is a
full-blown inquiry into the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, and
Gen. Sanchez has recused himself from the investigation chain of
command so he can be questioned. Is Sanchez where the buck should
stop?
Karpinski: No! I think he was — you know, he's a three-star. And
I guess when you get to be a three-star general in the active
component and you've been promoted early to a three-star position to
be in charge of all those divisions and it's a combat zone, your ego
gets inflated. And he was an egomaniac. And maybe they all are; I
don't know. I'm not a three-star general.
But I do have a question: "If you became aware of these pictures
on the 13th of January, Gen. Sanchez, and did nothing to notify your
bosses, including Rumsfeld, who would subsequently, then, hopefully,
inform the president that not only is this another set of allegations
of prisoner abuse but hey, we've got pictures this time — until
the end of April? What happened in between? One would think you were
attempting to do a cover-up." But that's just pure speculation on my
part.
So I think that making people aware of it early on was his
failing. I'm telling you, I'm the 800th MP Brigade commander. I'm a
one-star general. And when I talked to Sanchez on the 23rd of January,
I offered — because I said, "Sir, I was sickened by the pictures
— let me make a statement. I have worked in the Middle East for
years. I'll go to Al Arabiya. I've done an interview with them two
times. It was very well received. I know the local Iraqi people. They
know me. I'll make a statement in Arabic and in English." "Absolutely
not. No. We're handling this. Any inquiries, you direct them to Col.
Warren." And that was the extent of our conversations.
But to me, bad news doesn't get better over time. Tell the people
what you know when you know it! You can't cover this up. As we all
know now. And it was a source of anger, because the Congress didn't
know. The senators were blindsided by this. And (Brig. Gen. Mark)
Kimmett, the spokesperson for Sanchez, tries to deny any knowledge of
the release to "60 Minutes II," and he was interviewed as part of that
piece — and the only name he mentioned was mine. The only name.
He linked me to those photographs and the cause of those photographs
by design.
So I had to work against that whole tide before I could even get
to level ground. And nobody was rising to my defense. Nobody. Not from
the reserve component and not from the active component.
Signal: What did Janis Karpinski do wrong?
Karpinski: I didn't open my mouth enough, or loud enough. And when I
had knowledge, I didn't go to Gen. Sanchez often enough and say, "Sir,
if you're not going to Gen. (John) Abizaid, I will."
Signal: But the only two times you knew of allegations of abuse, from
our conversation right now, is once in the ICRC report of late
November or December — and you explained how you dealt with that
— and then not until mid-January when you first learned of the
prisoner abuse photos.
Karpinski: Right.
Signal: What are you responsible for?
Karpinski: Hold me responsible for what I can be responsible for. What
I could have controlled. And I didn't control cellblock 1A or B, and
after the 19th of November, I didn't control Abu Ghraib. I had no
control whatsoever over the interrogation effort. The only influence I
had over the interrogation — or, the results of the
interrogation — was, I was a member of the security detainee
release board. And I was as frustrated as the other members of that
board because we couldn't get Gen. Fast to release anybody. So the
numbers, the population, kept growing, and at one point Gen.
Wodjakowski even said to me, "I don't care if we're holding 15,000
innocent people. We're winning the war." And I said to him, very
quickly, "Not inside the wire you're not, sir. Every one of them is
our enemy when they get out."
Signal: In 20-20 hindsight, are there specific things that you could
have, should have, done differently?
Karpinski: Could have and should have, yes. When they did that FRAGO
transferring responsibility to the MI brigade, I should have demanded
clarification on responsibilities and roles and the chain of command.
Signal: So you had some confusion about —
Karpinski: Yes.
Signal: What exactly?
Karpinski: About who was — I didn't know the extent of what was
going on with the interrogations. Had anybody at any time — an
MP or otherwise — whispered or hinted or written on a secret
piece of paper or suggested in any way that those things were going on
in those cellblocks, I would have screamed loud and clear.
Signal: Is there anything you should have done differently when MPs
were put under the command of military intelligence?
Karpinski: Yes, I think I should have gone to Col. Pappas and gotten
clarification on what he was expecting them to do and how they were
going to be trained. Or if they were going to be trained. I trust my
battalion commanders and my company commanders to do those things, and
they were probably — I don't know. I don't want to speculate.
But I believe that they thought that Col. Pappas was telling them
things he was authorized to tell them.
Signal: Have you been suspended?
Karpinski: Yes.
Signal: From what exactly?
Karpinski: From my command.
Signal: You are no longer commander of the 800th MP Brigade.
Karpinski: It's a temporary suspension until (Lt.) Gen. (James R.)
Hemley finishes his investigation and makes a decision.
Signal: Who is — who are the responsible parties for the
prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib?
Karpinski: I don't know. I could tell you that — you want my
opinion?
Signal: Yes.
Karpinski: Gen. Miller. Gen. Fast. Gen. Sanchez. (Defense
Undersecretary Stephen A.) Cambone. I don't know if it stops at
Cambone, but I believe that he was orchestrating it, he was directing.
And Gen. Karpinski. Because she didn't yell loud enough. She didn't
object enough.
So — I — those soldiers are mine. I have an obligation
to protect them, and I have an obligation to support them, and I have
an obligation to make sure that there is not a miscarriage of justice.
Signal: What do you say to people who compare what happened at Abu
Ghraib under your command and under MI command to the things that
Saddam Hussein did there?
Karpinski: How would I respond to that?
Signal: Yes.
Karpinski: I would tell them, that is vastly different. First off,
Saddam Hussein did it as a tyrant, as a dictator, and he used murder
and mass killings to get what he wanted, to intimidate. And he used
the intelligence arm of his organization — which I think got out
of control, of course, because it was so bizarre — but he used
that to control an entire country.
And I don't see any of those things depicted. I see humiliation in
a country where — and I will add this to you. Or I will tell you
this. That if anybody in the interrogation effort, Miller or Pappas or
any one of them, had come to me and said, "This is what we're going to
do, and we're going to take these pictures," I would have said, "Do
you know what this does in an Arab culture? Do you know what you're
doing? This is the equivalent of castrating them in public." You know.
Because I understand the Arab world to the extent that an American
can't. But they didn't come and say that to me.
And I think that that's why they FRAGOed the prison under Pappas'
control, and I think that that's why they cut another FRAGO
subsequently to move me to another location, to take care of another
mission we had.
Signal: Because you believe that those military intelligence people
would be more conciliatory toward doing those things than would you.
Karpinski: Yes. Yes. Absolutely. They had a different motivation, to a
certain extent. The mortars came in one night and killed two MI
people, two MI soldiers. And then they relocated to Abu Ghraib and the
interrogation effort was stepped up.
Signal: For you to be blamed for the command and control breakdown
— it must be disillusioning. Do you still support the U.S. Army?
Do you still support the effort in Iraq? Do you still support Mr.
Rumsfeld?
Karpinski: Yes to all of them, but it's vastly different than it was a
year ago. I haven't — I refuse, actually — it's personal
and professional refusal — to abandon the system completely.
I think that this is another example of how they reduce things,
people reduce their motivations, to petty things, and roll it up with
very significant things. But Sanchez and his crew didn't want me up
there. They never embraced me as a member of the staff or welcomed me
to the staff. They didn't like me because I was a female, I was a
general officer, I was a reservist, and I was commanding soldiers
successfully in his theater of war. And Sanchez didn't want that rose
pinned on him for the rest of his life.
I mean, some people would say, "Yeah, I did that." But not him.
Because he was a combatant commander. He was a division commander. His
warrior mentality was something he wore like a ribbon or a decoration.
This was the last masculine, male domain. How dare I invade —
and do it successfully? And something that seems so petty to people
— that was one of his motivations. And — and that's a
travesty.
Do I still believe we should be in Iraq? I believe we had a
purpose there; I still do. I would rather engage the enemy there, and
eliminate it, than on our own home turf. And it would have been here
in a very short time if we didn't do what we did. I think that there
was a terrible failure of establishing an information operation
campaign immediately after the major hostilities were ended. We kept
asking when the IO (information operation) campaign was going to be
initiated and it never was. What a great opportunity to get on the
radio or on the TV or in the newspaper and say, "Look what we're doing
here." You know, "Look what YOU are doing here. Iraqis restored this
pipeline," you know? "Iraqis reopened this school." But there wasn't
any of that. And the insurgents were just getting better and better
and better.
Signal: What about Mr. Rumsfeld and President Bush?
Karpinski: You know, that's the commander in chief and that's his
secretary of defense. And I know that Rumsfeld was not very popular
with the division commanders — or with the active component
division commanders and core commanders because Donald Rumsfeld was
supporting a smaller, swifter force, and that meant fewer divisions,
it meant fewer general officers at the two- and three-star, and
four-star level, and they didn't like that. So there was — a lot
of other agendas going on here.
But I think, early on, I don't remember exactly what they were,
but before the war started, secretary Rumsfeld made some controversial
remarks about the reserve and the National Guard, and about what their
future was and how they would be involved. And it wasn't very
flattering. So I think that the active component people took what they
wanted from many of his decisions and kind of carried that forward,
thinking that they would get support from him.
Signal: Lessons? What does Janis Karpinski draw from this? In what way
can Americans benefit from the story of abuse at Abu Ghraib?
Karpinski: Well, I think we all know now that a picture is worth 1,000
words. But we have to be aware that the 1,000 words are accurate and
true, and not necessarily what your first impression might be. So,
again, I would remind people to get the whole story. Read everything
you can. Listen to everything you can. And form your own opinion.
And I think we need a plan before we do anything like this again,
or continue to do what we're doing in Iraq now, or anywhere else in
the world we might end up. You need a plan. You need a complete plan
— when you go in, when the combat units finish, then the
sustainment operation is in. And then when the sustainment operation
is steady, the multinationals come in, and — in the whole
process, you are turning it back over to the country that you have
occupied. And we never had that plan. Or, it didn't appear that we had
that plan. I think that we owe our soldiers, down to the individual
soldier level, knowledge of what the plan is, what their role is, and
the exit plan as well. Because that mark on the wall is a morale
factor. And I can tell you, when the soldiers found out that they were
going to be spending 365 days as opposed to six months, morale dropped
— throughout the theater, amongst all components —
considerably.
So I think we have to be honest. And I think we have to know the
country we're going to, know the people, and make clear the ideas of
what we hope to achieve. I think everybody believed we were going in
there to remove Saddam and give them a chance at a democracy. Well, we
removed his sons and we removed Saddam, but we didn't act quickly
enough or get the information out because the borders were wide open
and the insurgents were flooding in and being very active. They knew
where the weapons were. They knew where the hand grenades were.
And we were being — as a reserve unit, we were being asked
to do things we were not equipped to do, we were not prepared to do,
but we did it. We never had mission failure. Not once. And we never
went back to Sanchez and said, "We can't do this." And I think he
expected us to. I think he was hoping we would, so he could say,
"You're a bunch of worthless reservists." But we didn't. Because my
soldiers wouldn't let us fail.
And when we send soldiers — I don't care if they're active
component, I don't care if they're experienced or brand new recruits,
and I certainly don't think we need to distinguish between active
component, reserve component and National Guard. When we send a
soldier into a theater of war, how dare we send them without the
appropriate equipment to ensure they have every chance of survival? We
sent them, with people who validated their training who had no idea if
they were valid or not in their capabilities. We sent them without
plates in their vests. We sent them in some cases without Kevlars. And
we sent them right into the battle without the appropriate equipment.
Vehicles were getting blown up because they weren't armored. They were
armoring them themselves with sandbags, which were worthless when you
drive over an explosive device. How dare we do that, as the American
public?
And then, mislead the people, in this particular case, in Iraq? We
got great credit around the world for putting in $138 billion-with-a-B
dollars into a supplemental (spending bill) so the Iraqis could grow
their own country, their own democracy. Well, I know for a fact that
in the prisons department in the CPA — which was a relatively
small department, as significant as the mission is, to provide a
secure Iraq — 83 people, funded for one year, in excess of $10
million. They were bringing people in, under those contracts, each one
of those 83 people were making between $15,000 and $22,000 a month.
And I said to the lead person in that department, many times, "Do you
know how many Iraqis you cold employ with that $15,000 that you're
paying ONE American contractor?" "They don't have the skills." I said,
"Carey (ph), they do have the skills. Some of them worked in the
prisons for 25 years." "But they were corrupt." Yes, they were corrupt
because they were being paid $300 a month. You add insult to injury by
bringing in one American who doesn't speak the language and now
requires a translator who's going to be making $10,000 or $12,000 or
$15,000 a month, to go with them to tell an Iraqi how to do what they
already know how to do. Pay 15 Iraqis $1,000 each a month and you'll
have a fired up prison system. And you're hiring 83 people at $15,000
to $22,000 a month.
Shame on us. Because that's not what that money was intended for.
And that was being done all over the CPA.
Signal: I want to thank you for joining us.
Karpinski: Thank you for the time.
See this interview in its entirety today at 8:30 a.m., and watch
for another "Newsmaker of the Week" on Wednesday at 9:30 p.m. on SCVTV
Channel 20, available to Comcast and Time Warner Cable subscribers
throughout the Santa Clarita Valley.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©2004, THE SIGNAL/SCV PRESS CLUB · ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
save-our-democracy
3rd Inquiry on Afghan Abuse Is Planned
*************************************
By CARLOTTA GALL
Published: July 4, 2004
************************
ABUL, Afghanistan, July 3 — The United States military said
Saturday that a new allegation of prisoner abuse was being
investigated in Afghanistan, the third such investigation to be
announced since the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal broke.
The Naval Criminal Investigation Service, the body that deals with
Navy and Marine Corps issues, is looking into the allegations, a
military spokesman, Maj. Jon Siepmann, said at a news briefing in
Kabul.
He gave no details of the case, except to say that it was an
"allegation of detainee abuse."
As part of a new policy of openness since the Iraqi prisoner abuse
scandal, the
***********************************
coalition in Afghanistan was announcing that it was looking into the
allegation even before establishing whether there was anything to the
claims, Major Siepmann said.
This is the third allegation of prisoner abuse that the military has
begun investigating since May, when the Iraqi prisoner abuse first
emerged.
The two others were begun after news media reports about the
prisoners' claims.
Five incidents of detainees dying in American custody are also under
*******************************************************************
investigation. (IN AFGHANISTAN-THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 37 DEATHS)
******************************
The military has said it will release details of a report into
detainee abuse and conditions in Afghanistan "this month".
*****************************************
About 2,000 United States marines have been in Afghanistan since May
to tackle a continuing insurgency by Taliban supporters.
They have been involved in some heavy fighting that killed 80
militants and captured 90 more in operations in May.
A dozen more militants have been killed in the past week and another
dozen captured, Major Siepmann said.
save-our-democracy
U.S. to Tell Detainees of Rights
******************************
Pentagon Outlines New Procedures
*******************************
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A07
Detainees held in U.S. custody at the naval base in Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, will learn of their legal rights for the first time beginning
Monday as part of a Pentagon plan to determine how many of the
prisoners are enemy combatants and who should be set free, officials
said yesterday.
The Pentagon yesterday offered a preliminary outline of a new tribunal
process developed in the wake of a June 28 Supreme Court decision that
allows detainees to challenge their imprisonment in federal courts.
But the new process doesn't immediately grant the nearly 600 detainees
at Guantanamo access to lawyers, and it is unclear how detainees will
assert their rights while imprisoned at a remote base in another
country.
Gordon England, secretary of the Navy, said a military tribunal
process to evaluate the status of detainees held as enemy combatants
in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks could begin within a few
weeks. Detainees will first be told of their rights to contest their
detention, to seek a writ of habeas corpus and to meet with a personal
representative who will be their advocate throughout the military
process.
England said the tribunals' underlying principle will be to see if
each detainee should be released to his home country, and he said
detainees will have the opportunity to present witnesses or affidavits
to support their claims for freedom. It is unclear what access
detainees will have to witnesses in their home countries, and England
said it is likely that most witnesses will testify via affidavits.
Detainees should learn of their rights -- there will be an effort to
present written notifications in as many as 17 languages -- by the end
of next week. They will then be assigned a military officer with a
rank of at least major to represent them in navigating the tribunals,
and England said efforts will be made to ensure that the
representatives remain "neutral."
England said the military will move quickly to examine all detainees,
hoping the process will be completed within 120 days.
"Speed is of the essence," England said at a Pentagon briefing. "But
the first principle is to do this correctly. That is, do it fairly,
make sure we have the right standards, make sure it's well documented,
but also do it as quickly as we can."
The plan met with quick criticism, with defense attorneys calling the
internal process a way for the military to delay habeas corpus claims
from reaching federal courts and public scrutiny. The tribunals also
will be entirely controlled by the Pentagon, which has been asserting
for years that each detainee is an enemy combatant and can be held
indefinitely without charges or access to lawyers.
"For a detainee to be released under this process, this would require
the military to determine that they've been wrong for years," said
Rachel Meerapol, an attorney with the New York-based Center for
Constitutional Rights, which represents dozens of Guantanamo
detainees. "They feel rigged toward a certain outcome. I find it
impossible to believe that a branch of government that has been saying
for 2 1/2 years that we've been able to hold these people can fairly
decide whether they are enemy combatants."
Meerapol also said the Supreme Court decision in Rasul v. Bush
requires the government to allow detainees to be represented by legal
counsel. To date, none of the detainees has been allowed to meet with
lawyers, and England said he expects that something will have to be
worked out to allow groups of detainees to meet with groups of
lawyers, although no details have been devised.
save-our-democracy
D.C. court braces for detainee cases
**********************************
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The U.S. District Court for the D.C. Circuit is prepared to handle
potentially hundreds of cases in the wake of Thursday's ruling by a
federal appeals court that the 594 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, can use the D.C. court to pursue challenges to their continued
detention.
"We have assumed a wait-and-see attitude on this until we know how
many cases there might be and in what form they will come to us," said
Sheldon Snook, administrative assistant to Chief Judge Thomas F.
Hogan. "But the numbers are not unprecedented and while they might
cause some problems, we've done it before."
Mr. Snook said the court's 15 judges have met concerning the
potential cases.
"We might be working nights and weekends, but we'll get it done,"
he said.
On Thursday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, in a
ruling written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, said the U.S. District
Court in D.C. was the proper venue given that the detainees are
located overseas and would be suing the federal government.
The ruling was the first time an appeals court had determined where
the challenges should be lodged. It followed a Supreme Court decision
last month rejecting the Bush administration's position that detainees
could be maintained in military custody indefinitely, without charges
or trial, because they were apprehended as suspected terrorists.
It was the Supreme Court that ordered the appeals court to determine
the proper venue in a single case involving a Libyan, Salim Gherebi,
who was captured in Afghanistan and is challenging his two-year
detention.
Meanwhile, Navy Secretary Gordon England yesterday said at a press
briefing that reviews are under way at Guantanamo to determine whether
to release or detain each of those in custody. He said reviews are
aimed at determining the "security needs of our nation and the human
rights of the individuals currently detained at Guantanamo Naval
Base."
Mr. England, named by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to oversee
the review process, said separate review boards have been formed, each
with three military officers, who will make recommendations to him for
a final decision on each detainee.
Another group of officers, he said, will work exclusively with each of
the detainees to compile and present to the review board any facts
from the detainee or from his home country. In addition, the detainee
— with appropriate translators — will be able to
personally appear before the board, he said.
The panels will determine whether a detainee is properly classified as
an enemy combatant and, if not, then the detainee would be released to
his home country, Mr. England said.
An enemy combatant has been described by the Pentagon as "an
individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces,
or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States
or its coalition partners" during the 2001 war in Afghanistan or
elsewhere.
The Pentagon announced on Wednesday that Deputy Secretary of Defense
Paul Wolfowitz had ordered that all Guantanamo Bay detainees be
notified within 10 days of their opportunity to appear before the
panels.
All site contents copyright © 2004 News World Communications, Inc.
Privacy Policy
save-our-democracy
=========
Breaking News 7/9/04
U.S. News obtains all classified annexes to the Taguba report on Abu
Ghraib
****************************************************************************
"My first reaction was, 'Wow, there [are] a lot of nude people
here'... I, myself, have never been in a prison... So I had no
experience at all as far as a warden or that type of thing."
Army Captain Donald J. Reese, a reservist and salesman in civilian
life, installed in October 2003 as warden of the hard site at Abu
Ghraib
The most comprehensive view yet of what went wrong at Iraq's Abu
Ghraib prison, based on a review of all 106 classified annexes to the
report of Major General Antonio Taguba, shows abuses were
facilitated--and likely encouraged--by a chaotic and dangerous
environment made worse by constant pressure from Washington to squeeze
intelligence from detainees.
Daily life at Abu Ghraib, the documents show, included riots, prisoner
escapes, shootings, corrupt Iraqi guards, filthy conditions, sexual
misbehavior, bug-infested food, prisoner beatings and humiliations,
and almost-daily mortar shellings from Iraqi insurgents. Troubles
inside the prison were made worse still by a military command
structure that was hopelessly broken.
Taguba focused mostly on the MPs assigned to guard inmates at Abu
Ghraib, but the 5,000 pages of classified files in the annexes to his
report show that military intelligence officers- -dispatched to Abu
Ghraib by the top commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez- -were
intimately involved in some of the interrogation tactics widely viewed
as abusive.
Col. Henry Nelson, an Air Force psychiatrist who prepared a report for
Taguba on Abu Ghraib, described it as a "new psychological
battlefield," and detailed the nature of the challenge faced by the
Americans working in the overcrowded prison. "These detainees are male
and female, young and old," Nelson wrote; "they may be innocent, may
have high intelligence value, or may be terrorists or criminals. No
matter who they are, if they are at Abu Ghraib, they are remanded in
deplorable, dangerous living conditions, as are soldiers."
