"Americans tortured Iraqi to death"

Abuse of Captives More Widespread, Says Army Surveywidespread pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known.

The cases from Iraq date back to April 15, 2003, a few days after Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in a Baghdad square, and they extend up to last month, when a prisoner detained by Navy commandos died in a suspected case of homicide blamed on "blunt force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia."

Among previously unknown incidents are the abuse of detainees by Army interrogators from a National Guard unit attached to the Third Infantry Division, who are described in a document obtained by The New York Times as having "forced into asphyxiation numerous detainees in an attempt to obtain information" during a 10-week period last spring. [..]

The Army summary is consistent with recent public statements by senior military officials, who have said the Army is actively investigating nine suspected homicides of prisoners held by Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan in late 2002.

But the details paint a broad picture of misconduct, and show that in many cases among the 37 prisoners who have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army did not conduct autopsies and says it cannot determine the causes of the deaths.

In his speech on Monday night, President Bush portrayed the abuse of prisoners by American soldiers in narrow terms. He described incidents at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which were the first and most serious to come to light, as involving actions "by a few American troops who disregarded our country and disregarded our values."

According to the Army summary, the deaths that are now being investigated most vigorously by Army officials may be those from Afghanistan in December 2002, where two prisoners died in one week at what was known as the Bagram Collection Point [..]

On March 4, 2003, The New York Times reported on the two deaths, noting that the cause given on one of the death certificates was "homicide," a result of "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease." It was signed by an Army pathologist.

Both deaths were ruled homicides within days, but military spokesmen in Afghanistan initially portrayed at least one as being the result of natural causes. Personnel from the unit in charge of interrogations at the facility, led by Capt. Carolyn Wood, were later assigned to Iraq, and to the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center at Abu Ghraib. [..]

In what appeared to be a serious case of abuse over a prolonged period of time, unidentified enlisted members of the 223rd Military Intelligence Battalion, part of the California National Guard, were accused of abusing Iraqi detainees at a center in Samarra, north of Baghdad. [..]

According to the Army summary, members of the 223rd "struck and pulled the hair of detainees" during interrogations over a period that