The documents provide new insights, as well as additional compelling
details on how Abu Ghraib was spiraling out of control, and how top
military commanders battled behind closed doors. General Sanchez and
Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, a reservist who commanded the 800th MP
Brigade, did not see eye-to-eye. Her brigade was given the assignment
to run the prison, but last November Sanchez put military intelligence
in charge of the facility.
In her secret testimony, Karpinski, who was criticized for leadership
failures in the Taguba report, said Sanchez refused to provide her
with the necessary resources to run Abu Ghraib and other prisons. She
said that he didn t "give a flip" about soldiers, and she added this
biting criticism: "I think that his ego will not allow him to accept a
Reserve Brigade, a Reserve General Officer and certainly not a female
succeeding in a combat environment. And I think he looked at the 800th
Brigade as the opportunity to find a scapegoat..."
As the top commanders battled it out, soldiers at Abu Ghraib were
confused over who was in charge, the documents show. Weak leadership
in the prison meant soldiers couldn t accomplish basic tasks, like
feed their detainees, much less find someone to prosecute abuse. And
without a clear chain of authority, some soldiers just ran wild. "One
of the tower guards was shooting prisoners with lead balls and
slingshot," a company commander testified. Soldiers ran around wearing
civilian clothes, and covered latrines with so much graffiti that a
commander had them painted black, and then threatened to post a guard
at each location. An Army captain allegedly secretly photographed
female subordinates while they were showering in outside stalls.
The most serious riot, at Camp Vigilant, took place on the night of
November 23 when guards shot and killed four detainees. "The prisoners
were marching and yelling, 'Down with Bush,' and 'Bush is bad,'"
another Army review said. "They became violent and started throwing
rocks at the guards, both in the towers and at the rovers around the
wire..." Guards feared for their lives "the sky was black with rocks,"
the report saidand a mass breakout appeared imminent. The review of
the November riot cited the failure of guard commanders to post rules
of engagement for dealing with insurrections. Soldiers were hesitant
to shoot, and when they did shoot, they often didn t know whether they
were using lethal or non-lethal ammunition because they had mixed the
ammo in their shotguns.
Another classified annex reported that the prison complex was
seriously overcrowded, with detainees often held for months without
ever being interrogated. Detainees walked around in knee-deep mud,
"defecating and urinating all over the compounds," said Capt. James
Jones, commander of the 229th MP Battalion. "I don t know how there s
not rioting every day," he testified.
Among the more shocking exchanges revealed in the Taguba classified
annexes are a series of E-mails sent by Major David Dinenna of the
320th MP Battalion. The E-mails, sent in October and November to Major
William Green of the 800th MP Brigade, and copied to the higher chain
of command, show a quixotic attempt to simply get the detainees at Abu
Graib edible food. Dinenna pressed repeatedly for food that wouldn t
make prisoners vomit. He criticized the private food contractor for
shorting the facility on hundreds of meals a day, and for providing
food containing bugs, rats, and dirt.
"As each day goes by tension within the prison population increases,"
Dinenna wrote. "...Simple fixes, food, would help tremendously."
Instead of getting help, Major Green scolded him. "Who is making the
charges that there is dirt, bugs or what ever in the food?," Major
Green replied in an E-mail. "If it is the prisoners I would take it
with a grain of salt." Dinenna shot back: "Our MPs, Medics and field
surgeon can easily identify bugs, rats, and dirt, and they did."
Ultimately, the food contract was not renewed, an Army spokeswoman
says, although the contractor holds other contracts with the military.
Some officers told Taguba s staff that they believed the Abu Ghraib
mess had its roots in an earlier case at the Camp Bucca detention
center in southern Iraq last summer. The Army developed evidence that
MPs viciously attacked prisoners there, including one who had his face
smashed in. Four soldiers were given less than honorable discharges,
but were not prosecuted. Said one major who worked at Abu Ghraib: "I m
convinced that what happened [at Abu Ghraib] would never have happened
if" the Camp Bucca case had been prosecuted.
Media Contact: Richard Folkers, Director of Media Relations:
202-955-2219 or rfol...@usnews.com
Broadcast Contact: Deborah Sternberg of Goodman Media International:
212-576-2700, 917-921-1821 (wireless), or dster...@goodmanmedia.com.
Copyright © 2004 U.S. News & World Report, L.P. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and
Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
Subscribe | Text Index | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy | Contact
U.S. News | Advertise
save-our-democracy
=================================================
MORE > Last Updated: Thursday, 22 July, 2004, 16:25 GMT 17:25 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
US army reveals more jail abuse
==============================
The report was ordered when allegations about Abu Ghraib jail came to
light
The US military has found 94 cases of confirmed or alleged abuse of
prisoners by its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, a Senate hearing has
been told.
Though some cases have been reported before the number is
significantly higher than previously acknowledged.
But the report said no systemic problems contributed to the abuses.
The report was ordered after abuse allegations at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib
prison first came to the attention of senior army officials in
February.
The scandal erupted in April as images of Iraqi prisoners being
subjected to a wide range of abuses were shown on TV.
It resulted in seven members of the US military police being charged.
One of them, Jeremy Sivits, has been jailed for a year and discharged
from the service.
The scandal raised questions about abuses in other areas, such as
Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.
'Not representative'
==================
The hearing was called at short notice, so that senators could hear
the findings of the report, drawn up by the army inspector general,
before the chamber begins its summer recess on Friday.
The report said the cases included theft, physical assault, sexual
assault and death.
But it described them as unauthorised actions taken by individuals, in
some cases combined with the failure of a few leaders to provide
supervision and leadership.
"The abuses that have occurred are not representative of policy,
doctrine or soldier training," the report said.
However, the report later quoted a February report by the
International Red Cross Committee alleging that methods of ill
treatment were "used in a systematic way" by the US military in Iraq.
The BBC's Nick Childs at the Pentagon says the report is unlikely to
satisfy those who have criticised the military over abuse of
prisoners.
Senator Carl Levin, the senior Democrat on the armed services
committee, has already said it is difficult to believe there were not
systemic problems.
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
About the BBC
save-our-democracy
=============================================================================
AND....HALF OF BUSH'S CABINET IS "A MEMBER", AS
WELL AS "THE MEDIA".
HERE "ARE THE PEOPLE WHO "PUT" THE ARROGANT IDIOT
(BUSH JR)IN OFFICE.
BUSH HAS
"ALREADY PUBLICLY ADMITTED..."I GET ALL MY
INFORMATION FROM "MY LOYAL
STAFF",
I.E. BUSH IS "BEING TOLD ONLY WHAT THIS GROUP
"WANTS HIM TO KNOW" AND
THEN
"TELLS HIM WHAT TO DO"..BUSH IS TOO LAZY AND
STUPID TO "THINK FOR
HIMSELF",
AND EVERBODY WHO TWO GRAY CELLS WHO LISTENS TO
BUSH SPEAK, WITHOUT CUE
CARDS KNOWS IT..EVEN THE REPUBS "ADMIT THAT BUSH
HAS PROBLEMS "WITH
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE". BUSH JR. IS A "WILLING
STOOGE FOR THIS FASCIST
BROTHERHOOD" AND YOU
CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK; ONLY THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE DON'T KNOW
THIS..THE
AGAIN...THE REST OF THE WORLD DOES. DO A GOOGLE
SEARCH ON THIS GROUP
AND SEE
HOW OFTEN IT IS SPOKE OF, I.E. "PNAC AND GEORGE W
BUSH".
READ ABOUT IT AND COMPARE IT TO "THE EVENTS THAT
HAVE TAKEN PLACE
SINCE
BUSH TOOK OFFICE"..."THEY" HAVE "SUCCEEDED SO
FAR"...AND THE AMERICAN
MORONS WHO VOTE FOR BUSH, WILL INSURE THE "TOTAL
SCHEME WILL TAKE
PLACE".
THIS IS "NOT SOME KIND OF A RUMOR"...THIS "IS THE
FACTUAL TRUTH" AND
NONE
OF THESE PEOPLE DENY IT. BUTTT....IT IS A "TRUE
CONSPIRACY" TO TAKE
OVER THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND YOUR GOVERNMENT, DO YOU EVEN
"GIVE A DAMN".
SYLVIA
======
Subject: Project for the New American Century -
TEXT-WITH LINKS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
save-our-democracy
====================================================================
THEM...GO TO YOUR CONGRESS PERSON'S CAMPAIGN RALLY WHEN THE MEDIA IS
THERE AND "ASK THEM IF THEY VOTED ON THIS". SYLVIA
==============
THIS APPROPRIATION BILL HAS ALREADY PASSED THE
HOUSE AND IS ON
TO THE SENATE. I WISH THE MEDIA WOULD "LEARN HOW
TO "WRITE DOWN
THE BILL NUMBER SO WE, AMERICANS COULD PROTEST
THIS CLEARLY
ILLEGAL ACT, I.E. THE U.S. CODE-TITLE 18 MAKES
THIS ILLEGAL,
YET HERE ARE SO UP-RIGHT RELIGIOUS S.O.B.'S ARE,
"USING OUR
TAX-PAYER MONEY TO "PAY FOR THE TRAINING OF
TERRORISTS TORTURING,
RAPING AND MURDERING, INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS,
WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY
"WELL DOCUMENTED".
THERE SHOULD BE NO DOUBT IN ANY AMERICAN'S MIND
THAT "AMERICA
=============================================================
TRULY HAS A FASCIST GOVERNMENT", WHICH I HAVE
BEEN STATING FOR
============================================================
THE PAST 3 YEARS, YET YOU DO "NOTHING"; THAT
MAKES YOU AN
==========================================================
ACCOMPLICE TO MURDER...SINCE YOU HAVE "NOW BEEN
TOLD THAT IT
===========================================================
IS HAPPENING AND YOUR MONEY IS BEING USED TO DO
IT. SYLVIA
==========================================================
Teaching Torture:
================
You have to wonder how much Congress really
worries about Iraqi prison
torture, especially after last week's approval of
funding for
the School of the Americas, where torture stars
in the curriculum. BY
DOUG IRELAND
JULY 23 - 29, 2004
Teaching Torture
===============
Congress quietly keeps School of the Americas
alive
==================================================
by Doug Ireland
Remember how congressional leaders on both sides
of the aisle deplored
the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib as
"un-American"?
Last Thursday, however, the House quietly passed
a renewed
appropriation that
=============================================================================
keeps open the U.S.'s most infamous
torture-teaching
institution,
================================================================
known as the "School of the Americas" (SOA),
where the illegal
physical and
===========================================================================
psychological abuse of prisoners of the kind the
world condemned at
Abu Ghraib
==============================================================================
and worse has been routinely taught for years.
=============================================
A relic of the Cold War, the SOA was originally
set up to train
military, police and intelligence officers of
U.S. allies south of the
border in the fight against insurgencies
Washington labeled
"Communist."
In reality, the SOA's graduates have been:
=========================================
(1)the shock troops of political repression,
(2)propping up a string of dictatorial and
repressive regimes
favored by the Pentagon.
========================
The interrogation manuals long used at the SOA
were made public in May
by
=========================================================================
the "National Security Archive",
================================
an independent research group, and
posted on its Web site after they were
declassified following Freedom
of Information Act requests by, among others, the
Baltimore Sun.
In releasing the manuals, the NSA noted that they
"describe
‘coercive techniques' such as those used to
mistreat the
detainees at Abu Ghraib."
The Abu Ghraib torture techniques have been
field-tested by SOA
graduates —"seven of the U.S. Army interrogation
manuals"
=============================================
that were translated into Spanish,
used at the SOA's trainings and distributed to
our allies,
offered instruction on torture, beatings and
assassination.
As Dr. Miles Schuman,
a physician with the
"Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture"
who has documented torture cases and counseled
their victims,
graphically wrote in the May 14 Toronto Globe and
Mail
under the headline "Abu Ghraib: The Rule, Not the
Exception":
============================================================
"The black hood covering the faces of naked
prisoners in Abu
Ghraib was known as "la capuchi" in Guatemalan
and Salvadoran torture
chambers.
The metal bed frame to which the naked and hooded
detainee was bound
in a crucifix position in Abu Ghraib was "la
cama",
named for a former Chilean prisoner who survived
the U.S.-installed regime of General Augusto
Pinochet.
======================================================
In her case, electrodes were attached to her
arms, legs and genitalia,
just as they were attached to the Iraqi detainee
poised on a box,
threatened with electrocution if he fell off.
The Iraqi man bound naked on the ground with a
leash attached to his
neck, held by a smiling young American recruit,
reminds me of the son
of peasant organizers who recounted his agonizing
torture at:
the hands of the Tonton Macoutes,
U.S.-backed dictator John-Claude (Baby Doc)
Duvalier's
=====================================================
right-hand thugs, in Port-au-Prince in 1984.
The very act of photographing those tortured in
Abu Ghraib to
humiliate and silence parallels the experience of
an:
American missionary,
Sister Diana Ortiz,"
who was tortured and gang-raped repeatedly
==========================================
under supervision by an American in 1989,
========================================
according to her testimony before the
Congressional Human Rights
Caucus.
========================================================================
The long history of torture by U.S.-trained thugs
==================================================
in Latin and Central America
under the command of SOA graduates
has also been capaciously documented by
human-rights organizations
like
Amnesty International (in its 2002 report titled
=================================================
"Unmatched Power, Unmet Principles")
====================================
and in books like:
A.J. Langguth's Hidden Terrors,
==============================
William Blum's Rogue State
=========================
and Lawrence Weschler's A Miracle, a Universe.
==============================================
In virtually every report on human-rights abuses
from Latin America,
SOA graduates are prominent.
A U.N. "Truth Commission" report said that:
===========================================
over two-thirds of the Salvadoran officers it
cites for abuses are SOA
======================================================================
graduates.
========
Forty percent of the Cabinet members
===================================
under three sanguinary Guatemalan dictatorships
were SOA graduates.
===================================================================
And the list goes on . . .
In 2000,
========
the Pentagon engaged in a smoke-screen attempt to
give the SOA a
face-lift
==============================================
by changing its name to the:
"Western Hemispheric Institute for Security
Cooperation (WHINSEC)"
=================================================================
as part of a claimed "reform" program.
But, as the late GOP Senator Paul Coverdale of
Georgia (where
SOA-WHINSEC is located) said at the time,
the changes to the school were "basically
cosmetic."
===================================================
The lobbying campaign to close SOA-WHINSEC has
been led by
"School of the Americas Watch",
founded by religious activists
after the 1990s murder of
=========================
four U.S. nuns
===============
by Salvadoran death squads
under command of one of SOA's most infamous
graduates,
======================================================
Colonel Roberto D'Aubuisson.
==========================
Lest you think that the school's links to
atrocities are all in
the distant past, SOA Watch has documented a raft
of recent scandals
postdating the Pentagon's chimerical "reform."
Here
are just a few of them:
=============================
In June 2001,
=============
Colonel Byron Lima Estrada,
==========================
an SOA grad who was head of Guatemala's bloody
D-2 intelligence
unit,
was convicted of Guatemalan Bishop Gerardi's
murder by
bludgeoning —
==================================================================
two days after the bishop released a report
concluding that
============================================================
the army was responsible for a majority of the
200,000 killed in his
country's
=============================================================================
civil war.
In April 2002,
================
two SOA graduates
(Army Commander in Chief Efrain Vasquez and
General Ramirez Poveda)
helped lead a failed coup in Venezuela.
=======================================
The notorious Otto Reich,
========================
a failed Bush-administration appointee
=====================================
who sat on the renamed school's "Board of
Visitors",
met with the generals in the months preceding the
coup.
======================================================
In June 2002,
=============
Colombian police arrested SOA graduate, John
Fredy Jimenez
for the murder of Archbishop Isaias Duarte in
March of that year.
================================================================
In 2002,
========
Bolivian Captain Filiman Rodriguez
took a 49-week officer-training course at
WHINSEC.
But in 1999,
===========
he'd been found responsible for the kidnapping
and torture of
Waldo Albarracin, then director of the
Popular Assembly for Human Rights,
by a commission of the Bolivian Chamber of
Deputies.
In 2003,
=========
Salvadoran Colonel Francisco del Cid Diaz
was a student at WHINSEC.
But the colonel commanded a unit that
shot 16 residents from the Los Hojas cooperative
of
================================================
the Asociacion Nacional de Indígenas and
threw their bodies into the river in 1983.
In 1992,
=======
the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
recommended prosecution of Col. Cid Diaz for the
murders.
Representative Jim McGovern (D-Mass.)
=====================================
has spearheaded opposition in the House to
SOA-WHINSEC,
======================================================
but his "amendment to the "Foreign Operations"
appropriation
killing money for the school
(which had 128 co-sponsors)
===========================
was withdrawn at the eleventh hour last week
after a bipartisan agreement limited the number
of amendments
==============================================================
that could come to the House floor.
==================================
The last chance for killing the school's money
this year now
rests with the
==========================================================================
Senate —
=======
but when we called Senators Boxer and Feinstein,
past SOA critics, to ask them what they planned
to do,
the response was a deafening silence from their
offices.
=======================================================
In light of "SOA Watch's" extensive lobbying,
============================================
our elected representatives can't claim they
don't know
=======================================================
of the school's record on torture.
=================================
So this episode calls to mind Mark Twain's
observation that
"there is no distinct, native American criminal
class —
except Congress."
=======================================================================
SOA Watch has called a mass vigil/protest for
November 19 through 21
at the
===========================================================================
school's home in Fort Benning, Georgia,
========================================
expected to be led by Academy Award winner Susan
Sarandon and
Dead Man Walking author Sister Helen Prejean.
E-mail this story to a friend.
save-our-democracy
===========================================
UNLIKE EVERYTHING THAT BUSH AND HIS MOUTH-PIECES HAVE TOLD THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, BUSH, HIMSELF WAS PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN "TORTURE
TECHNIQUES" AS FAR BACK AS AUGUST 1, 2002...SO HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN
"SURPRISED" BY THE DISCLOSURE OF TORTURE TAKING PLACE WITH THE PEOPLE
WHO BECAME "HIS PRISONERS".
THE TELLING PART ABOUT ALL OF THIS IS THAT JOHN ASHCROFT, "AGAIN"
================================================================
REFUSES TO TURN OVER THIS "MEMO", WHICH WAS "NOT CLASSIFIED".
===========================================================
AGAIN,
"THIS SECRET SOCIETY OF CLEAR FASCIST TACTICS", IS COMPARABLE TO
HITLER'S POLICY AND PROCEDURES.
CLEARLY BUSH'S HIRING OF A PRIVATE ATTORNEY "IS NEEDED"..HE MUST SEE
THE WRITING ON THE WALL, THAT HE CAN BE CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL
INDICTMENTS (VIOLATION OF U.S. LAWS AND CONSTITUTION FOR IMPEACHMENT,
AS WELL AS CRIMINALLY, UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAWS.
WHAT MORE WILL WE LEARN AND WILL IT BE TO LATE? SYLVIA
=========================================
washingtonpost.com > World > Middle East > Iraq > Abu Ghraib Prison
Memo on Torture Draws Focus to Bush
***********************************
Aide Says President Set Guidelines for Interrogations, Not Specific
===================================================================
Techniques
============
By Mike Allen and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page A03
The disclosure that the Justice Department advised the White House in
2002 that the torture of al Qaeda terrorist suspects might be legally
defensible has focused new attention on the role President Bush played
in setting the rules for interrogations in the war on terrorism.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said yesterday that Bush
set broad guidelines, rather than dealing with specific techniques.
"While we will seek to gather intelligence from al Qaeda terrorists
who seek to inflict mass harm on the American people, the president
expects that we do so in a way that is consistent with our laws,"
McClellan said.
White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales said in a May 21 interview
with The Washington Post:
"Anytime a discussion came up about interrogations with the president,
. . .
=====================================================================
the directive was, 'Make sure it is lawful. Make sure it meets all of
our obligations under the Constitution, U.S. federal statutes and
applicable treaties.' "
An Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal
Counsel,
**************************************************************************
addressed to Gonzales, said that:
torturing suspected al Qaeda members abroad "may be justified" and
that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional" if
applied to
===========================================================
interrogation" conducted against suspected terrorists.
The document provided "legal guidance for the CIA", which crafted new,
====================================================================
"more aggressive techniques" for its "operatives in the field."
=============================================================
McClellan called the memo a historic or scholarly review of laws and
conventions
concerning torture.
"The memo was not prepared to provide advice on specific methods or
techniques," he said. "It was analytical."
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft yesterday refused senators' requests
to make public the memo, which is not classified, and
would not discuss any possible involvement of the president.
=========================================================
In the view expressed by the Justice Department memo, which differs
from the view of the Army, physical torture "must be equivalent in
intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as
organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."
For a cruel or inhuman psychological technique to rise to the level of
mental torture, the Justice Department argued,
the psychological harm must last "months or even years."
=======================================================
A former senior administration official involved in discussions about
CIA interrogation techniques said Bush's aides knew he wanted them to
=====================================================================
take an aggressive approach.
==========================
"He felt very keenly that his primary responsibility was to do
everything within his power to keep the country safe, and he was not
concerned with appearances or politics or hiding behind lower-level
officials," the official said. "That is not to say he was ready to
authorize stuff that would be contrary to law. The whole reason for
having the careful legal reviews that went on was to ensure he was not
doing that."
The August memo was written in response to a CIA request for legal
=======================================================
guidance in the months after Sept. 11, 2001, as agency operatives
began to detain and interrogate key al Qaeda leaders.
The fact that the memo was signed by Jay S. Bybee,
===============================================
head of the Office Legal Counsel,
who has since become a federal judge, and
====================================
is 50 pages long indicates
that the issue was treated as a significant matter.
"Given the topic and length of opinion, it had to get pretty
high-level attention," said Beth Nolan, commenting on the process that
was in place when she was President Bill Clinton's White House
counsel, from 1999 to 2001, and, previously, when she was a lawyer in
the Office of Legal Counsel.
Unlike documents signed by deputies in the Office of Legal Counsel,
which are generally considered by federal agencies as advice,
a "memorandum written by the head of the office"
is considered akin to a legally binding document,
said another former Office of Legal Counsel lawyer.
The former administration official said:
the CIA "was prepared to get more aggressive and
===============================================
re-learn old skills",
===================
but only with explicit assurances from the top that
==============================================
they were doing so with the full legal authority the president
could confer on them."
Critics familiar with the August 2002 memo and another,
similar legal opinion given by the
"Defense Department's office of general counsel" in March 2003
=============================================================
assert that government lawyers were trying to find a legal
==========================================================
justification for actions -- torture or cruel and inhumane acts --
===============================================================
that are:
"clearly illegal under U.S. and international law."
=================================================
"This is painful, incorrect analysis,"
said Scott Norton,
chairman of the international law committee
of the New York City Bar Association,
which has produced an extensive report on Pentagon detentions and
interrogations.
"A lawyer is permitted to craft all sorts of wily
arguments about why a statute doesn't apply" to a defendant, he said.
"But a lawyer cannot advocate committing a criminal act
prospectively."
=====================================================================
The August 2002 memo from the Justice Department concluded that:
"laws outlawing torture do not bind Bush"
because of his constitutional authority to conduct a military
campaign.
"As Commander in Chief,
=====================
the President has the "constitutional authority to order
interrogations"
of "enemy combatants" to gain intelligence information concerning the
military plans of the enemy,"
said the memo, obtained by The Washington Post.
Critics say that "this misstates the law", and
that it ignores key legal decisions, such as
the landmark 1952 Supreme Court ruling in
Youngstown Steel and Tube Co v. Sawyer, which said
that the president, even in wartime, must abide by established U.S.
laws.
========================================================================
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms and Conditions - Posting Style Guide - Posting FAQ
©2002 Google
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Google Home - Advertising Programs - Business Solutions - About Google
©2004 Google
save-our-democracy
======================================================
BUSH'S "TOP LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,JOHN ASHCROFT,
IS OBVIOUSLY OF NO HELP TO HIM, IN FACT, ONE COULD SAY
A "REAL LIABILITY", BASED ON HIS UNBELIEVABLY "IRRELEVANT AND
INCOMPETENT ANSWERS TO CONGRESS" (BELOW)
ALL OF THE RIGHT-WING RADIO SHOWS I HEARD OVER THE WEEKEND (APX 7)
WERE ALL TALKING ABOUT BUSH PICKING A "NEW VICE PRESIDENT" FOR THE
2004 ELECTION. CHENEY HAS CLEARLY BECOME A "LIABILITY" BY STILL
SPEWING THAT IRAQ HAS WMD; HIS INVOLVEMENT IN PHONEYING-UP CIA
INTELLGENCE REPORTS; HIS STAFF SUSPECTED OF "ILLEGALLY DEVULGING A CIA
AGENT; HIS INVOLVEMENT IN "IRAQ CONTRACTS, SPECIFICALLY THOSE THAT
WENT TO HALLIBURTON AND IT'S SUBSIDIARIES".
WHEN ASKED MANY TIMES IN THE PAST TWO MONTHS ON T.V. IF HE PLANS ON
RUNNING WITH BUSH...HE SAID "HE MOST CERTAINLY WOULD, IF BUSH WANTED
HIM". CLEARLY, THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN...AND BUSH IS GOING TO HAVE
TO DECIDE WHAT HE WANTS TO DO WITH "ASHCROFT AND RUMSFELD"....BUT..AS
I STATED EARLIER, "I THINK IT WILL ALL BOIL DOWN TO... "THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY CUTTING OUT THE ENTIRE CANCER TO SAVE THE PARTY...I.E. TO "RUN
ANOTHER CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT, I.E. "NOT TO NOMINATE BUSH AS THEIR
REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THE SO-CALLED REPUBLICAN,
JOHN CAIN, "IS GOING TO BE THAT CANDIDATE". HE HAS BEEN "UP FRONT AND
VERY PERSONAL IN HIS ATTACKS "AGAINST BUSH & CO" ON MANY OF THESE
FASCIST PROGRAMS, BUT HE IS ON RECORD OF SUPPORTING THE INVASION INTO
IRAQ...BUT, OF COURSE, HE..LIKE ALL THE REST CAN CLAIM..."WE WERE
CONNED BY BUSH & CO".
=========================
-----------------
U.S.'s Ashcroft Won't Release or Discuss Torture
Memo (Update2)
***************************************************************
June 8 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Attorney General John
Ashcroft, warned that
he might be risking a contempt citation from
Congress, told lawmakers
he won't release or discuss memoranda that news
reports say offered
justification for torturing suspected terrorists.
Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary
Committee asked Ashcroft
about reports in the Wall Street Journal, the
Washington Post and the
New York Times that the Justice Department
advised the White House in
2002 and 2003 that it might not be bound by U.S.
and international
laws prohibiting torture.
Ashcroft said he wouldn't reveal advice he gave
to President George W.
Bush or
******************************************************************************
discuss it with Congress.
************************
``The president has a right to hear advice from
his attorney general,
in confidence,'' Ashcroft said.
He also refused to answer whether he personally
believes torture can
be
**********************************************************************
justified under certain circumstances.
************************************
The Washington Post, citing one Justice
Department memo, said
government lawyers told the White House in August
2002 that torturing
captured al-Qaeda members abroad may be justified
in the war on
terrorism.
Executive Privilege
*******************
Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat,
challenged Ashcroft to say
whether he was invoking executive privilege in
refusing to give
Congress the Justice Department memos.
Ashcroft said he wasn't invoking executive
privilege.
*****************************************************
``You might be in contempt of Congress, then,''
Biden replied.
*************************************************************
``You have to have a reason. You better come up
with a good
rationale.''
**********************************************************************
Later, Senator Richard Durbin, an Illinois
Democrat, said Ashcroft had
to cite a federal statute to justify not sharing
the requested
information.
Ashcroft replied that his refusal was ``protected
by the doctrine of
separation
********************************************************************************
of powers in the Constitution.''
****************************
Durbin shot back, ``You are not citing a law.''
************************
Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican and
chairman of the committee,
asked
**************************************
Ashcroft whether the memos in question are
classified.
******************************************************
After consulting with staff members, Ashcroft
replied,
``Some of these memos might be classified in some
ways, and for some
purposes.''
Durbin called that answer ``an evasion.''
***************************************
Prison Photographs
-----------------
Senator Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat,
held up copies of
some of the photographs that have been released
that depict abuses
against inmates at Abu Ghraib prison near
Baghdad.
Seven U.S. military police soldiers have been
charged in the abuses.
``This is what directly results when you have
that kind of memoranda
out
************************************************************************
there,'' Kennedy said.
*****
Ashcroft denied any link between the
administration's deliberations
and the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
``The kind of atrocities'' depicted in the
photographs ``are being
prosecuted by this administration,'' he said.
``They are being investigated by this
administration.
"They are rejected by this administration.''
``This administration rejects torture,'' Ashcroft
said.
*************************************
Bush ``has not directed or ordered any conduct
that would violate the
Constitution of the United States,'' any U.S.
laws or any
international treaties, he said.
Ashcroft challenged the lawmakers on whether
their questions were
appropriate.
****************************************************************************
``We are at war,'' Ashcroft said.
***************
``And for us to begin to discuss all the legal
ramifications of the
war is not
******************************************************************************
in our best interest, and it has never been in
times of war.''
************************************************************
Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican,
told Ashcroft that
*********************************************************
``you are wise'' not to offer an opinion ``on the
absolute,
*********************************************************
ultimate power of a president of the United
States
*************************************************
to protect the people of this country.''
**************************************
To contact the reporter on this story:
Laurence Arnold in Washington
larn...@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Glenn Hall at gh...@bloomberg.net
save-our-democracy
================================================================
Bush's secret justice hauled into the dock
******************************************
The Supreme Court is expected to uphold civil liberties
=====================================================
eroded by the 'war on terror',
============================
reports Paul Harris
Sunday June 13, 2004
The Observer
Its rulings have defined some of the most momentous events in US
history, from school desegregation to abortion rights.
Now the Supreme Court is to examine conditions at the controversial
Guantánamo Bay prison camp and question some of the fundamental
principles of George Bush's 'war on terror'.
In the next fortnight observers believe the court will deal a massive
blow to an administration already reeling from the Iraqi prisoner
abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison, and which has endured
international outcry over the sprawling Guantánamo Bay prison, whose
700 inmates are held without charge or access to lawyers.
'These sorts of decisions come around for the court maybe once every
20 years. This is very big stuff,' said Professor Bill Banks, a
Supreme Court expert at Syracuse University.
Of the three crucial cases, two involve the treatment of so-called
'enemy combatants' and one challenges the status of Guantánamo Bay
itself.
It will deliver its verdicts by the end of June at the latest, and
possibly as early as this week.
The Guantánamo Bay case involves several plaintiffs, including Britons
who were released earlier this year.
Inmates held at the prison camp, which has been condemned by human
rights groups and governments around the world,
have no access to lawyers and face trials in military tribunals.
****************************************************************
The tribunals take place in secret and there is no right of appeal.
*****************************************************************
So far only three inmates have been charged, even though many have
been there for more than two years.
***********************
Yet the Bush administration has resisted all attempts to challenge
conditions
**************************
at Guantánamo because it says the base is theoretically on Cuban
territory.
************************************************
The Supreme Court is likely to reject that argument.
**************************************************
'It is almost inevitable that [the court] will find against the
administration,' said Professor Lee Albert of the University of
Buffalo. That could prompt many more suits in the US as lawyers acting
on behalf of Guantánamo detainees register complaints about their
treatment there.
In the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, the issue could be hugely
damaging.
It is widely believed that many of the techniques used in the Iraqi
jail were devised by staff originally based at Guantánamo Bay.
British prisoners released from the prison alleged systematic torture.
**********************************************************************
Steven Watt, a lawyer for the New York-based Centre for Constitutional
Rights, said it expected many requests to represent detainees if the
court rules that the jail comes under US jurisdiction.
On a recent visit to Yemen, the birthplace of many of the detainees,
the CCR collected statements from 40 people.
The other two cases focus on one of the central tenets of the war on
terror:
****************************************************************************
the ability to declare suspects 'enemy combatants' and hold them
indefinitely
**************************************************
without trial or lawyers.
'In effect, President Bush declared [that] the whole world was a
battlefield in
********************************************************************************
this war, and so anyone detained as a terrorist anywhere could be
declared an
********************************************************************************
enemy combatant and just locked away,' said Watt.
**************************************
The two cases both involve US citizens, Jose Padilla and Yasser Hamdi.
Hamdi was caught fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Padilla
was arrested in America and accused of plotting terrorist attacks in
the US.
Both men are locked up indefinitely in US military custody.
***********************************************************
Experts believe that the Supreme Court will grant some legal rights
and process to the men, including access to lawyers and a demand that
the two men have some form of legal hearing.
The status of 'enemy combatant' will effectively be abolished.
*************************************************************
That will come as a victory for critics of the government, who have
voiced fears over erosion of civil liberties.
Officials have said they need such extreme powers to fight terrorism.
********************************************************************
But critics have said such a war has no foreseeable end.
'They have bent laws and gone too far,' said Banks.
If the court rules against the government it will come as another blow
to a Bush re-election campaign that has endured a disastrous few
months.
Bush's numbers have slumped in the polls;
a Los Angeles Times poll last week put Democratic challenger John
Kerry ahead of the President by 51 per cent to 44 per cent.
Bush's approval ratings have fallen to all-time lows.
However, the Supreme Court's decisions cannot be taken for granted.
'We simply do not know for sure, no matter what we think in private,'
said Albert.
If the court announces shock rulings that support the government, it
would
**************************************************************************
represent a huge erosion of US civil liberties, say critics.
**********************************************************
'If that happens, then God help us all,' said Banks.
**************************************
Special reports
Guantanamo Bay
Al-Qaida
United States
Useful links
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights
Centre for Constitutional Rights
Office of Military Commissions
Observer sections _______________________
BusinessCashCommentFocusInternationalLeadersLettersLifePoliticsReviewScreenSportTravelUK
newsSport MonthlyFood Monthly2001 electionPress freedom campaign
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
save-our-democracy
=======
LEGAL "TORTURE" OPINION...RESIGNS. PRISON OFFICER SAYS HE "FELT HEAT"
FROM "WHITE HOUSE AND PENTAGON".
==================
NOTE THE RESIGNATION OF THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, GOLDSMITH
WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE "LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS OF TORTURE, ETC".
ALSO MORE VIDEOS AND AUDIOS PHOTOS/TAPES.
THE PREZ AND RUMSFELD ARE IN BIG TROUBLE NOW. AT LEAST 5 LAWSUITS AND
MANY MORE INVESTIGATIONS....THE C.I.A. IS BEHIND MUCH OF THE
"REPORTING OF THESE CRIMES"....AS I STATED EARLIER...ONCE BUSH & CO.
EXPOSED ONE OF THEIR AGENTS, VLARIE PLAME, BECAUSE HER HUSBAND (JOE
WILSON) EXPOSED BUSH'S LIES...THE GLOVES CAME OFF FROM THE C.I.A.
"AGENTS"...NOT THE DIRECTOR (TENENT) WHO WAS FORCED TO RESIGN, HIS
DAMN SELF...I THINK THERE IS MUCH MORE TO COME. SYLVIA
=========================
Subject: 6-18-04-Prison Officer Says He Felt Heat from White House &
Pentagon
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/30/iraq/main614905.shtml
save-our-democracy
=======================================
White House Mounts Abuse Defense
********************************
WASHINGTON, June 22, 2004
It's important to set the record straight."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan
(CBS/AP) The White House has decided to release a thick file of papers
documenting its internal deliberations on rules for interrogating
prisoners in facilities from Abu Ghraib in Iraq to Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba.
The two-inch stack of papers was to be released late Tuesday. It is
intended to counter what White House aides fear is a growing
perception that the administration authorized torture as an
interrogation technique.
"We believe it's important for the American people to have an accurate
picture of the policies that we put in place and an accurate picture
of the techniques that were approved by the Pentagon. It's important
to set the record straight," said White House spokesman Scott
McClellan.
President Bush "has never and has no intention of ever" authorizing
torture in questioning prisoners, McClellan said.
"The president recognizes that his most important responsibility to
the American people is their safety and security," McClellan said. "We
are a nation that is at war but we are also a nation of laws and the
president expects our government to comply with laws and our treaty
obligations."
White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales intended to brief reporters
on the documents.
The documents are meant to show "the White House's deliberative
process" in arriving at rules for complying with the Geneva Convention
and rules on interrogation techniques, one senior official said,
requesting anonymity on grounds that Gonzales was to talk on the
record later Tuesday.
The administration decided to release the papers to fight the
"constant drip on this issue" — a continuous stream of leaks and
accusations that the administration had stepped outside the bounds of
international law, the official said. "Everyone reached the conclusion
that the administration had authorized torture," he said.
The official, saying the United States is facing a new kind of war
with an enemy that does not respect or operate under the rules of the
Geneva Convention, pointed to the kidnapping and beheading of American
civilian engineer Paul M. Johnson Jr. in Saudi Arabia last week. The
papers being released Tuesday show that the White House and other
agencies are wrestling with "how best to address that foe," one
official said.
Three months after a get-tough U.S. general took command of the
Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects, prisoners began a flurry of
suicide attempts, according to military records.
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller took over as commander at Guantanamo in
November 2002 after interrogators criticized his predecessor for being
too solicitous for the detainees' welfare.
Between January and March 2003, 14 prisoners at Guantanamo tried to
kill themselves, according to Pentagon figures. That's more than 40
percent of the 34 suicide attempts by 21 inmates since the prison was
opened in January 2002.
Miller is now in charge of all military-run U.S. prisons in Iraq, a
job he took after news broke of beatings and sexual humiliations last
fall at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.
Miller had visited Abu Ghraib in August and September and recommended
interrogation techniques that military lawyers said had to be modified
to comply with the Geneva Conventions on treating prisoners of war.
Human rights groups say the suicide attempts at Guantanamo Bay may be
evidence that conditions there amounted to torture.
The White House documents cover a period of several months and were
generated by several agencies, including the Department of Justice.
One set of papers alone spans 50 pages.
Among the papers are some that have already been seen by the public,
including previously confidential memos in which Justice Department
lawyers concluded that Taliban and al Qaeda fighters are not protected
by the Geneva Conventions governing the treatment of prisoners of war
because they do not satisfy four main conditions of the treaty itself.
Democrats criticized those memos as laying the legal foundation for
Iraqi prisoner abuses, but administration officials said they were
aimed mainly at showing that international treaties banning torture do
not apply to al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners.
At a June 10 news conference, Mr. Bush sidestepped questions about
whether he had seen or authorized the Justice Department papers.
"The authorization I issued was that anything we did would conform to
U.S. law and would be consistent with international treaty
obligations. That's the message I gave our people," Mr. Bush said in
Savannah, Ga. "I can't remember if I've seen the memo or not, but I
gave those instructions."
That memo, which surfaced earlier this month, intensified criticism
save-our-democracy
===================================
LET US "NOT FORGET" THAT BUSH'S "TOP COP", I.E. THE U.S. ATTORNEY
GENERAL,AND BUSH'S SELF-APPOINTED "PRESIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVISOR"
"KNOWS" WHAT OUR U.S. CONSTITUTION SAYS,
****************************************
AND GOD ONLY KNOWS, THE "OTHER HUNDREDS OF SO-CALLED LEGAL ADVISORS IN
"BOTH DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW",
"TOLD BUSH" WHAT HE COULD DO WITH THESE "SO-CALLED
PRISONERS/DETAINEES, OR WHATEVER OTHER "WORD" FIT THEIR FANTASY, SO AS
TO JUSTIFY:
(1)NO CHARGES BEING MADE;
(2)NO ABILITY FOR THEM TO COMMUNICATE WITH "ANYONE", INCLUDING A
LAWYER;
(3)HELD UNTIL BUSH & CO. "WANTED TO, AT THEIR LEISURE"..RELEASE THEM;
AND
(4)TORTURE THEM FOR "ANY INFORMATION" THEY "THOUGHT THEY MIGHT HAVE".
THERE "IS NO QUESTION "WHAT THESE DOCUMENTS "SAY" AND "MEAN",
YET...BUSH'S FASCISTS, ACT AS THOUGH "THEY WERE SO CONFUSED WITH "THE
LANGUAGE OF THE LAW" THEY JUST HAD TO "COME UP WITH "THEIR OWN
INTERPRETATION OF
IT", WHICH..THEY "ACTUALLY SAID" AND I POSTED "ON THIS THREAD", I.E.
"THAT THEY (PRESIDENT & HENCHMEN" WILL DECIDE "HOW TO INTERPRET THESE
LAWS AND TREATIES".
NOW THAT, AMERICANS PUTS "YOU" IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS THOSE IN THESE
CASES, "IF" BUSH & CO. "WANTS YOU IN PRISON".
SECONDLY, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS MAKING "THEIR RULING
BASED ON THE U.S. "BEING AT WAR"...WHEN IT IS "VERY CLEAR" THAT THE
U.S. "IS NOT AT WAR", IT (BUSH & HENCHMEN" ILLEGALLY "INVADED A
COUNTRY", WHICH ACT, "IS ONE OF A "TERRORIST NATION"...YET "YOUR
HIGHEST COURT IN THIS COUNTRY" HAS "REFUSED TO EVEN ADDRESS THIS "MOST
FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL ISSUE"..
I.E. "THE COURT (ANY U.S. COURT) CAN NOT, "PROTECT THE ACTIONS OF
GOVERNMENT" WHEN IT WAS INVOLVED IN A "CRIMINAL ACTION". I.E. "THESE
COURT DECISIONS (BOTH STATE FEDERAL COURTS (LOWER COURTS) AND THE
"SUPREME COURT" ARE TREATING THESE CASES AS "CIVIL RIGHTS CASES", I.E.
THE "PRISONER "PERSON" VS THE "ACTS OF U.S. GOVERNMENT". BY "LINKING",
AS JUSTICE O'CONNELL HAS THROUGH HER "PUBLIC AND MUST BE "WRITTEN"
DECISION, OF "THESE ACTS TAKING PLACE "WHILE THE U.S. IS AT "WAR",
KNOWING THAT "THIS IS NOT THE CASE", I.E. "THIS WAS A GOVERNMENT
MANIPULATED FRAUD AND VIOLATION
OF "ALL INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND U.S LAW",
SHE, AS WELL AS THE OTHER SO-CALLED "SUPREME COURT JUSTICES" HAVE,
THEMSELVES, PROVEN THAT "THEY HAVE VIOLATED THEIR "OATH OF OFFICE" AND
CAN BE
THROWN OUT FOR "MALFEASANCE" (THE DOING OF AN ACT WHICH IS "WRONGFUL
AND UNLAWFUL; A WRONGFUL ACT WHICH THE ACTOR "HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO
DO"...AS ANY WRONGFUL "CONDUCT" WHICH AFFECTS, INTERRUPTS, OR
INTERFERES WITH "THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY"; AS AN ACT FOR
WHICH "THERE IS "NO AUTHORITY" OR "WARRANT OF LAW"; AS AN ACT WHICH A
"PERSON OUGHT NOT TO DO AT ALL".
97 S.E.2D 33, 42.
THESE "ACTS" BY THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ARE ALSO COVERED BY
"MISFEASANCE"
(THE DOING OF AN ACT IN "A WRONGUL OR INJURIOUS MANNER"; THE "IMPROPER
PERFORMANCE OF AN ACT "WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN "LAWFULLY DONE".
=========
IN STILL OTHER WORDS...OUR ENTIRE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS "CORRUPT FROM TOP
TO BOTTOM" AND MUST BE "ELIMINATED", STARTING WITH THE IMMEDIATE
IMPEACHMENT OF ALL OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WHO "MADE THEIR
DECISIONS BASED ON A "WAR TIME SCENARIO". OF COURSE, BUSH AND HIS
SO-CALLED "TOP LAW
EFORCEMENT OFFICER", A.G. JOHN ASHCROFT, AND RUMSFELD (WHO WAS THE ONE
WHO IS REALLY BEHIND THESE ILLEGAL ACTS", SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY
INCARCERATED FOR THESE
"KNOWN AND INTENTIONALLY PERPETRATED CRIMES".
I'M TELLING YOU, AMERICANS THAT "NO ONE IS SAFE" BECAUSE IT IS
CLEAR..."NO LAW EXISTS UNDER "THIS ADMINISTRATION THUS THERE "IS NO
LAW IN THE U.S. TO PROTECT US CITIZENS", BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE A
FULL-FLEDGED FASCIST GOVERNMENT, AND IT IS JUST "A MATTER OF TIME
"BEFORE" YOU WILL BE A "VICTIM" OF ANYTHING THEY WANT TO DO "TO YOU".
THE PATRIOT ACT I AND II WAS JUST THE BEGINNING AND WE CAN NOW SEE HOW
FAR THESE FASCISTS WILL GO TO CONTROL US. WE "WERE WARNED", BUT PER
USUAL, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE SHEEP AND DID NOTHING AND SAID
NOTHING.
MOSTLY BECAUSE, THEY WERE "TOO LAZY" TO GET "INFORMED" AND ARE
CERTAINLY NOT NOT READING ANY OF THIS EITHER.
AND...YOU BUSH SUPPORTERS DO YOU STILL "WANT THIS FASCIST
ADMINISTRATION TO STAY IN OFFICE"? THEN CLEARLY "YOU NEED TO BECOME "A
VICTIM OF IT "NOW", SINCE OTHING SHORT OF "BEING IMPRISONED WHERE YOU
CAN GET "FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE" WILL YOU FINALLY "MAKE THE TIME TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE HELL HAS BEEN GOING ON". SYLVIA &:O
===========
Home Issues 7/12/04
Nation & World
A bit of clarity from the court
********************************
Last week's landmark Supreme Court decisions left enough wiggle room
for each side to claim at least a modicum of victory.
In ruling that President Bush has the right to detain "enemy
combatants"
in the "war on terrorism",
the court also delivered a stinging rebuke to his administration by
making
==========================================================================
clear that those "suspected terrorists" must have "access to U.S.
courts."
======================================================================
Look next for a "blizzard of legal motions and countermotions"
as attorneys for some "600 prisoners" at the U.S. Navy base at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and
a couple of prominent detainees held in a Navy brig in South Carolina
contest their clients' detentions.
It will be up to "federal judges" to figure out how the detainees will
get
=========================================================================
their day in court.
=================
The court's rulings (SUPREME COURT), in "three separate but related
cases",
are likely to stand as among its most important in defining the power
of the executive branch "during wartime".
================================
A narrow majority said "the president can label U.S. citizens"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"enemy combatants" and detain them.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But in the same case, the court ruled 6 to 3, that
Louisiana-born Yaser Hamdi--seized in Afghanistan--
============= =====================
has the right to legally challenge his detention.
==============================================
In another 6-to-3 vote, the court also said:
the hundreds of foreign-born suspects held at Guantanamo Bay
===================================
should have access to U.S. courts to contest their detentions.
=============================================================
The court side-stepped the third case,
=====================================
ruling 5 to 4 that a U.S. citizen, Jose Padilla,
=============================
accused of plotting to detonate a radiological bomb,
should refile his case in South Carolina, where he, too, is being
held.
========================================================================
"A state of war," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the Hamdi
opinion,
=============
"is not a blank check for the president" when it comes to the rights
of the
===========================================================================
nation's citizens."
================
Because the court declined to spell out how the lower courts should
implement the rulings,
the Bush administration is scrambling to "devise procedures" to handle
the
=======================================================================
anticipated wave of challenges.
==============================
"The decision did afford "rights to suspected foreign terrorists,"
===============================================================
a Justice Department official explained,
=======================================
"and now we have to "figure out" how we provide those rights.
============================================================
"You have defense lawyers who might file petitions all over the
country."
Meet and greet.
**************
Others involved in the cases said the challenges may be consolidated
in federal court in Washington, D.C., where 19 petitions are pending.
===============================
Late last week the Pentagon also said it "might release some low-risk"
Gitmo
==========================================================================
detainees without any sort of court review.
=========================================
Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights, the
public-interest group representing detainees at Guantanamo, said:
defense lawyers' first step will be to push for meetings with their
clients. Olshansky says her tiny center also is lining up lawyers for
the other detainees.
Everyone from solo practitioners to white-shoe law firms is offering
help.
"Big firms are calling saying, 'We have 300 lawyers and everyone is
willing to
===============================================================================
go to Guantanamo,'" she said.
================
Frank Dunham, Hamdi's lawyer, told U.S. News:
he expects his pending petition will now be heard by U.S. District
Judge Robert Doumar in Virginia. "We'll be back in front of Judge
Doumar for him to do what the Supreme Court said to do:
"Ensure Hamdi receives due process."
==================================
In that case, the Supreme Court noted that:
the "government's hearsay evidence" may be acceptable and
====================================================
that "the burden could shift to the detainee" to "rebut such
evidence".
===================================================================
That, the court said: "would ensure "that:
*****************************************
(1)the errant tourist,
(2)embedded journalist, or
(3)local aid worker
has a chance to "prove military error" while "giving due regard to the
*************************************** *************************
executive. . . ."
***********
Padilla's lawyer, Donna Newman, said she will soon ask a federal court
in South Carolina to review his detention.
"At the minimum," she said, "he will get a hearing."
That's more than the former Chicago gang member has gotten since his
arrest two years ago. -Angie Cannon
Copyright © 2004 U.S.News & World Report, L.P. All rights reserved.
Post a follow-up to this message
save-our-democracy
==================================================================
PT 1 OF 3:
12-18-01-PRISONERS TAKEN FROM SWEDEN TO UNKNOWN
PLACE IN EGYPT.
======================================================================
washingtonpost.com > Nation > National Security
PART ONE OF THREE:
==================
A Secret Deportation Of Terror Suspects
=====================================
2 Men Reportedly Tortured in Egypt
=================================
By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, July 25, 2004; Page A01
STOCKHOLM -- The airport police officer was about
to close his small
precinct station for the night, when two men
wearing suits walked in.
The visitors said the special Swedish security
police had just
arrested two suspected terrorists -- very
dangerous men -- and needed
a place to hold them until a plane could take
them away.
The airport policeman recounted in an interview
that he agreed to let
them borrow his cramped office
that night, Dec. 18, 2001,
=========================
and stepped out of the way. But there was
something strange about this
operation.
The two men in suits, who were soon joined by two
uniformed Swedish
police officers, did not speak Swedish, he said,
and
their English sounded distinctly American.
========================================
Another oddity:
When the suspects arrived a few minutes later,
they were escorted by a half-dozen security
agents wearing hoods.
================================================================
The hooded agents took the suspected terrorists
into the precinct's
dressing room. Inside, the agents cut off the
prisoners' clothes with
scissors, changed the men into red overalls and
bound them with
handcuffs and leg irons.
Then they were hustled out the door and onto the
tarmac,
where a U.S.-registered Gulfstream V jet was
waiting.
=====================================================
The men with covered faces "were very quiet,"
recalled Paul Forell,
the police officer on duty at Stockholm's Bromma
Airport that night.
"When they gave orders to each other, they kept
their voices down. It
seemed like they had done this before. They were
very professional."
Forell said he could not hear them well enough to
get a feel for their
nationality.
The plane's destination was Cairo.
=================================
Its two unwilling passengers were Egyptian
nationals who had applied
for asylum in Sweden more than a year earlier,
hoping to take
advantage of its extensive programs for refugees
facing political
arrest or persecution in their home countries.
After welcoming the men at first, the Swedish
government reversed its
position
============================================================================
after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United
States.
====================================================
The deportation was carried out swiftly and
outside Sweden's normal
legal channels.
Officials gave final approval to the expulsion
order at 4 p.m. on Dec.
18, according to accounts issued later by the
government.
====================================================
The men had been grabbed on the street without
warning by 5 p.m. and
were in the air by 9:47 p.m.
Their lawyers were not officially notified of the
expulsion until
after the plane had departed, to prevent them
from filing appeals.
Playing a central and secret role in the
operation:
==================================================
the U.S. government,
===================
which provided the plane,
========================
some agents
===========
and other logistical support,
============================
according to "classified documents" recently
released by the Swedish
======================================================================
government, as well as interviews in Stockholm
and Cairo.
========================================================
The CIA refers to such cases as "extraordinary
renditions,"
=========================================================
the fast and forcible transfer of foreign
terrorism suspects to other
countries, often their places of origin, where
they can be detained or
interrogated more freely, often without all the
legal protections
available in the country they left.
Details of such operations are almost always
secret, and
==================================================
the United States has not acknowledged its role
in the deportation
=================================================================
of the two Egyptian men.
=======================
But CIA officials have testified in Congress
about engaging in
about 70 renditions before 2001.
===============================
Security analysts said the number has increased
substantially since
then,
=========================================================================
as the U.S. government has become more aggressive
in its global hunt
for people considered a threat to national
security.
========================================
Critics have charged that the practice is
vulnerable to abuse,
noting that suspects are usually deported to
countries that are
friendly to U.S. intelligence agencies but
also have records of permitting torture or other
human rights
violations.
========================================================================
In organizing such transfers,
the U.S. government is engaging in practices
abroad that
would be illegal and unconstitutional at home,
those critics have
said.
=============================================
The fate of the two Egyptian men offers a rare
glimpse into such a
case, as well as an example of what can go wrong.
The Swedish government, for instance,
agreed to deport the suspects only after
receiving assurances from
Egypt that they would be given fair trials and
"not be subjected to
inhuman treatment or punishment of any kind,"
according to a
confidential memo prepared by Swedish diplomats
six days before the
expulsion.
Records and interviews show, however,
that the agreement was broken almost as soon as
the two men arrived in
Cairo.
Their lawyers, relatives and human rights groups
said there is
credible evidence that they were:
regularly subjected to electric shocks and other
forms of torture.
==================================================================
One suspect was sentenced to 25 years in prison
by a military tribunal
after a trial that lasted less than six hours.
The other spent almost two years behind bars
without being charged.
====================================================================
CONTINUED
1 2 3 Next >
Print This Article
save-our-democracy
==========================================================
PART TWO OF THREE
> 12-18-01-PRISONERS TAKEN FROM SWEDEN TO UNKNOWN
PLACE IN EGYPT.
>
======================================================================
washingtonpost.com > Nation > National Security
Swedish government officials now say the
deportation was an
embarrassing mistake.
======
The government has called for an "international
investigation",
============================================================
possibly under the authority of the United
Nations,
=================================================
into how the two men were treated.
Separately, the Swedish parliament has opened an
"internal probe"
================================================================
to determine the exact role played by U.S.
intelligence agents.
=============================================================
"We have taken the allegations seriously, very
seriously,"
Deputy Foreign Minister Hans Dahlgren said in an
interview in
Stockholm.
"We have asked for an independent, international
investigation. . . .
It would be in the best interests of the
government of Egypt to do
this"
if the allegations are false.
Ties to Al Qaeda
================
The better known of the two repatriated men is
Ahmed Agiza,
============================================================
a 42-year-old physician whose wife and five
children remain in Sweden.
His attorneys have acknowledged that he once
worked closely in Egypt
with Ayman Zawahiri,
===================
the leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad
====================================
who later merged that group with al Qaeda,
becoming Osama bin Laden's second in command.
============================================
Agiza was a member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad,
which the State Department has designated a
terrorist group.
===========================================================
Agiza said he had "once" met bin Laden,
according to a jailhouse interview he gave to a
Swedish radio reporter
in 2002 shortly after he returned to Egypt.
His attorneys said he cut ties with Zawahiri a
decade ago and
========================================================
has denounced the use of violent tactics by
Islamic radicals,
including al Qaeda.
Agiza left his homeland in 1991, saying he had
been repeatedly
harassed by Egyptian security forces.
In 1999,
=======
while living in Iran,
he was convicted in absentia by an Egyptian
military court --
along with 106 other defendants --
of belonging to a banned Islamic organization.
One year later,(2000) he and his family arrived
in Sweden on false
passports
and applied for political asylum.
It is not clear whether Agiza knew Muhammad Zery,
35, the man with whom he would later be deported
to Cairo.
Zery also left Egypt in 1991, after he was
harassed and physically
abused there, according to his lawyer.
He traveled to Saudi Arabia and Syria before
arriving in Sweden in
1999
and requesting asylum.
Swedish officials have said that Zery, too,
was convicted in absentia in Egypt and that he
was a suspect in the
assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat
in 1981,
when he would have been 13 years old.
But his attorneys and human rights groups that
have worked on his
behalf
said there is no record that Zery was charged
with any offenses in
Egypt and they can't understand why he was
expelled.
The allegations against him are all clearly
erroneous, said his
Swedish attorney, Kjell Jonsson.
"The representatives of the [Swedish] government
have been lying or
not telling the full truth on this since the
beginning."
Bo Johansson,
a Stockholm lawyer
who has represented Agiza, said
Swedish diplomats in Cairo later told the
Egyptian man's parents
that he was deported because Sweden was under
"international pressure"
to do so.
"I think the American influence is a very
important factor in all of
this," Johansson said.
"It is becoming clearer as more information comes
out.
Something happened very quickly after Sept. 11. .
. .
"We had always thought there was an X factor at
work here.
"Now we know that it must have been an American
factor."
======================================================
Secret U.S. Role
================
The U.S. involvement remained a secret until two
months ago,
=============================================================
when a Swedish television program -- Kalla Fakta,
or "Cold Facts" --
broadcast a documentary reporting that U.S.
agents assisted in the
apprehension of Agiza and Zery, and that the
plane chartered to Cairo
had been used in a "previous rendition case in
Pakistan."
=======================================
A CIA spokesman declined to comment for this
article,
======================================================
and State Department officials declined to
comment on the record.
================================================================
But the Swedish government "has released
previously classified
documents"
=========================================================================
that confirm the American role.
==============================
< Back 1 2 3 Next >
Print This Article
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
save-our-democracy
====================================
PART 3 OF 3.
> 12-18-01-PRISONERS TAKEN FROM SWEDEN TO UNKNOWN
PLACE IN EGYPT.
>
======================================================================
washingtonpost.com > Nation > National Security
A Secret Deportation Of Terror Suspects
=======================================
In a Feb. 7, 2002 memo,
======================
a partial reconstruction of the case by the
Swedish security police
noted that:
"the American side" had offered to help in the
deportation
==========================================================
"by lending a plane for the transport."
=====================================
In addition, lawyers from the Swedish Justice
Ministry wrote in a
separate memo on April 12, 2002 that:
======================
"the transport from Sweden to Egypt was carried
out with the help of
American authorities."
Both documents were heavily redacted before their
release.
========================================================
A flight plan filed with Swedish aviation
authorities shows that:
the Gulfstream jet was registered to a
Massachusetts company,
============================================================
Premier Executive Transport Services.
=====================================
U.S. aviation records show that:
the firm has only two registered aircraft and
that
they have permits to land at U.S. military bases
around the world.
=================================================================
Advocacy groups such as Human Rights Watch and
Amnesty International
have called on the U.N. High Commissioner for
Human Rights to open an
inquiry into the case.
"The only way to discover what the U.S. role was
================================================
is through an international inquiry under the
auspices of the U.N.,"
=================================================================
said Julia Hall,
a lawyer for New York-based Human Rights Watch.
"There's no transparency otherwise.
=================================
We just don't know what buttons were being
pressed by whom."
==========================================================
While Sweden has said it would welcome such an
investigation,
the United Nations is unlikely to act unless
Egypt agrees to
cooperate,
=======================================================================
human rights groups said.
Egyptian authorities declined to comment on that
possibility.
=============================================================
But Hossan Salama, an official with the Egyptian
state security
service,
denied that the United States was directly
involved in the
deportation.
=======================================================================
"The Americans had absolutely nothing to do with
this capture,"
==============================================================
he said in a brief interview.
"It was something completely done with the
Swedes."
=================================================
Prison Visits
============
As part of their agreement with the Egyptian
government,
Swedish diplomats insisted that they be allowed
to visit Agiza
and Zery in prison regularly to ensure that they
were not mistreated.
Swedish officials did not schedule the first
visit until
more than a month after the men arrived in Egypt.
They were not allowed to see them except in the
presence of prison
guards
and were forced to rely on an interpreter
provided by the
Egyptian security services.
In a report made public shortly afterward,
Sven Linder,
the Swedish ambassador to Egypt,
wrote that Agiza and Zery told him
they had been treated "excellently" in prison and
that to him "they seemed well-nourished and
showed no external signs
of physical abuse or such things."
Another section of the ambassador's report that
remained classified
until recently, however, offered a different
appraisal.
It noted that Agiza had complained that he was
subjected to "excessive
brutality" by the Swedish security police when he
was seized and
===========================================================
that he was repeatedly beaten in Egyptian
prisons.
===================================================
Swedish diplomats in Cairo declined to comment on
the case.
==========================================================
Agiza's parents and lawyers said in interviews
that
he was severely punished by his Egyptian captors
after he complained
to the Swedish officials and
was warned to keep quiet during future visits.
"Torture is a systematic thing in these prisons,"
===============================================
said Mohammed Zarai,
director of the Human Rights Center for the
Assistance of Prisoners in
Cairo.
"Every time when these people visited him, as
soon as they left,
he was beaten and tortured. They would ask him:.
. . .
Are they telling the Swedes to come visit?"
Agiza's mother, Hamida Shalaby, said he told her
during separate
visits that he was given electric shocks and that
=======================================
prison doctors tried to cover up scars on his
body
====================================================
by applying a special cream.
============================
"He couldn't even pick up his arms to hug me,"
she said in an interview.
"He was very slow and very tired and very weak."
Agiza's attorney in Stockholm has filed a
complaint
==================================================
about the handling of his asylum case with the
U.N. Committee Against Torture.
=============================
Although the committee has no power to free him,
it could rebuke Sweden for violating
international conventions
==============================================================
prohibiting torture if it determines that the
Swedish government
was liable for his alleged mistreatment by
expelling him to Egypt.
"The Swedish government is facing a very hard
situation now,"
said Hafez Abu-Seada,
a Cairo lawyer
who represented Agiza at his trial and
serves as general secretary for
the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights.
"Their reputation as a leading human rights
nation is at stake."
==============================================================
Zery's attorney in Stockholm
has filed a similar complaint on his client's
behalf with the
European Court of Human Rights.
Zery was released from a Cairo prison in October
but is not permitted to leave the country and
remains under strict surveillance by Egyptian
security forces.
============================================================
In a brief telephone conversation last week, he
said
he was willing to grant an interview and invited
a reporter to visit.
He canceled the appointment an hour later,
however, saying
that an Egyptian security official had ordered
him not to talk.
Staff researcher
Margot Williams in Washington contributed to this
report.
< Back 1 2 3
Print This Article
George Allen
George Allen
save-our-democracy wrote:
> 12-18-01-CIA SECRET DEPORT & TORTURE
> ====================================
> PART 3 OF 3.
>
>>12-18-01-PRISONERS TAKEN FROM SWEDEN TO UNKNOWN
>
> PLACE IN EGYPT.
>
> ======================================================================
> washingtonpost.com > Nation > National Security
> Page 3 of 3 < Back
>
> A Secret Deportation Of Terror Suspects
> =======================================
>
>
http://www.jibjab.com/
>
>
> Check this out
George Allen
save-our-democracy
DANGER.
========================================
WITH THE RECENT & AND NOT SURPRISING SO-CALLED RESIGNATION OF THE
C.I.A. DIRECTOR, GEORGE TENET I DECIDED TO RESEARCH THE HISTORY OF
THIS AGENCY AND THE U.S.'S SO-CALLED "INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY", BECAUSE
IT IS CLEAR, THAT THE C.I.A. WAS THE MAIN FOCUS OF THE NOW COMPLETED
9-11 COMMISSION WHICH HAS BEEN INVESTIGATING "WHY" THE C.I.A. & OTHER
U.S. INTEL AGENCIES DID NOTHING TO STOP THE ATTACKS ON THE U.S. IN
2001.
BUT PRIOR TO THE FINAL REPORT..TENET GAVE HIS RESIGNATION DUE TO
THE OBVIOUS LIES AND MANIPULATION OF THE C.I.A.'S SO-CALLED "NATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE" REPORT REGARDING IRAQ AND ANY WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION THAT IT MIGHT HAVE, WHICH EVIDENCE OF WMD, WAS SO GREAT
THAT IT "THREATENED THE U.S.'S NATIONAL SECURITY", TO THE POINT THAT
THE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. COULD "LEGALLY JUSTIFY ATTACKING AND
INVADING THIS SOVEREIGN COUNTRY".
(NOTE: IRAQ JOINED THE UNITED NATIONS 3 DAYS "BEFORE" THE U.S.A. AND
BOTH COUNTRIES SIGNED ON TO THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER, WHICH CHARTER
IS AN "INTERNATIONAL TREATY" AND WHICH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION MANDATES
THAT THE PRESIDENT "MUST ABIDE BY IT", I.E. IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE
U.S.
VIOLATES THESE INTERNATIONAL "TREATIES", IT IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.
=====================================================================
MOST AMERICANS KNOW THAT "THE MAFIA" ORIGINATED IN/AROUND ITALY/SICILY
AND MADE A HUGE IMPACT ON THIS NATION THROUGH IT'S BRUTAL FORCE;
UNQUESTIONED LOYALTY OF IT'S "FAMILY" TO IT'S DON (LEADER), AND IS
"STILL ORGANIZED AND ACTIVE" IN THE U.S. AND IS STILL IN MANY ILLEGAL
ACTIVITIES LIKE THE DRUG TRADE, BUT....IT HAS FOR THE MOST PART
CLEANED
UP IT'S "IMAGE" AND HAS INVESTED IT'S FORTUNES IN "AMERICAN
CORPORATIONS AND BUSINESSES"...
NOW WITH THE "LOYAL PROTECTION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
(THE PARTY "FOR" THE RICH AND BUSINESS OWNERS), AS WELL AS MANY
SO-CALLED DEMOCRATS (WHO SAY THEY ARE "FOR" THE WORKING PEOPLE);
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT, JUDGES AND COURTS"... THIS "AMERICAN MAFIA" LIKES
TO
SAY.."THIS IS THE AMERICAN WAY" (CAPITALISM BY FORCE & FEAR)AND DAMN
IF THEY AREN'T RIGHT.
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY "NOTHING" THAT IS NOT "FOR SALE" ANY MORE,
INCLUDING THE PRESIDENCY AND CONGRESS. ANOTHER WELL-KNOWN AMERICAN
SAYING IS: "BULLSHIT WALKS..AND MONEY TALKS", WHICH IS "WHY WE AVERAGE
AMERICANS (NOW THROWN INTO POVERTY) NO LONGER CONTROL OUR GOVERNMENT,
I.E. WE HAVE LOST OUR JOBS, OUR NATIONAL TREASURY, AND ARE NOW
CONTROLLED BY THE MOST TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT IN OUR HISTORY..AND "WE"
ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN BECAUSE...."WE ARE STUPID & LAZY".
HOW THE U.S.A. HAS NOW BECOME "THE MAFIA OF THE WORLD" THAT IS TRYING
TO AND ACCOMPLISHING.. CONTROL THE WORLD.
FACT: ALL COUNTRIES WHICH HAVE "SIGNED ON TO THE U.N. CHARTER", HAVE
AGREED TO BECOME SUBSERVIENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL LAWS, WHICH THE U.N.
WAS SET UP TO ENFORCE THROUGH "PEACEFUL NEGOTIATIONS"; INSTEAD OF
THROUGH BARBERIC AND UNJUSTIFIED WARS WHICH HAVE CAUSED THE SLAUGHTER
OF TENS OF MILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLES FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS, FOR
SOMETHING THEIR ROQUE LEADERS AND THEIR ARMIES, HAVE DONE TO OTHER
COUNTRIES.
IF NO NEGOTIATION COULD RESOLVE THESE NATION'S PROBLEMS, UNDER THE
U.N. CHARTER, "ONLY" THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL" (MADE UP OF THE
LEADERS OF OTHER NATIONS), HAVE THE "AGREED UPON AUTHORITY" TO VOTE ON
"USING SANCTIONS OR MILITARY FORCE VIA N.A.T.O." AGAINST THE ROQUE
"NATION".
(NOTE: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL ESTIMATES THAT THE U.N. SANCTIONS AND
1991 BOMBINGS(GULF WAR I) AGAINST "THE IRAQI PEOPLE", KILLED BETWEEN
300-500,000 VIA UNSAFE WATER, NO MEDICINE, NO FOOD, UNTIL THE
"OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM WAS SET UP", AND OF COURSE WE NOW KNOW THAT
WAS A SCAM, WITH U.N. INVOLVEMENT, WHICH IS NOW UNDER INVESTIGATION.
WHY SHOULD IT SURPRISE US THAT THERE ARE "MASS GRAVES" IN IRAQ..IF THE
TRUTH BE KNOWN, IT WAS PROBABLY THE BURIAL OF THESE IRAQI INNOCENTS
WHO WERE "CUT OFF OF ANYWAY TO MAKE MONEY TO BUY FOOD AND MEDICINE,
AND
"NOT SADDAM HUSSEIN'S MASS MURDERS", WHICH IS WHAT BUSH & CO. HAS BEEN
BRAIN-WASHING ALL OF US TO BELIEVE.
IN FACT, BUSH & CO. "ADMITS" THAT THE IRAQI PEOPLE ARE WELL-EDUCATED
AND THERE WERE MANY SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS IN IRAQ "BEFORE THESE
BOMBINGS
TOOK PLACE".
BUT, IF ONLY "ONE" NATION VOTED "AGAINST" MILITARY ACTION, THE
MILITARY ACTION COULD "NOT" TAKE PLACE. THIS VOTING PROCESS, (ONE VETO
VOTE) HAS RESULTED IN THE "TOTAL INACTION OF NECESSARY MILITARY
INTERVENTION" OVER THE PAST DECADES WHICH HAS CAUSED UNBELIEVABLE
GENOCIDE IN MANY NATIONS, AND:
THOSE FACTS ALONE MANDATE A TOTAL CHANGE IN THE U.N.'S VOTING POLICY
====================================================================
AND HAS BEEN A SUBJECT OF CURRENT REVIEW BY THE UNITED NATIONS.
=============================================================
CLEARLY THE UNITED NATION'S "PURPOSE" IS NOT BEING IMPLEMENTED
BECAUSE OF IT'S "OWN" BUREAUCRATIC AND POLITICAL POLICY, I.E.
IT (UN) IS ALSO CORRUPT AND IT'S MEMBERSHIP MUST CHANGE AS WELL
AS IT'S "ENFORCEMENT RULES"..HAD THE SITTING U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL
TAKEN ACTION UPON BUSH'S "DEMANDS OF ILLEGAL PREEMPTIVE BOMBING AND
OCCUPATION OF IRAQ" IT SHOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY FILED A COMPLAINT
WITH THE NEW INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AGAINST HIM & HIS STAFF,
AND MILITARY LEADERS FOR "WAR CRIMES", I.E. REMEMBER THE "MAJORITY
OF THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD WERE "PROTESTING BY THE MILLIONS" TO
STOP BUSH FROM DOING THIS.
THERE IS "ONLY ONE" EXCEPTION TO THIS U.N. CHARTER AND INTERNATIONAL
TREATY, VIA "SEPARATE MILITARY INTERVENTION" AND THAT IS, WHEN A
"HOSTILE NATION" HAS "CLEARLY THREATENED TO ATTACK AND IS MOBILIZING
IT'S MILITARY TO ATTACK, ANOTHER NATION..
IN THAT CASE, AND THAT CASE ALONE, THE "THREATENED NATION" IS
PERMITTED
TO ATTACK THE "HOSTILE NATION",
BECAUSE THERE IS "NO TIME" TO WASTE IN FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS OR
SECURITY COUNCIL DEBATES FOR A VOTE VIA THE UNITED NATIONS.
SO, THE "VERY REAL LEGAL ISSUE OF WHETHER THE UNITED STATES (PRESIDENT
AND CONGRESS) HAS VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAWS AND THE U.N. TREATY",
WHICH IS NOW THE BASIS OF "WORLD SCRUTINY, FEAR AND HATRED" MUST BE
BASED ON THE "REAL EVIDENCE" OF WHETHER OR NOT "THE UNITED STATES WAS
IN "IMMINENT DANGER" BY ANY THREATS FROM IRAQ", WHICH EVIDENCE WAS
"PRESENTED TO THE UNITED NATIONS" BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, COLIN
POWELL, WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE C.I.A. (TENET) SITTING DIRECTLY
BEHIND POWELL TO SHOW "SUPPORT" OF THIS SO-CALLED "EVIDENCE OF WMD".
THIS SO-CALLED EVIDENCE WAS ALSO BEING SPEWED DAILY BY PRESIDENT BUSH
AND HIS "CABINET" IN EVERY AMERICAN MEDIA AND WORLD-WIDE.
THERE IS "NO QUESTION NOW" THAT THESE "SPEWINGS" WERE LIES,
MANIPULATIONS AND OUTRIGHT FRAUD ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE
AMERICAN MEDIA WAS "EITHER PART OF THIS ORGANIZED FRAUD", OR "SO
INCOMPETENT AND LAZY" THEY NEVER BOTHERED TO EVEN CHECK OUT THE
"SOURCE OF THIS SO-CALLED "EVIDENCE" WHICH WAS PRODUCED, EVEN THOUGH
MANY "EXPERTS IN THE INTELLIGENCE FIELD" WERE STATING THESE REPORTS
WERE LIES, I.E. THESE REPORTS WERE "NOT BEING REPORTED ON THE U.S.
TELEVISION MEDIA, WHICH IS WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
GET THEIR "ONLY NEWS".
(NOTE:THE NEW YORK TIMES STEPPED FORWARD "ADMITTING" THAT THEY
"JUST TOOK THE PRESIDENT & HIS STAFF'S "WORD" THAT THE "EVIDENCE"
WAS WHAT THEY CLAIMED IT WAS. THIS WAS TRULY AN HISTORICAL EVENT,
I.E. ONE OF THE TOP 7-8 BIGGEST "NEWSPAPERS" IN THE
U.S. ADMITTING THAT "THEY WERE "NOT" SERVING THEIR PURPOSE AS THE
AMERICAN "WATCH-DOG" OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT'S ACTIONS.
WHILE IT WAS COURAGEOUS TO MAKE SUCH AN ADMISSION, IT WAS JUST THE
"TIP
OF THE ICEBERG" OF THE WELL-ORGANIZED AND INTENTIONALLY MANIPULATED
POLITICAL PROPAGANDA MACHINE THAT BUSH & CO. HAD IN IT'S POCKET IN
ORDER
TO PULL OFF THE "BIGGEST ILLEGAL AND CORRUPT SCHEME TO CONVINCE THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT "WE MUST ATTACK AND KILL THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN
ANOTHER NATION (IRAQ)THEN INVADE AND OCCUPY IT"..TO "SAVE IT FROM A
TERRORIST, KNOWN AS SADDAM HUSSEIN, WHEN IN FACT "THIS U.S. ACTION
CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED ANYTHING "BUT" A TERRORIST ACT.
CIA DIRECTOR, GEORGE TENET'S MADE A PUBLIC ADMISSION THAT:
IRAQ "WAS NOT AN IMMINENT THREAT" TO THE U.S. YET IT WAS "NOT"
INCLUDED IN ANY OF THE 9-11 COMMISSION REPORTS.
TENET MADE THIS STATEMENT ON FEBRUARY 5, 2004, AT THE GEORGETOWN
UNIVERSITY,
ALMOST A YEAR "AFTER" THESE ILLEGAL ATTACKS TOOK PLACE, AND NOW...4
MONTHS AFTER HIS SO-CALLED "RESIGNATION FOR PERSONAL REASONS".
HERE IS A SMALL SLICE OF HIS SPEECH WHICH, WHILE "ADMITTING" TO
THESE LIES, HE, LIKE ALL THE LOYAL LOCK-STEPPED BUSH STAFF, GAVE
US MORE OF THEIR SELF-RIGHTOUS, MORAL AND ETHICS CON-JOB, WHICH THE
RELIGIOUS-RIGHT EATS UP WITH THE VIGOR USED DURING THE 1800'S WHEN
HUNDREDS OF WOMEN WERE BURNED AT THE STAKE FOR "SUSPICION OF BEING
WITCHES"...
AS STUPID AND IGNORANT AS THOSE HISTORICAL FACTS ARE IN AMERICAN
HISTORY,
THE "VERY SAME PSYCHOLOGICAL TACTICS WERE USED AND "BELIEVED" BY
MAJORITY
OF AMERICANS IN THE 21ST CENTURY, FOR WHICH "THIS NATION WILL ALWAYS
BE REMEMBERED".
---
TENET: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2004/tenet_georgetownspeech_02052004.html
"BUT THERE IS "ONE UNASSAILABLE FACT"--WE WILL "ALWAYS CALL IT AS WE
SEE IT". OUR "PROFESSIONAL ETHIC DEMANDS NO LESS". TO UNDERSTAND A
TOPIC LIKE IRAQ TAPES PATIENCE AND "CARE". UNFORTUNATELY, YOU "RARELY
HEAR A PATIENT, CAREFUL OR THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION OF "INTELLIGENCE"
THESE DAYS. BUT, "THESE TIMES DEMAND IT".
BECAUSE THE "ALTERNATIVE"..POLITICIZED, HAPHAZARD "EVALUATION"
.."WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF TIME AND FACTS, MAY WELL RESULT IN AN
"INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT "IS DAMAGED AND A COUNTRY THAT IS "MORE
AT RISK".
"AS "INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS, WE "GO WHERE THE INFORMATION TAKES
US". "WE FEAR "NO FACT" OR "FINDING", WHETHER IT "BEARS US OUT OR
NOT". BECAUSE, WE WORK FOR "HIGH GOALS"..THE "PROTECTION OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE". WE "MUST BE JUDGED BY "HIGH STANDARDS".
"THE ESTIMATE" (NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE (NIE) ASKED:
IF IRAQ HAD CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS, AND
THE "MEANS TO DELIVER THEM":
WE CONCLUDED THAT:
(1) IN "SOME" OF THESE CATEGORIES, IRAQ "HAD" WEAPONS, AND
(2) THAT IN "OTHERS" WHERE IT "DID NOT HAVE THEM",
IT WAS "TRYING" TO DEVELOP THEM.
THEY (ANALYSTS)"NEVER SAID THERE WAS AN "IMMINENT THREAT".
*********************************************************
"NO ONE "TOLD US WHAT TO SAY, OR HOW TO SAY IT".
************************************************
----------------------
OF COURSE, WE MOST OF US WHO WERE "PAYING ATTENTION" ALSO HEARD AND
READ RUMSFELD'S DEPUTY SECRETARY, WOLFOWITZ PUBLICLY STATE: "WE JUST
USED WMD (TO JUSTIFY ATTACKING IRAQ)BECAUSE IT WAS CONVENIENT". (I
FORGOT TO WRITE DOWN THE LINK TO THIS STATEMENT BUT WILL DO SO IN MY
NEXT POST ON THIS THREAD).
-----
THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY QUESTION THAT BUSH, WITH ALMOST THE FULL
SUPPORT OF CONGRESS, "KNOWINGLY AND ILLEGALLY MURDERED TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT IRAQ HUMAN BEINGS; OCCUPIED THEIR OIL RICH
COUNTRY; AND ROBBED THE AMERICAN TREASURY TO PULL OFF THIS HUGE FRAUD,
UNDER THE GUISE OF "IMMINENT THREAT TO THE UNITED STATE'S "NATIONAL
SECURITY", RE "WAR ON TERRORISM", WHICH BUSH SAYS HE "WILL CONTINUE
WHILE HE REMAINS "IN OFFICE". HE PROUDLY BOASTS: "I AM A WAR
PRESIDENT" AND BASED ON THE TOTAL STUPIDITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,
WITH THE CONTINUED FRAUDULENT PROPAGANDA OF THE T.V. AND WAR-MONGERING
RADICAL RIGHT RADIO PROGRAMS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOW FACED WITH
THE VERY "REAL HATRED OF THE ENTIRE WORLD'S PEOPLE LINED UP AGAINST
THE U.S.A. WHO "RIGHTFULLY CALL US, THE "ROQUE TERRORIST NATION WHICH
THREATENS THE WORLD".
HERE IS AN INTERESTING HISTORICAL LOOK AT THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY.
NOTE:
THIS "RECORD" INTERESTINGLY STOPS IN YEAR 2000 WHEN BUSH TOOK OFFICE
AND...IT COMPLETELY AND INTENTIONALLY LEAVES OUT, THE MOST IMPORTANT
FACTS, OF "HOW THE U.S. CORPORATIONS WERE INVADING MOST COUNTRIES FOR
THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF ROBBING THEM OF THEIR NATURAL RESOURCES THROUGH
"U.S. MILITARY FORCE,UNDER THE GUISE OF NATIONAL "INTEREST",
NOT...NATIONAL "SECURITY", WITH THE C.I.A. BEING THE "MAIN AGENCY" TO
INFILTRATE THESE COUNTRIES AND GET THE NECESSARY INFORMATION OF "HOW
TO TAKE THESE RESOURCES VIA OVER-THROWING GOVERNMENT LEADERS, INCITE
THE PEOPLE FOR THESE "REGIME CHANGES", THEN USE THE MILITARY UNDER THE
GUISE OF "PEACE-KEEPERS", BRIBES, TORTURE AND MURDER.
YOU CAN SEE HOW THIS "ONCE USEFUL C.I.A. AGENCY STARTED BY GATHERING
INFORMATION TO "PROTECT THE TRUE AMERICAN "SECURITY" HAS BECOME
NOTHING MORE THAN A POLITICALLY CORRUPT IRON-FIST FOR CORPORATE GREED
AND POWER, I.E. MERCENARIES WHO WILL DO "THE PRESIDENT'S BIDDING",
LIKENED TO THE MAFIA AND THEIR DON. IT IS TIME THAT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE "DEMAND THAT CONGRESS STOP THESE BLATANTLY ILLEGAL ACTS, AND
ONLY USE OUR GOVERNMENT'S AGENCIES FOR "NATIONAL SECURITY" AND "NOT"
NATIONAL SO-CALLED "INTERESTS", I.E. CORPORATE CRIMES.
SYLVIA
http://www.access.gpo.gov/intelligence/int/int022.html
P.S. THE LATEST WORD IS TENET, WHO IS ONLY 51 YEARS OLD HAS BEEN
OFFERED A $540,000 A YEAR "SECURITY JOB". YOU CAN BET...THAT HE "KNOWS
WHERE ALL OF THE BODIES ARE BURIED AND A "DEAL" HAD TO BE STRUCK THAT
"HE KEEPS HIS MOUTH SHUT" IF HE WANTS TO LIVE IN RETURN, HE WILL HAVE
THE MONEY TO KEEP HE AND HIS FAMILY CONFORTABLE FOR THE REST OF HIS
LIFE...YEP...JUST LIKE THE MAFIA..."I HAVE AN OFFER YOU CAN'T REFUSE".
I ALWAYS THOUGHT TENENT LOOKED LIKE AND ARROGANTLY ACTED LIKE A "MAFIA
HOOD" WHEN HE WAS TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS.
save-our-democracy
=========================================================
THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT "WHETHER BUSH HAD "ENOUGH SOLID EVIDENCE THAT
IRAQ "WAS AN IMMEDIATE/IMMINENT THREAT TO THE U.S. TO LEGALLY JUSTIFY
A PREEMPTIVE ATTACK ON THAT COUNTRY". AS WE KNOW, THERE ARE LITERALLY
THOUSANDS OF LAW PROFESSORS, WEAPONS EXPERTS, U.N. INSPECTORS WHO WERE
IN IRAQ, DIPLOMATS, MILITARY LEADERS, THE POPE, ETC. ALL OF WHOM SAID:
(1)THERE WAS "NO IMMINENT THREAT" TO JUSTIFY THIS INVASION, AND
(2)IT WAS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAWS, U.S.CONSTITUTION
(VIOLATING TREATIES, AND U.S. LAW (TITLE 18-FRAUD ON CONGRESS, MEDIA
AND PUBLIC)
AS CAN BE READ HERE...THE C.I.A., DIRECTOR TENENT", WHO HAS CLEARLY
BEEN
TOLD TO RESIGN, HAS REDACTED AT LEAST 30-40% OF THE "SENATE'S FINAL
REPORT", AS BEING "IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY" AND
CANNOT BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC.
THIS DOCUMENT FOLKS, IS VERY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE "IF THE U.S. SENATE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE" MAKES A FINDING THAT "BUSH VIOLATED THE ABOVE
LAWS"..THEY COULD THEN MOVE FOR "CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS AND
IMPEACHMENT".
BUTTTT, THE "FACTS AND EVIDENCE", ALONG WITH ALL OF THE STATEMENTS
FROM THE "WILLING WITNESSES", WHICH INCLUDES MANY MEMBERS OF THE
C.I.A. WHEN THIS WAS ALL TAKING PLACE, INCLUDING POWELL AND RICE,
STATING "ON THE RECORD", JUST MONTHS BEFORE THE ATTACKS, THAT HUSSEIN
"WAS NO THREAT TO THE U.S." THAT IT IS SO OVER-WELMING THAT THERE CAN
BE "NO DOUBT"..BUSH & CO. PERPETRATED THE BIGGEST FRAUD ON THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR "PERSONAL BENEFIT", THAN HAS EVER TAKEN PLACE IN
THIS NATION'S HISTORY.
SHORT OF LISTING THE NAMES OF "COVERT C.I.A. AGENTS"..NOTHING SHOULD
BE ELIMINATED FROM THIS "SENATE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT TO THE PEOPLE".
BUSH & CO. "MUST BE HELD LEGALLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE CRIMINAL ACTS".
UNLESS YOU WANT "MORE FASCISTS AS PRESIDENTS OF THE U.S.A. YOU MUST
CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN DEMANDING RELEASE OF THIS FULL REPORT AND
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS TO BEGIN.
JUST FOR ONE MOMENT COMPARE THE CRIMES OF PRESIDENTS "RICHARD NIXON
(2-BIT BURGLARY AND COVER-UP' AND
BILL CLINTON'S PERJURY (LIES) ABOUT BEING SEXUALLY SERVICED, WITH "THE
INTENTIONAL FRAUD TO JUSTIFY:
THE MURDERS OF BETWEEN 40-50,000 IRAQI PEOPLE;
1,000 U.S. TROOPS, AND
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF G.I.'S WHO ARE MISSING PARTS OF THEIR BODY,
AS WELL AS THE $100 BILLION (AND GROWING)DEBT TO PAY FOR THE "MILITARY
MACHINE", MOST OF WHICH WAS "PRIVATELY CONTRACTED TO THE VICE
PRESIDENT'S
CORPORATION...HALLIBURTON AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES, WHICH WE HAVE NOW
LEARNED
WAS APPROVED (HALLIBURTON CONTRACT) BY CHENEY'S OWN STAFF, AFTER
CHENEY
STATED ON T.V. HE WAS TOTALLY UNAWARE OF THE CONTRACT DEALINGS.
THE SILENCE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT THESE CRIMES IS JUST
"UNBELIEVABLE".
IT WAS JUST ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO THESE "SAME SILENT, SO-CALLED
AMERICANS
BLINDLY AND STUPIDLY, CELEBRATED JULY 4TH- "AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE DAY"
FROM THE TYRANNY OF THE FIRST "KING GEORGE"...THIS DAY..JULY 4TH MEANS
NOTHING MORE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE "NOW" THEN JUST ANOTHER WAY TO
PLOP THEIR FAT ASSES ON COUCHES ALL AROUND THIS NATION; GET DRUNK AND
WATCH SPORTS GAMES.
THIS NATION NO LONGER "REPRESENTS ANYTHING OF WHICH THOSE FIRST
COURGEOUS AMERICAN SOLDIERS FOUGHT AND DIED"...CAN YOU JUST IMAGINE
WHAT THEY MIGHT SAY IF THEY SAW WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE DOING
TODAY...CORRECTION,.."NOT" DOING TODAY. I AM SURE THEY WOULD CALL IT
"TREASONOUS.."AIDING AND ABETTING THE "ENEMY" AND THAT "ENEMY IS THE
FASCISTS WHO TOOK OVER OUR GOVERNMENT"...SIMPLY BECAUSE...THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE JUST PLAIN DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT IT ANY MORE.
SYLVIA.
===========================
CIA Restricts One-Third of U.S. Senate WMD Report
***********************************************
Tue Jun 15, 2004 07:45 PM ET
By Tabassum Zakaria
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The CIA has decided that about one-third of a
U.S. Senate report criticizing prewar intelligence on Iraq contains
secret information that should not be released to the public,
intelligence sources said on Tuesday.
After reviewing the roughly 400 pages for classified data, the
intelligence
***************************************************************************
agency returned the report to the Senate Intelligence Committee with
brackets
****************************************************************************
around 30 percent to 40 percent of the contents to signal the
information was
*****************************************************************************
secret, intelligence sources said.
********************************
The report examines the intelligence on Iraq before the U.S.-led
invasion last
********************************************
year, including estimates that Baghdad had stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons.
President Bush justified his decision to go to war by citing a threat
from
**************************************************************************
Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
*********************************
No large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons have been found.
A closed-door Senate Intelligence Committee meeting on Tuesday to
discuss the
******************************************************************************
report and the CIA's redactions ended without any decisions on how the
panel
****************************************************************************
would move forward toward making it public.
******************************************
"We're going to try to vote on Thursday to approve the report.
There have been no decisions in regard to the redactions,"
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts,
a Kansas Republican, said.
Members of the committee disagreed over some of the proposed
conclusions, which also raised questions over when the report would be
publicly released.
Roberts said it was unlikely the report would be released next week --
"not the way things are now."
He would not identify the contentious issues.
*******************************************
The committee has several options to deal with the CIA's redactions.
********************************************************************
It could reword the passages that the agency identified as containing
***************************
classified information, or
take the unprecedented action of ignoring the intelligence agency's
views and
*****************************************************************************
put out the full report as originally written.
*********************************************
The latter option was considered unlikely because the committee would
not want
*****************************************
*****************************
to be seen as releasing classified information.
**********************************************
"It's always an option, but probably as a last resort,"
Sen. Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, said.
The CIA tried to preserve as much of the report in its original format
as possible, but some sections contained information that:
revealed sources,
operational techniques and
intelligence collection methods,
one intelligence official said on condition of anonymity.
"I think they (CIA) went way overboard.
Clearly what they are doing is taking the heart of the report out of
it,"
Sen. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said.
Asked how critical the report was of the CIA and its director, George
Tenet, who is leaving next month, Durbin replied:
"I think it's very honest and there are parts of it that are very
critical."
**************************************************************************
The report was expected to be highly critical of U.S. intelligence
gathering and analysis on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, but less
critical of the intelligence on terrorism, government sources say.
It was expected to specifically criticize Tenet in some instances.
© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.
save-our-democracy
=================
HERE IS THE LINK TO THE C.I.A.'S OWN PAGE, STATING WHAT THEIR MISSION
IS "SUPPOSED TO BE".....NOTE: THEY HAVE GEORGE BUSH "SR'S" PICTURE ON
THIS PAGE....NOT GEORGY JR. OR EVEN TENETS'...THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES.
THIS "GOVERNMENT PAGE" IS A TRUE EXAMPLE OF "OUR GOVERNMENT"...IT SAYS
ALL OF THE MOST PATRIOTIC AND RIGHTEOUSLY MORAL THINGS, THEN, LIKE
NOW...ARE EXPOSED FOR THEIR LIES, MANIPULATIONS, MURDER, EXHORTION,
ETC.
ALSO NOTE: THE WAY THE C.I.A. IS SET UP, IT "SERVES ONLY AT THE
PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT..SOOOOO, IF WE HAVE A FASCIST PRESIDENT LIKE
NOW...THE C.I.A. WILL "SUPPORT AND DEFEND" THAT FASCIST, EVEN TO THE
POINT OF LYING TO CONGRESS, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE "OUR WATCH-DOG
OVER IT'S ACTIVITIES"..., OR...LIKE MANY....THEY HAVE RESIGNED FROM
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND ARE FINALLY SPEAKING OUT. WHY DO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE ALLOW THIS OUTRAGE, YEAR AFTER YEAR, PRESIDENT AFTER
PRESIDENT???
AS STATED....THE C.I.A. IS AND HAS BEEN THE "MAFIA ARM OF THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT" AND THE MAJORITY OF IT'S SO-CALLED WORK IS "OVER-THROWING
GOVERNMENTS" THAT HAVE RICH NATURAL RESOURCES, WHICH "OUR
POLITICIANS", OWN OR INVEST IN.
NOT UNTIL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE "CLEAN HOUSE" AND KICK OUT THESE
POLITICAL FASCISTS AND RE-WRITE THE LAWS MAKING IT CLEAR THAT OUR
"INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY" IS ONLY TO BE INVOLVED IN "TRUE NATIONAL
"SECURITY" ISSUES AND "NOT" WHAT THEY CALL NATIONAL "INTERESTS", I.E.
OIL", WILL THIS CORRUPTION, WAR, AND DEATHS STOP.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE C.I.A. "IS ONLY RESPONSIBLE TO THE SITTING
PRESIDENT". THE LAWS MUST BE CHANGED TO STATE THE C.I.A. SITS AT THE
PLEASURE OF "CONGRESS", THE PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVES, NOT THE
PRESIDENT, WHO'S POWERS ARE OBVIOUSLY TOO GREAT, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU
HAVE LUNATIC FASCISTS IN THAT OFFICE, LIKE NOW, WHICH MANY C.I.A. &
OTHER INTEL AGENTS HAVE ALREADY PUBLICLY STATED; THEY CALL THEM "THE
LOONIES".
IN MY OPINION, THE PEOPLE "IN CHARGE" OF THE C.I.A. SHOULD BE MADE UP
OF NO MORE THAN 7 PEOPLE FROM THE FOLLOWING:
(2)DEMO CONGRESS PERSON
(2)REPUBLICAN CONGRESS PERSON
(1)INDEPENDENT PARTY-CONGRESS PERSON
(1)TOP WMD INTELLGENCE ANALYST-TO REPORT ON WORLD-WIDE WMD
(1)TOP INTELLIGENCE ANALYST-REPORTS ON OTHER NATIONS MILITARY
POWER/ACTIONS.
THEY SHOULD BE REPORTING "DAILY" TO "THIS" (ABOVE)CONGRESSIONAL
"SELECT" COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. THE PRESIDENT SHOULD
ATTEND EACH MEETING OR, RECEIVE A COPY OF THE "DAILY REPORTS", WHICH
HE IS "NOW" GETTING AND AS WE HAVE READ, NEITHER THE PRESIDENT OR HIS
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, CONDI RICE, EVER BOTHERED TO FULLY READ
THEM,
OR AT LEAST THAT IS WHAT WE WERE TOLD.
NO LONGER SHOULD THE U.S. MILITARY BE INVOLVED IN WARS, UNLESS
CONGRESS "DECLARES A WAR" ON A COUNTRY AND "THE CASE FOR WAR" MUST
BE ONLY AFTER CLEAR PROOF HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT ANOTHER COUNTRY IS
"THROUGH RHETORIC AND "ACTUAL" MILITARY ADVANCES, COMING AT THE U.S.A.
THE ABOVE "SELECT COMMITTEE" AND "NOT THE PRESIDENT", WILL TAKE THIS
INFORMATION TO THE "ENTIRE CONGRESS" FOR A VOTE ON A DECLARATION OF
WAR.
THE U.S. "MUST" DEMAND, THROUGH A U.N. RESOLUTION, THAT CHANGES BE
MADE IN THE "POLICIES OF THE U.N." SO THAT GENOCIDE WILL NEVER TAKE
PLACE AGAIN IN ANY COUNTRY, BY ELIMINATING THE POLICY THAT ONLY "ONE
VOTE" COULD STOP U.N. MILITARY INTERVENTION. IT SHOULD BE A "MAJORITY
VOTE".
COUNTRIES LIKE THE U.S. WHICH HAS "INTENTIONALLY AND UNJUSTIFIABLY
BOMBED AND OCCUPIED OTHER COUNTRIES WHEN IT HAS "NOT BEEN ATTACKED,
NOR THREATENED WITH ATTACK", SHOULD BE SANCTIONED BY THE U.N. AND
DROPPED FROM IT'S CHARTER, I.E. WILL NO LONGER BE PART OF THE
SOLUTION,
SINCE IT "IS PART OF..OR LIKE NOW..THE "ENTIRE PROBLEM".
IF THAT COUNTRY CONTINUES IT'S AGGRESSION THEN THE U.N. "HAS THE RIGHT
TO STOP IT THROUGH MILITARY FORCE" (NATO)AND THAT COUNTRY WOULD BE PUT
"ON NOTICE" OF THAT FACT AND ANOTHER RESOLUTION VOTED ON STATING IT.
THERE "MUST" BE A WAY TO REMOVE A COUNTRY'S "LUNATIC FASCISTS",
WITHOUT KILLING INNOCENT CIVILIANS AND THAT "MUST BE THE MOST
IMMEDIATE DISCUSSION" OF THE UNITED NATIONS.
(1)IT IS CLEAR THAT IF NATION'S REFUSE TO ALLOW THEIR CITIZENS TO OWN
WEAPONS, THEY ARE DEFENSELESS AGAINST A DICTATOR'S ARMY.
(2)WE KNOW THAT "SANCTIONS" AGAINST A NATION (NO TRADE) DOES NO GOOD,
IN FACT, IT RESULTS IN MULTI-MILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE DYING FROM
LACK OF FOOD, MEDICINE, ETC. WHICH WE HAVE SEEN FOR DECADES IN MANY
COUNTRIES.
(3)WE KNOW THAT A DICTATOR "WITHOUT THE BACKING OF THE MILITARY" CAN
EASILY BE REMOVED FROM POWER, AND THEREIN LIES THE SOLUTION, I.E.
PURSUADING THOSE COUNTRIES ARMIES TO "REMOVE THEIR DICTATORS".
********************************************
AS WE HAVE SEEN FOR MANY DECADES NOW, OUR U.S.PRESIDENTS HAVE USED THE
C.I.A. TO INCITE RIOTS SO THE PEOPLE WOULD OVERTHROW THEIR LEADERS;
THE C.I.A. HAVE TRIED AND ACCOMPLISHED, TO MURDER THAT NATION'S
LEADER,
THE C.I.A. HAS TRAINED, ARMED AND FUNDED MERCERNARIES TO STORM THE
NATION'S CAPITOLS TO KIDNAP THE LEADERS OF NATION'S, JUST LIKE WHAT
WAS
DONE IN IRAQ.
NOW, THE U.S. DOESN'T EVEN MINCE ANY WORDS AND CLEARLY STATE THEY ARE
GOING TO MAKE "REGIME CHANGES", AS IF "THEY" HAVE THE
"AUTHORITY OF GOD AND CONTROL OVER EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THIS EARTH"
TO DO THIS, WHEN THE WORLD'S PEOPLE ARE SCREAMING "YOU HAVE NO
RIGHT...THIS IS
ILLEGAL"...THIS IS A "TERRORIST ACT"...
YET AGAIN...THE FASCIST BUSH REGIME HAVE, IN THE FACE OF ALL OF THAT
"DONE EXACTLY THAT", AND CONGRESS HAS ALLOWED IT...AND CLEARLY THE
MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE..SIT ON THEIR BRAINS WHILE WAVING
THEIR SO-CALLED PATRIOTIC
FLAGS, AS THEY HAVE JUST DONE,AS IF EVERYTHING IS HONKY-DORY AND
"LOOKY WHAT
A GREAT AMERICAN I AM! WHAT TOTAL MORONS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE.
SO FAR, THE U.N. HAS LOOKED TO THE LEADERS OF THE WORLD'S NATIONS TO
SIGN TREATIES STATING THEY WILL BE "GOOD LEADERS", YET MANY WHO SIT ON
THE U.N. ASSEMBLY, LIKE THE UNITED STATES, HAS A CLEAR RECORD OF WAR
CRIMES.
AS WE CAN CLEARLY SEE WITH THE BLATANT ACTIONS OF BUSH, HE, ALONE HAS
"SINGLED-HANDEDLY" CANCELLED THESE SAME TREATIES, I.E. (CLINTON'S
SIGNED TREATY FOR THE NEW INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, KYOTO TREATY
(ENVIRONMENT) AND HAS JUST TOTALLY REFUSED TO ABIDE BY OTHERS, AND IN
FACT, BLATANTLY VIOLATES THEM, (MISSLE DEFENSE TREATY), U.N. CHARTER
OF NON-AGGRESSION, ETC. AND THE U.N. DOES NOTHING. WHY IS THAT?
BECAUSE THESE NATIONS ARE:
(1)AFRAID OF THE U.S. MILITARY MACHINE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS A
LUNATIC WHO IS SPOUTING OFF "YOU ARE EITHER WITH ME OR AGAINST ME",
AND SPEWS OUT A PARTIAL LIST OF 60 COUNTRIES HE PLANS OF INVADING
"BECAUSE THEY HAVE TERRORISTS IN THEM?.
(2)THESE U.N. MEMBERS "WANT THE MONEY AND PRODUCTS" THAT THE U.S. HAS
BEEN PAYING THEM....MANY ARE JUST BLATANT BRIBES, UNDER THE GUISE OF
"U.S.AID". THIS IS A SCAM OF TREMENDOUS PROPORTION THAT THE MAJORITY
OF
AMERICANS ARE TOTALLY CLUELESS ABOUT...AND IT'S THEIR TAX-DOLLARS. OH
YEAH..YOUR CONGRESS KNOWS THIS FULL WELL...I.E. BRIBES TO KEEP THEIR
MOUTHS SHUT ABOUT THIS CORPORATION CORRUPTION.
YET, AS WE HAVE SEEN, LITERALLY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE
WORLD WERE PROTESTING THIS WAR ON IRAQ, "AND" MOST OF THESE "LEADERS
DID
LISTEN AND REFUSED TO HELP BUSH IN HIS FASCIST INVASION". OTHERS LIKE
THE UK AND AUSTRALIA,TOTALLY IGNORED THEIR PEOPLE'S PROTESTS.
THUS...THE SOLUTION TO THIS CENTURY OLD FASCIST ACTIVITY MUST BE BY
"GOING DIRECTLY TO THE WORLD'S PEOPLE", WHO'S LIVES ARE THE ONES THAT
ARE TOTALLY AFFECTED, INCLUDING THAT COUNTRY'S MILITARY SOLDIERS, WHO
ARE BEING SLAUGHTERED FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF "THEIR LEADERS GREED AND
POWER", OR..
AS IN THE CASE OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN; IN THE DEFENSE OF THESE
ILLEGAL INVASIONS AND UNDECLARED WARS ON "THEIR COUNTRY"..SOMETHING
THE U.S.
WOULD CERTAINLY DO..BUT "OUR GOVERNMENT" CALLS THESE PEOPLE
"TERRORISTS
OR INSURGENTS, ETC..EVERYTHING EXCEPT WHAT THEY ARE.."PEOPLE WHO HAVE
BEEN ILLEGALLY AND UNJUSTIFIABLY "INVADED AND KILLED FOR THE
SELF-SERVING
REASONS OF "THAT TERRORIST NATION, I.E. THE U.S. POLITICIANS".
==============================================================================
THIS IS "THE ENTIRE BASIS FOR WHICH BIN LADEN HAS ORGANIZED HIS AL
QAEDA WHICH I HAVE POSTED HERE MANY TIMES, I.E. U.S. OIL COMPANIES
BEGGED CONGRESS TO USE THE MILITARY TO BREAK UP AFGHANISTAN'S TRIBAL
GOVERNMENTS WHO WERE REFUSING TO ALLOW THESE COUNTRIES TO BUILD AN OIL
AND GAS PIPELINE THROUGH AFGHANISTAN...SOMETHING THE SOVIET UNION
TRIED TO DO AND PRESIDENT REAGAN, TRAINED, ARMED AND FUNDED BIN LADEN
AND THE TALIBAN TO FIGHT THE SOVIETS OFF, ONLY TO DO THE SAME THING TO
BIN LADEN, ONCE THE SOVIETS WERE GONE.
PISSED OFF...YOU BET BIN LADEN WAS AND STILL IS...BUT OF COURSE,
NEITHER "YOUR FASCIST PRESIDENT NOR GREEDY CONGRESS" WILL TELL THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE THIS...YET IT IS WIDELY KNOWN AND PUBLISHED ALL OVER
EUROPE, INCLUDING THE UK....
AGAIN AMERICANS HAVE A FASCIST GOVERNMENT WHICH HAS TOTAL CONTROL OF
THE AMERICAN MEDIA...BETTER TO KEEP IT'S SHEEP IGNORANT OF SUCH
THINGS.
-----------------
I SAY, IT IS TIME THAT "THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD" UNITE AND PREPARE
"THEIR OWN WORLD PEACE TREATY AMONG "EACH OTHER" AND THAT "EACH
PERSON" WHO AGREES WILL RECEIVE A CARD THAT STATES THEY "REFUSE TO
TAKE PART IN ANY KILLINGS, STARVATION, TORTURE, ETC. ON BEHALF OF
THEIR NATION'S LEADER, WHO THEY WILL RESOLVE TO REMOVE IMMEDIATELY
UPON NOTICE OF SUCH INTENT.
IN OTHER WORDS, "THE PEOPLE WILL BE IN CHARGE OF THEIR MILITARY
FORCES" AND ONLY THROUGH A VOTE OF "THE PEOPLE" OF THAT COUNTRY WILL
THAT COUNTRY'S MILITARY BE USED FOR WAR. THE "PEOPLE MUST BE
EMPOWERED" AND "IN CONTROL" OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS AND IMMEDIATELY PLACE
THEIR NATION'S LEADER, PARLIMENTS, CONGRESSES, ETC, AS WELL AS
MILITARY "ON NOTICE", THAT "THEY...THE PEOPLE OF THAT COUNTRY, OUT
NUMBER THEM, AND WILL NO LONGER BE PART OF SUCH INHUMANE AND CORRUPT
ACTS, I.E.
IF THEY (GOVERNMENTS) DON'T LISTEN, "THE PEOPLE OF THAT NATION WILL
RISE
UP AGAINST THEM AND WILL, IF NECESSARY ASK AND RECEIVE THE HELP OF
OTHER NATION'S PEOPLE TO REMOVE THEM FROM OFFICE AND IMPRISON THEM FOR
THE REST OF THEIR LIVES". THIS IS "NOT" ANARCHY...THIS IS "GOVERNMENT
OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, AND BY THE PEOPLE"...SOMETHING THAT NOT
EVEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN SAY THEY HAVE ANY LONGER, SINCE THERE NO
LONGER IS "A RULE OF LAW" BECAUSE NO LAWS ARE BEING ENFORCED, EXCEPT
THOSE "AGAINST THE PEOPLE", NOT THE CORRUPT AND TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT.
CONSIDER THIS BECAUSE IT IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF ALL NATIONS TODAY:
******************************************************************
THERE IS A HORRIBLE FACT, BUT NONE THE LESS TRUE, WHICH WAS OBSERVED
IN THE EXTERMINATION CAMPS OF HITLER.
THERE WERE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN THESE CAMPS, YET THERE WERE ONLY A
HUNDRED OR SO ARMED NAZIS' GUARDING THEM.
THE FACT THAT 300 OF THESE PRISONERS COULD HAVE SWARMED AND
OVER-WHELMED THESE ARMED PRISON GUARDS, AND KILLED THEM, WAS ALWAYS AN
OPTION FOR THESE UNARMED PRISONERS, BUT IT WAS NEVER DONE.
SURE MANY OF THE PRISONERS WOULD HAVE DIED BY GUN FIRE, BUT THOSE GUNS
WOULD SOON BE EMPTIED AND THE SECOND SWARM OF PRISONERS COULD THEN
OVER-POWER THE GUARDS AND THE MILLIONS OF PRISONERS WOULD HAVE BEEN
SAVED. WHY DIDN'T THEY DO THIS? I.E. SEVERAL HUNDRED PEOPLE DIE IN
ORDER TO FREE MILLIONS OF THEIR FAMILIES FROM CERTAIN DEATH?
ANALYSTS SAY, "WHEN PEOPLE ARE NOT "EMPOWERED AND FEEL THEY HAVE NO
CONTROL", THEY TURN INTO SUBSERVIENT SHEEP WHO LIVE IN CONSTANT FEAR
OF THEIR "OWN CHILDREN WHO ARE NOW HOLDING THE GUNS ON THEM VIA
MILITARY SERVICE".
IN FACT, BUSH AND RUMSFELD IS USING THAT "SAME STATEMENT" IN ORDER
TO "TRY" AND EXPLAIN WHY THE IRAQI PEOPLE HAVE "NOT SIDED
WITH THE U.S. MILITARY AGAINST THE SO-CALLED TERRORISTS".
THE TRUTH, OF COURSE IS, THE U.S. G.I. "IS CONSIDERED THE ARMED
TERRORIST
OCCUPYING "THEIR COUNTRY"..THEY (U.S.) WAS "NOT ASKED" TO INVADE AND
SO-CALL LIBERATE THEM". BUT THIS IS THE KIND OF TWISTED PROPAGANDA
THAT HITLER USED WHEN HE INVADED ALMOST ALL OF EUROPE, AND THE
FASCISTS, RUMSFELD, WOLFOWITZ AND RICE, ARE TELLING BUSH TO USE THESE
SAME WORDS, TO EXPLAIN "WHY THE IRAQI PEOPLE WANT THE U.S. TROOPS OUT
OF "THEIR COUNTRY", I.E. "THEY ARE JUST POOR BRAIN-WASHED CONTROLLED
DUPES".
THINK ABOUT IT...BUSH AND HIS HENCHMEN ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE ARE SO STUPID THAT HE CAN TELL THE IRAQIS:
"WE ARE HERE TO KILL YOU WITH OUR BOMBS SO WE CAN FREE YOU"....
NOW YOU MUST ADMIT...THAT TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE EXACTLY
THAT STUPID, BECAUSE THEY BOUGHT THAT BULLSHIT, AS DID THE MAJORITY OF
CONGRESS.
WE, "THINKING AMERICANS", ARE RIGHTFULLY OUTRAGED AT OUR GOVERNMENT'S
ACTIONS AND TOTALLY ASHAMED OF HOW STUPID AND LAZY THE MAJORITY OF THE
SO-CALLED AMERICAN PEOPLE CLEARLY ARE.
THEN COMES THE "REAL ANGER", I.E. WITH THE "MEDIA" WHICH HAS
INTENTIONALLY COVERED-UP AND PROTECTED THIS "FASCIST ACTIVITY" AND IN
FACT, SPEW THEIR LIES ALL OVER THE RADIO TALK SHOWS...LISTEN TO SOME
OF THESE SHOWS AND LISTEN TO THESE RADICAL-NEO-CONS, LIE THROUGH TEETH
ABOUT "THE REAL FACTS" THEN CONSTANTLY BRING UP CLINTON'S SEX ACTIVITY
AS THE TOTAL REASON OF "WHY PEOPLE SHOULD TRUST THE GOD LOVIN GEORGE
BUSH" AND HATE CLINTON.
FOR TOTALLY STUPID PEOPLE..THIS IS EATEN UP AND IT IS DONE SO, WITH
THE HOST "TELLING THE CALLER WHO HAS JUST MOUTHED THE VERY WORDS
HE/SHE JUST HEARD FROM THIS RADIO PROPAGANDA MASTER, THAT THEY ARE "SO
RIGHT AND SO SMART", TO KNOW ALL OF THIS. THE "STUPID AMERICANS" ARE
NOW UNDER-SEIGE BY THESE FASCISTS AND IT HAS BEEN WORKING.
OF COURSE, THERE ARE MANY REPUBLICANS WHO "ARE NOW JUST WAKING UP" BUT
CONTINUE TO SUPPORT BUSH, BECAUSE TO GO AGAINST HIM, MEANS THAT HE/SHE
(REPUBLICAN) WAS SO STUPID TO "NOT REALIZE THAT THEY WERE BEING CONNED
ALSO." THEN, OF COURSE, YOU HAVE THE MORONIC FASCISTS, LIKE THOSE IN
THIS GROUP...WHO TRY TO BULLY THE STUPID READERS INTO "JOING THEIR
GANG" BY.....NOT READING MY POSTS WHICH CONTAIN "THE FACTUAL TRUTH VIA
BUSH'S "OWN" STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS; GOVERNMENT WEBSITES, AND NEWS
ARTICLES, WHICH EVEN CONGRESS REFERS TO WHEN THEY ARE ON THE FLOOR.
------
WE NOW KNOW THE PROBLEMS...HERE IS MY SOLUTION:
*********************************************
THERE ARE MANY INTERNATIONAL UNBIASED AGENCIES IN ALMOST ALL COUNTRIES
NOW, WHO'S JOBS ARE TO PROVIDE "AID TO THE STARVING AND SICK".
THEY HAVE SEEN THE MOST HELLIOUS ACTS OF TORTURE AND MURDER AGAINST
THESE NATION'S INNOCENT PEOPLE'S AND OF MILLIONS OF CHILDREN JUST
LYING IN SKIN AND BONE WAITING TO DIE. YOU PROBABLY HAVE ALSO, ON T.V.
THE AIDS DISEASE HAS CAUSED MULTI-MILLIONS OF DEATH THROUGH
INTENTIONAL DENIAL OF AVAILABLE MEDICINES.
THIS IS THE "REALITY" OF THIS WORLD WHICH MOST PEOPLE REFUSE TO LOOK
AT.
***********************************************************************
THESE NATION'S PEOPLES ARE SO PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY BROKEN DOWN NOW,
THAT THEY CAN NOT HELP THEMSELVES AND PRAY FOR DEATH.
IT IS A FACT THAT THE WORST OF THESE CASES OF GENOCIDE ARE IN THE
AFRICAN NATIONS, WHICH NATIONS CONTAIN HUGE OIL AND MINERAL RESOURCES,
AND WHO'S NATIONAL LEADERS ARE MAKING "DEALS" DAILY WITH AMERICAN OIL
COMPANIES AND OUR POLITICIANS, WHILE THE PEOPLE ARE BEING LEFT TO DIE,
BECAUSE THE U.S. "DOESN'T WANT THEM TO GET STRONG ENOUGH TO FIGHT
AGAINST THIS U.S. CORRUPTION AND GREED".
THE U.N. AND AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL HAS HUNDREDS OF ACTUAL REPORTS
OF THESE U.S. CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND HAS EVEN BEEN SANCTIONED
THE U.S. BECAUSE OF IT...AGAIN...MOST AMERICANS ARE CLUELESS BECAUSE
THE MEDIA REFUSES TO REPORT ON THIS (EXCEPT THE PBS---FRONTLINE,
MOYER REPORT, ETC)WHICH OF COURSE, THE STUPID & LAZY AMERICANS CAN'T
STAND BECAUSE "IT MAKES THEM THINK".
IT IS TRULY TIME FOR THE "WORLD'S PEOPLE" TO STOP BEING SUCH BLIND,
DEAF, AND DUMB SHEEP, AS THE GERMAN PEOPLE WERE WHEN "THEY KNEW"
MILLIONS OF JEWISH PEOPLE WERE BEING SYSTEMATICALLY KILLED BY "ONE
FASCIST DICTATOR AND HIS MADMEN"...AND IT DID NOT STOP THERE..IT HAS
CONTINUED IN THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD'S NATIONS, ESPECIALLY THOSE WE
CALL "THIRD WORLD NATIONS", WHICH HAVE BEEN "USED AND USED UP BY HUGE
CORPORATIONS", SUPPORTED BY U.S. MONEY AND MILITARY TROOPS, UNDER THE
GUISE OF "TERRORISM", ETC.
THE UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND ARE TWO OF THE WORST KILLERS ON THIS
EARTH,
YET MILLIONS OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE HAVE MARCHED IN FULL PROTEST AGAINST
"THEIR LEADERS FASCIST ACTIONS" ALL TO NO AVAIL...BECAUSE IT REQUIRES
"FORCE"..IT IS THE ONLY THING FASCIST GOVERNMENTS "UNDERSTAND".
WE, THE PEOPLE MUST CONTACT THESE AGENCIES, LIKE AMNESTY
INTERNATIONAL, AND GET INVOLVED IN THIS WORLD MOVEMENT FOR PEACE, IF
WE ARE EVER TO HAVE PEACE AND FREEDOM, AND SHARE WITH THE WORLD THE
"EXCESS FOOD" WE HAVE, ETC. YES...WE NEED TO "TALK TO OUR
KIDS/HUSBANDS
WHO ARE NOW WEARING U.S. MILITARY UNIFORMS, NOW THAT THERE ARE NO
LONGER
DRAFTS, AND TELL THEM TO "COME HOME ANYWAY THAT THEY CAN" AND "THAT
THEY ARE LEGALLY PROTECTED BECAUSE THEY "DO NOT HAVE TO OBEY ILLEGAL
LAWS, WHICH THESE SO-CALLED IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN WARS ARE AND EVEN THE
U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL, KOFI ANNAN, AS WELL AS HUNDREDS OF U.S. LAW
PROFESSORS HAVE "PUBLICLY STATED". THESE PEOPLE WANT US "OUT OF THEIR
COUNTRIES AND WE HAVE "NO LEGAL RIGHT BEING THERE"..OUR TROOPS ARE
BEING "USED FOR ILLEGAL AND INHUMANE PURPOSES".
AGAIN...THERE ARE MORE TROOPS THEN GENERALS CONTROLLING THE TROOPS
IN THESE TWO COUNTRIES AND IF THE GENERALS TRY TO "KILL THE U.S.
TROOPS, WELL THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. IT IS MY
SINCERE BELIEF THAT "OTHER COUNTRIES WHO WERE AGAINST THESE ILLEGAL
WARS WOULD "SEND THEIR OWN SHIPS AND PLANES TO BRING OUR TROOPS HOME".
IT IS A DISGRACE THAT WE IN THE U.S. "PAY FARMERS NOT TO GROW FOOD"
WHEN MULTI-MILLIONS OF THE WORLD'S PEOPLE ARE DYING FROM STARVATION.
WE MUST "LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE DONE, RATHER, WHAT WE "HAVE NOT DONE",
AND START MAKING AN EFFORT TO STOP THIS WORTHLESS SLAUGHTER OF PEOPLE
FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF GREEDY CORPORATIONS AND POLITICIANS, WHICH
WOULD KILL EACH AMERICAN IF THEY GOT IN THEIR WAY...THEY HAVE BEEN
DOING IT TO ALL OF YOU, I.E. POISONED OUR WATERS, OUR AIR, KILLED US
ON THE MANY BATTLEFIELDS FOR THEM, AND THE STUPID AMERICAN CALLS IT
"THE PATRIOTIC AMERICAN CAPITALIST WAY" THAT "ALL COUNTRIES ENVY"...
==================================================================
WRONG YOU MORONS...THE STUPID AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE LAUGHED AT BECAUSE
THEY ARE TOO STUPID TO EVEN UNDERSTAND ANY OF THIS...THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE ARE ALSO RANKED NUMBER ONE AS BEING "THE WORST FEARED AND
HATED" IN THE WORLD BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WON'T WAKE UP AND STOP
THEIR FASCIST GOVERNMENT. AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED, I TRULY BELIEVE THAT
IF GEORGE BUSH IS RE-ELECTED, IT WILL BE THE "PROOF FOR THE WORLD AND
THOSE BUSH CALLS THE "TERRORISTS", THAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS
"WANT BUSH'S FASCIST WARS TO CONTINUE" SO THEY WILL BEGIN THEIR MANY
DEVASTATING ATTACKS ON AMERICAN SOIL, AS WE DID WHEN WE WENT AFTER
HITLER.
BUSH HAS ALREADY ADMITTED THAT THEY "KNOW" THEIR ARE "TERRORIST
SLEEPER
CELLS IN THE U.S. JUST WAITING TO STRIKE"...BUT HE ALWAYS STOPS RIGHT
THERE..HE, OF COURSE, WILL NOT SAY..."SO IF YOU RE-ELECT ME..KISS YOUR
ASS GOOD-BYE".
DO YOU "KNOW" THAT BUSH & CO. HAS A COMPLETE CITY BUILT UNDERGROUND
WHERE THEY CAN AND WILL LIVE FOR MONTHS, IF THERE ARE NUCLEAR
STRIKES...
AND THAT BUSH & CO HAS SET UP A "SHADOW GOVERNMENT", BECAUSE WHEN THIS
HAPPENS, AND IT WILL HAPPEN, THEY FIGURE THAT THE "MAJORITY OF
CONGRESS" WILL BE DEAD, SO THEY HAVE A SO-CALLED WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
ON WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NEXT.
UNBELIEVABLY, MANY CONGRESS PEOPLE SAID "THEY DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING
ABOUT
THIS...DOES THAT TELL YOU THE COMPETENCY OF YOUR SO-CALLED NATIONAL
REPRESENTATIVES?
THIS IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY...JUST BECAUSE "YOU ARE TOTALLY
IGNORANT OF THESE FACTS, BECAUSE THE MEDIA REFUSES TO TELL YOU ABOUT
IT..THAT "IS" THE POINT..YOUR GOVERNMENT WANTS YOU TO CONTINUE TO BE
THE "DUMBEST SON-OF-A-BITCH IN THE WORLD"..SO FAR, YOU HAVE LIVED UP
TO THEIR EXPECTATIONS.
GO TO GOOGLE AND TYPE IN "SHADOW GOVERNMENT".. I ALREADY HAVE IT.
JUST ASK.
------------------------
THIS "IS" THE 21ST CENTURY, YET WE STILL ACT LIKE THE BARBARIANS OF
THE 1600'S AND THE REASONS ARE NOW KNOWN...:
(1) THE PEOPLE HAVE ALLOWED THEMSELVES TO BE SUBSERVIENT TO CENTURIES
OF CLASS SYSTEMS;
(2) THE PEOPLE HAVE "ALLOWED" THEMSELVES TO BE "TOTALLY CONTROLLED" BY
TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENTS OF WHICH THE PEOPLE "STUPIDLY REFUSED TO MAKE
DEMANDS OF ACCOUNTABILITY";
(3) THE PEOPLE HAVE "ALLOWED" THEMSELVES TO BEHAVE LIKE CHILDREN,
SUBSERVIENT TO THE "PARENT"...THE PEOPLE "THEY SO-CALL ELECTED" YET
DON'T HOLD ACCOUNTABLE.
THIS WILL TAKE SOME TIME TO DO AND "THIS GENERATION" SHOULD START NOW
AND GET THEIR KIDS INVOLVED SO THEY KNOW "WHAT OUR HISTORY HAS BEEN"
AND "WHY THEY MUST CARRY ON THIS WORK", AFTER WE DIE. CONTACT AMNESTY
INTERNATIONAL "NOW" AND START BY SETTING UP YOUR "STATE'S" BRANCH OF
THIS ORGANIZATION..SYLVIA
-----------
HERE IS THE LINK TO THE C.I.A. WHO'S JOB IS "TO PROTECT YOU"...HOW DO
YOU LIKE WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING SO FAR?
http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/info.html
save-our-democracy
SEE THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE CIA IN IT, PER NIXON'S ATTY. JOHN DEAN-
====================================================================
RE-POST:
> WITH THE RECENT & AND NOT SURPRISING SO-CALLED RESIGNATION OF THE
> C.I.A. DIRECTOR, GEORGE TENET I DECIDED TO RESEARCH THE HISTORY OF
> THIS AGENCY AND THE U.S.'S SO-CALLED "INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY", BECAUSE
> COMPLETED REPORT FROM THE 9-11 COMMISSION WHICH HAS BEEN INVESTIGATING
> "WHY" THE C.I.A. & OTHER U.S. INTEL AGENCIES DID NOTHING TO STOP THE
> ATTACKS ON THE U.S. IN 2001.
>
> IMMINENT THREAT" TO THE U.S. AND WAS "NOT" INCLUDED IN ANY C.I.A.
> REPORTS WAS MADE ON FEBRUARY 5, 2004, AT THE GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY,
> ALMOST A YEAR "AFTER" THESE ILLEGAL ATTACKS TOOK PLACE, AND NOW...4
> MONTHS AFTER HIS SO-CALLED "RESIGNATION FOR PERSONAL REASONS".
> TENET: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2004/tenet_georgetownspeech_02052004.html
HERE IS A TERRIFIC ARTICLE BY A WELL-KNOWN ATTORNEY, JOHN DEAN, OF THE
WATERGATE ERA, WHO COMPARED THE "HIGH CRIMES" OF NIXON WITH GEORGE
BUSH AND THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS, I.E. "IMPEACHMENT" FOR LYING TO
CONGRESS, THE MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC.
NOTE THE DATE OF THIS ARTICLE:
JUNE 6, 2003, I.E. ONE YEAR AGO TODAY. DEAN'S SCENARIO RE LIES ABOUT
WMD HAS
****************************************************************************
BEEN CONFIRMED.
***************
CLEARLY BUSH COULD AND SHOULD BE IMPEACHED BASED ON "THE RULE OF LAW"
AND THE CLEAR EVIDENCE WE NOW HAVE AGAINST HIM...THE QUESTION IS...WHY
IS CONGRESS REFUSING TO DO SO, UNLESS, THEY "KNOW THAT THEY TO CAN BE
IMPEACHED AS CO-DEFENDANTS FOR VOTING ON A RESOLUTION PERMITTING BUSH
TO ATTACK IRAQ, WHEN IT WAS CLEAR "BUSH'S EVIDENCE WAS CLEARLY
FRAUDULENT". SYLVIA
--------
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html
save-our-democracy
==================================================
Go to Original: http://www.truthout.org
Pentagon Ignored its Info, CIA Says
***********************************
The Guardian U.K.
Sunday 06 June 2004
"I told Feith and Perle this, but it did not make any difference.
They're like
*****************************************************************************
Jesuits. They believed and they didn't check around."
****************************************************
Robert Baer, former CIA officer
********************************
Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), came
under further pressure from Washington on Friday when it was reported
the US intercepted an Iranian intelligence cable nine years ago which
discussed a meeting with him in northern Iraq.
Chalabi, who was supported by the Pentagon during the Iraq
invasion, has been accused by US intelligence officials of passing
secrets to Tehran this year.
Former intelligence officials have pointed to the intercept as
evidence the INC leader had longstanding ties to Iranian intelligence.
They say the CIA informed the Pentagon of its suspicions but was
ignored.
In the 1995 incident Chalabi is reported to have met Iranian
agents in northern Iraq and let them see a forged document falsely
suggesting the US was pursuing a plan to assassinate Saddam Hussein.
The story was first told by Robert Baer in his 2001 book, See No
Evil: the True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on
Terrorism. Baer was the CIA case officer assigned to work with Chalabi
in northern Iraq in the mid-1990s.
According to his account, Chalabi put the document, printed on US
national security council stationery, on his desk during a meeting
with Iranian intelligence agents and left it there when he left the
room to take a telephone call, knowing the Iranians would read it.
But Baer did not explain in the book how US intelligence had found
out about the forged document. On Friday the Washington Post said
Iranian agents in Iraq had sent an encrypted message about the meeting
to Tehran which was intercepted and decoded by the US. Baer said he
could neither confirm nor deny that part of the story.
Chalabi fell from grace with his American backers last month,
after being accused by US officials of passing secrets to Iranian
intelligence six weeks ago, informing Tehran that its internal codes
had been cracked by the US national security agency. He has rejected
the charge as a CIA smear.
The assassination of foreign leaders in peacetime is prohibited by
US law and presidential orders and the 1995 incident triggered an FBI
investigation.
Baer and his team in northern Iraq were questioned about their
role in forging the document but were eventually cleared of
involvement. Baer said the document was forged by the INC, in the hope
of attracting Iran's support for his fight against Saddam.
Baer said that before George Bush won the 2000 election he had
told Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, two prominent INC backers, about
Chalabi's unreliability and his ties to Iran.
"I told Feith and Perle this, but it did not make any difference,"
he said. "They're like Jesuits. They believed and they didn't check
around."
Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of operations at the CIA's
counterterrorism unit, said George Tenet, the agency's chief who
resigned on Thursday, had arranged for the Pentagon to be informed
about Chalabi in 2002 but the CIA had been "blown off" by the
Pentagon.
-------
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever
with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or
sponsored by the originator.)
Print This Story E-mail This Story
© : t r u t h o u t 2004
| t r u t h o u t | forum | issues | editorial | letters | donate |
contact |
| voting rights | environment | budget | children | politics |
indigenous survival | energy |
| defense | health | economy | human rights | labor | trade | women |
reform | global |
justice-for-all
IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT AMERICAN'S ATTENTION SPAN LASTS ABOUT TWO DAYS,
THUS THIS..MY THREAD ON THE TORTURE AND DEATH OF INNOCENT PEOPLE MUST
BE SHOWN AND HOPEFULLY READ AGAIN, ESPECIALLY SINCE..
THE REPUBLICANS, WHO ARE IN THE MAJORITY, ARE HELL BENT TO CONFIRM, AS
THE U.S.'S TOP LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, I.E. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
"THE SO-CALLED ATTORNEY FOR BUSH, WHO KNOWINGLY LIED AND DISTORTED "THE
U.S. RATIFIED "CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE" A U.N. TREATY AND "TOLD
BUSH" ..HE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW TORTURE OF PRISONERS.
THIS CONFIRMATION WILL TAKE PLACE EARLY NEXT WEEK..THIS WILL BE THE
LAST OF THE "TOP BUSH FASCISTS" TO BE INSTALLED FOR BUSH'S PLANS OF
"MORE MURDEROUS GLOBAL AND NATIONAL ACTIVITY. OH YEA..THE REPUBS ARE
ALL FOR THIS "KNOWING" THAT THIS GUY BELONGS IN PRISON AND
DISBARRED..FOR THIS BLATANT VIOLATION OF OUR U.S. LAWS..RE INTENTIONAL
FRAUD FOR PERSONAL BENEFIT, I.E. THE "PROMOTION TO THE TOP LEGAL
POSITION IN THE U.S. (A.G.) WITH CONTROL OVER THE NATION'S DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE AND ALL OF IT'S FEDERAL JUDGES.
SYLVIA
justice-for-all
ALBERTO GONZALES'S
OPENING STATEMENT TO
SEN. JUDICIARY NOMINATING COMMITTEE OF WHICH HE "SWORE AN OATH TO TELL
THE TRUTH". CURIOUSLY I COULD "NOT" FIND A FULL TRANSCRIPT OF HIS
ENTIRE TESTIMONY..NOT EVEN ON C-SPAN.
======
Subject:1-06-05-ALBERTO GONZALES-TESTIMONY RE NOMINATION FOR
US-ATTORNEY GENERAL
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1345&wit_id=3936
justice-for-all
RETIRED NAVY ATTORNEY
AGAINST GONZALES FOR U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
==========
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2005/01/against-gonzales.php
justice-for-all
"HAS BLOOD ON HIS HANDS"
=============
Subject:Alberto Gonzales Has Blood on His Hands
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0106-22.htm
justice-for-all
PROCESS, I.E. THE SENATE HEARINGS AND VOTE ON THE MOST IMPORTANT
POSITION IN THE NATION, AFTER THE PRESIDENT, I.E. THE U.S. ATTORNEY
GENERAL..THE TOP LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE PEOPLE.
IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED THAT GONZALES WAS BEHIND THE TOTALLY WRONG
INTERPRETATION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION-PRISON TORTURE AND UNBELIEVABLY
STATING THAT "THE PRESIDENT CAN DECIDE WHAT LAWS HE WILL FOLLOW.
THIS IS BUSH'S "BEST CANDIDATE" FOR THE TOP COP OVER YOU AND ME.
GONZALES HAS PROVEN HE IS A NAZIS AND BUSH IS HIS HITLER.
IF YOU GIVE A DAMN ABOUT LIVING IN A POLICE STATE, DO YOURSELF A FAVOR
AND WATCH & VIDEO TAPE THESE SENATE HEARINGS ON C-SPAN. HERE IS THEIR
LINK..CLICK ON TO TV SCHEDULES...DOWNLOAD THE LYING B.S. HE TESTIFIED
TO "UNDER OATH" BEFORE THE JUDICIARY NOMINATION HEARINGS. SYLVIA
----------
Subject:C-SPAN
http://www.c-span.org/
..
justice-for-all
ALSO..PLEASE EXPLORE THIS THREAD WHICH CONTAINS MOST OF THE "EVIDENCE"
ABOUT BUSH INVOLVEMENT IN PRISONER TORTURE, AS WELL AS DON RUMSFELD AND
THE CIA. YOU WILL FIND THE "MEMOS' WRITTEN APPROVING PRISONER TORTURE
AND TAKING PRISONERS TO FOREIGN LANDS FOR TORTURE AND NOT LISTING THEM
SO THEY COULD BE FOUND. SYLVIA
---
Subject:C-SPAN: Full TV Schedule
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp
THE WORLD IS ALSO WATCHING TO SEE IF OUR CONGRESS ALLOWS THIS WAR
CRIMINAL TO HOLD OFFICE, IT WILL SET THE STAGE FOR FURTHER MURDER OF
OUR G.I.'S AND ALL OF US. .
justice-for-all
HEARINGS ARE BEING SHOWN ON C-SPAN2 AND NOT THE MAIN C-SPAN CHANNEL,
I.E. MANY CABLE STATIONS DON'T CARRY C-SPAN 2, ALTHOUGH THE MAIN C-SPAN
"USUALLY REPLAYS IMPORTANT HEARINGS ON IT", SO PLEASE LINK ON TO THE
ABOVE C-SPAN.ORG TV SCHEDULE.
I "STILL CANNOT FIND" AN ON-LINE LINK TO GONZALES'S SENATE JUDICIAY
TESTIMONY TRANSCRIPT...BUT IT COMES AS NO SURPRISE SINCE THE REPUBS ARE
STATING TODAY THAT GONZALES "WILL BE APPROVED BY THE SENATE" AS A.G.
BUT....GONZALES'S TESTIMONY, I.E. LIES AND REFUSAL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
ABOUT HIS "OWN LEGAL OPINIONS AND ACTS" ARE THE "PROOF THAT HE WILL
CONTINUE TO PROTECT AND DEFEND BUSH'S ILLEGAL ACTS.
HERE IS A GREAT SITE WHERE YOU CAN GET THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES AND
DOCUMENTS THAT SHOWS "WHY GONZALES SHOULD BE DISBARRED...NOT..HOLDING
THIS NATION'S TOP LEGAL POSITION. SYLVIA
I WILL POST THESE DOCUMENTS SINCE THE BELOW SITE MAY NOT ARCHIVE THIS
PAGE.
-----
Inbox for
Subject:Alberto Gonzales:
A Record of Injustice - Center for American Progress
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=246536
justice-for-all
CHARGES.
---------------
washingtonpost.com > Nation > National Security
CIA Puts Harsh Tactics On Hold
Memo on Methods Of Interrogation Had Wide Review
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 27, 2004; Page 1
The CIA has suspended
----------------------
the use of extraordinary interrogation techniques approved by the White
House pending a review by Justice Department and other administration
lawyers, intelligence officials said.
The "enhanced interrogation techniques," as the CIA calls them, include
feigned drowning and refusal of pain medication for injuries.
The tactics have been used to elicit intelligence from al Qaeda leaders
such as Abu Zubaida and Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
Current and former CIA officers aware of the recent decision said the
suspension reflects the CIA's fears of being accused of unsanctioned
and illegal activities, as it was in the 1970s.
The decision applies to CIA detention
-------------
facilities, such as those around the world where the agency is
interrogating al Qaeda leaders and their supporters, but not military
prisons at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.
"Everything's on hold," said a former senior CIA official aware of the
agency's decision.
"The whole thing has been stopped until we sort out whether we are sure
we're on legal ground."
----------------------
A CIA spokesman declined to comment on the issue.
CIA interrogations will continue but without the suspended techniques,
which include feigning suffocation, "stress positions," light and noise
bombardment, sleep deprivation, and making captives think they are
being interrogated by another government.
The suspension is the latest fallout from the abuse scandal at Abu
Ghraib prison in Iraq, and is related to the White House decision,
announced Tuesday, to review and rewrite sections of an Aug. 1, 2002,
Justice Department
-------------------
opinion on interrogations that said torture might be
----------------
justified in some cases. ----------------------
Although the White House repudiated the memo Tuesday as the work of a
small group of lawyers at the Justice Department, administration
officials now confirm it was vetted by a larger number of officials,
including lawyers at the National Security Council, the White House
counsel's office and Vice President Cheney's office.
The memorandum was drafted by the Justice Department's Office of Legal
Counsel to help the CIA determine how aggressive its interrogators
could be during sessions with suspected al Qaeda members.
The legal opinion was signed by Jay S. Bybee, then head of the office
and now a federal judge. -----------------------
The office consists mainly of political
-------------------
appointees and
----------
is considered the
-----------------
executive branch
-----------------
agencies' legal adviser. -----------------------
Memos signed by the head -----------------------
of the office are given
-----------------------
the weight of a binding
----------------------
legal opinion.
--------------
A Justice Department official said Tuesday at a briefing that the
office went "beyond what was asked for," but other lawyers and
administration officials said the memo was approved by the department's
criminal division and by the office of Attorney General John D.
Ashcroft.
In addition, Timothy E. Flanigan -- then deputy White House counsel --
discussed a draft of the document with lawyers at the Office of Legal
Counsel before it was finalized, the officials said.
David S. Addington, Cheney's counsel, also weighed in with remarks
during at least one meeting he held with Justice lawyers involved with
writing the opinion.
He was particularly concerned, sources said, that the opinion include a
clear-cut section on the president's authority.
That section of the memo has become among the most controversial within
the legal community that has analyzed the opinion since it was made
public by The Washington Post.
During Tuesday's briefing, White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales
called the commander in chief section "unnecessary."
The Justice Department, he said, "will make a decision as to whether or
not that is something that should continue to remain in the opinion."
Justice Department officials said it would be scrapped.
The commander in chief section of the opinion said laws prohibiting
torture do "not apply to the President's detention and interrogation of
enemy combatants" in his role as commander in chief.
Congress, which has signed international laws prohibiting torture, "may
no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate
enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop
movements on the battlefield," according to the August memorandum.
Another element of the opinion criticized by outside lawyers is that it
defines torture as pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain
accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment
of bodily function, or even death."
That standard would allow a variety of tactics that would be considered
cruel and inhumane under international law, legal experts have said.
CONTINUED1 2 Next
justice-for-all
CIA Puts Harsh Tactics On Hold
At a briefing Tuesday, Gonzales declined to answer repeated questions
about how the legal opinion, or the upcoming review of it, affected the
CIA.
But, he added, "As far as I'm told, every interrogation technique that
has been authorized throughout the government is lawful and does not
constitute torture."
Asked yesterday about the memo's circulation to a wider group
of officials than previously known, White House spokeswoman Erin Healy
replied in an e-mail:
"It would not be uncommon for the Department of Justice to discuss
issues with lawyers throughout the administration.
Regardless, the President's policy is very clear. He expects detainees
to be treated in a manner consistent with our laws, treaties and
values.
The President has spoken out against torture, he has never authorized
it, nor will he. As we have said, portions of the memo are overbroad
and the Department of Justice is reviewing it."
The legal debate over CIA interrogation techniques had its origins in
the battlefields of Afghanistan, secret counterterrorism operations in
Pakistan and in President Bush's decision to use unconventional tools
in going after al Qaeda.
The interrogation methods were approved by Justice Department and
National Security Council lawyers in 2002, briefed to key congressional
leaders and required the authorization of CIA Director George J. Tenet
for use, according to intelligence officials and other government
officials with knowledge of the secret decision-making process.
When the CIA and the military "started capturing al Qaeda in
Afghanistan, they had no interrogators, no special rules and no place
to put them," said a senior Marine officer involved in detainee
procedures.
The FBI, which had the only full cadre of professional interrogators
from its work with criminal networks in the United States, took the
lead in questioning detainees.
But on Nov. 11, 2001, a senior al Qaeda operative who ran the Khaldan
paramilitary camp in Afghanistan was captured by Pakistani forces and
turned over to U.S. military forces in January 2002.
-------------
The capture of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a Libyan, sparked the first real
debate over interrogations.
The CIA wanted to use a range of methods, including threatening his
life and family.
But the FBI had never authorized such methods.
The bureau wanted to preserve the purity of interrogations so they
could be used as evidence in court cases.
Al-Libi provided the CIA with intelligence about an alleged plot to
blow up the U.S. Embassy in Yemen with a truck bomb and pointed
officials in the direction of Abu Zubaida, a top al Qaeda leader known
to have been involved with the Sept. 11 plot.
In March 2002, Abu Zubaida was captured, and the interrogation debate
between the CIA and FBI began anew.
This time, when FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III decided to withhold
FBI involvement, it was a signal that the tug of war was over.
"Once the CIA was given the green light . . . they had the lead role,"
said a senior FBI counterterrorism official.
Abu Zubaida was shot in the groin during his apprehension in Pakistan.
U.S. national security officials have suggested that painkillers were
used selectively in the beginning of his captivity until he agreed to
cooperate more fully.
His information led to the apprehension of other al Qaeda members,
including Ramzi Binalshibh, also in Pakistan.
The capture of Binalshibh and other al Qaeda leaders -- Omar al-Faruq
in Indonesia, Rahim al-Nashiri in Kuwait and Muhammad al Darbi in Yemen
-- were all partly the result of information gained during
interrogations, according to U.S. intelligence and national security
officials.
All four remain under CIA control.
A former senior Justice Department official said interrogation
techniques for "high-value targets" were reviewed and approved on a
case-by-case basis, based partly on what strategies would work best on
specific detainees.
Justice lawyers suggested some limitations that were adopted, the
former official said.
The former official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of
the sensitivity of the issue, said the administration concluded that
techniques did not amount to torture if they did not produce
significant physical harm or injury.
However, interrogators were allowed to trick the detainees into
thinking they might be harmed or instructed to endure unpleasant
physical tasks, such as being forced to stand or squat in stress
positions.
"Clearly, that is not considered torture," the former Justice official
argued.
"It might be unpleasant and it might offend our sensibilities in most
situations, but in these situations they were necessary and
productive."
At the same time, the former official said,
"we never had a situation where we said, 'You can do anything you want
to.' We never, ever did that. We were aggressive, but our people were
very scholarly and lawyerlike."
Staff writers John Mintz and Dan Eggen contributed to this report.
< Back 1 2 Print This Article
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
-------------
..
justice-for-all
2-01-05--HOW VERY TIMELY THIS COURT DECISION IS CONSIDERING THAT BUSH
WANTS THE NATION'S "TOP COP"(ATTORNEY GEN) TO BE APPOINTED " THIS WEEK"
WHEN "HIS LEGAL OPINION" IS IN TOTAL CONTRADICTION TO THIS C OURT AND
THE REPUBS TOOK ALL DAY LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH TO DEFEND GONZALES'
RECORD OF LEGAL PROSTITUTION FOR BUSH.
NOTE: BUSH IS GOING TO "APPEAL" THIS COURT DECISION...WHICH PROVIDES
THE PROOF TO ALL AMERICANS THAT HE "AGREES WITH THESE ILLEGA L AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS"...BUT HELL WE ALL KNOW THAT BUSH & CO . WANT
"POWER & CONTROL" AND PROVE THAT "THEY THINK "THEY" ARE THE LAW AND
DON'T HAVE TO OBEY ANY LAWS, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN IN THE RECENT
SENATE CONFIRMATION STATEMENTS AND THE DOCUMENTS I HAVE POST ED UNDER
MY
THREAD DEALING WITH ALBERTO GONZALES. SYLVIA
------
U.S. military tribunals at Guantanamo ruled unconstitutional
By?ALAN
GLOBE & MAIL (CANADA)
Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - Page A12
WASHINGTON -- In another setback to the Bush administration' s handling
of the war on terror, a U.S. District Court judge ruled yest erday that
military tribunals set up for prisoners at the Guantanamo Ba y military
base are unconstitutional.
----------------------------------
The ruling is a sweeping indictment of the special tribunals created by
the government to determine whether the prisoners are "enemy
combatants," declaring that the detainees are entitled to ch allenge
the
basis for their detention.
"Although this nation must take strong action under the lead ership of
the commander-in-chief to protect itself against enormous an d
unprecedented threats, that necessity does not negate the ex istence of
the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of th is country
have fought and died for well over 200 years," wrote Judge J oyce Hens
Green.
More than 540 suspects are being held at Guantanamo, a U.S. base
located in Cuba, after they were captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere
in the world after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United
States and the subsequent overthrow of the Taliban regime in
Afghanistan.
The U.S. government has determined that the detainees are "e nemy
combatants" who can be held indefinitely and who have no con
stitutional
rights.
That contention was first challenged successfully last year when the
Supreme Court ruled that the detainees are legally entitled to
"challenge their incarceration".
The special military tribunals were set up shortly afterward to
determine whether the detainees could still be held.
In yesterday's case, Judge Green ruled that the 55 detainees involved
had valid claims under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Const itution,
which determines that nobody can be "deprived of life, liber ty or
property without due process of law."
"We're thrilled with the ruling," said Rachel Meerepol, a la wyer with
the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents the p risoners.
"It signals that the judiciary is taking its needed role in ensuring
that this country abides by the promises of the Constitution , and no
individual will be detained without an opportunity to challe nge their
detention in the courts."
The Bush administration said it will appeal the ruling,
------------------------------------------------------
particularly in light of a separate ruling in a similar case two weeks
ago that favoured the government view.
-------------------------------------------------------
"We respectfully disagree with the decision," White House sp okesman
Scott McClellan said.
It's expected that the case will make its way to the Supreme Court.
Judge Green determined that some of the detainees had valid claims
under the Geneva Conventions and that officials had unfairly withheld
from detainees access to evidence used against them.
Because the tribunals did not allow the prisoners a full leg al
defence,
they had no lawyers to question that classified evidence.
Judge Green cited the case of Mustafa Ait Idr, who was accus ed of
associating "with a known al-Qaeda operative" when he lived in Bosnia.
Faced with the allegation, Mr. Idr asked the tribunal the na me of the
alleged al-Qaeda member so he could identify him, but he was told this
information was classified.
"These are accusations that I can't even answer," the detain ee told
the
tribunal in exasperation.
"You tell me I am from al-Qaeda, but I am not an al-Qaeda. I don't have
any proof to give you except to ask you to catch [al-Qaeda l eader
Osama] bin Laden and ask him if I am part of al-Qaeda."
The judge said that the exchange might have been considered humorous if
the consequences of the detainee's designation as an enemy c ombatant
had not been so "terribly serious."
The judge was also sharply critical of the government's appr oach to
the
length of prison time for enemy combatants.
She noted that the government asserts the right to keep thes e
prisoners
until the war on terror has concluded or until the President decides
that any individual no longer poses a threat to U.S. nationa l
security.
"The government, however, has been unable to inform the cour t how long
it believes the war on terrorism will last," adding that it has been
conceded that the war could last for "several generations," meaning
that some of the prisoners could, in effect, be serving life terms.
E-mail this Article
Print
Globe Poll Should Canada deport terrorist suspects and illeg al aliens
back to countries where they might be tortured?
YesNo
Results & Past Polls
.
.
George Allen
justice-for-all
GEORGE WROTE:
> What War Crimes ?
------------
JUST "ONCE"GEORGE..."READ" THE MATERIAL IN FRONT OF YOU. TURN ON THE
T.V. GO TO C-SPAN, DO AS I SUGGESTED AND GO TO THE GOOGLE NEWS AT
http://www.google.news.com
ORRRRR, CHECK OUT MY POSTS ON THIS THREAD THAT GO BACK ABOUT A YEAR
THAT TALKS ABOUT THE U.S. KILLING AT LEAST 37 PRISONERS THAT BUSH
CLAIMS ARE "TERRORISTS" YET HAVE NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH "ANY CRIME".
I REALIZE YOU ARE 70 YEARS OLD BUT PPPLLLLLEASE, READ WHAT IS IN FRONT
OF YOU OR AVAILABLE TO YOU.
SYLVIA &;)
justice-for-all
===
Two U.S. Soldiers Admit to Abu Ghraib Abuses
Tue Feb 1, 2005 05:29 PM ET
(Page 1 of 2)
=====
Charged with Abuses at Abu Ghraib
By Emily Howard
FORT HOOD, Texas
(Reuters) - Two U.S. soldiers pleaded guilty on Tuesday to charges of
abusing Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib prison by stomping on fingers and
toes, and, in another incident, humiliating naked rape suspects.
Sgt. Javal Davis, 27, admitted to stomping on the fingers and toes of a
group of seven bound and hooded inmates during an episode of late-night
abuse in November 2003.
Other guards then undressed the prisoners and stacked them into a naked
human pyramid.
In a separate case also heard at the military base in Fort Hood, Texas,
military intelligence soldier Spc. Roman Krol pleaded guilty to pouring
water on Iraqi prisoners as they crawled naked on the floor and
throwing a football at detainees.
Davis is one of seven reservists from the Army's 372nd Military Police
Company charged with abuses at Abu Ghraib, photos of which caused a
worldwide uproar.
Two from that unit, including Pfc. Lynndie England, who was pictured
holding a leash tethered to a naked prisoner, still face trial.
Several witnesses at another Abu Ghraib trial last month testified
about abuses from Davis and Krol at the notorious prison that once
served as a torture center under Saddam Hussein.
Davis argues he and other guards roughed up prisoners at the behest of
intelligence officials who wanted to extract information from the
prisoners.
"Basically, when the intelligence personnel, when they bring them down
there, anyone that comes in there with intelligence value, they want to
interrogate them and they would ask you to loosen them up," Davis,
formerly of Roselle, New Jersey, told ABC News last year.
"Basically, just rough them up a little bit, get them scared. Don't
hurt them or anything like that, which I didn't do. No one was injured
from what I did."
SENTENCE STILL TO BE DECIDED
Under the plea agreement, expected to result in a sentence lower than
the original 8 1/2 years he faced, Davis admitted his guilt on three
charges: dereliction of duty, making a false official statement and
battery.
When the judge asked a series of questions about the charges, Davis,
wearing a military dress uniform, appeared calm and collected as he
responded. He smiled a few times while talking with his lawyers and
parents during court recesses. Continued ...
1 | 2 Next
..
justice-for-all
2-01-05
------
Two U.S. Soldiers Admit to Abu Ghraib Abuses
(Page 2 of 2)
The court will choose a military jury on Wednesday to decide the
punishment, a base spokesman said.
The "following orders" defense failed at the only Abu Ghraib abuse
trial to date, against leading figure Charles Graner.
He was found guilty last month of stacking naked prisoners into a human
pyramid, leashing a naked prisoner and other abuses.
The military jury sentenced Graner to 10 years in prison.
The jury in the Graner case also viewed photos related to the abuse
charges against Krol.
The pictures showed three rape suspects who were stripped naked and
handcuffed together into a tight embrace on Oct. 25, 2003. An American
football was visible nearby in several photos.
One other U.S. military intelligence soldier, Spc. Armin Cruz, has
pleaded guilty to charges involving abuses that same night.
Cruz, a member of 325th Military Intelligence Battalion with Krol, was
sentenced to eight months in jail, a reduction in rank and a bad
conduct discharge.
© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.
Previous 1 | 2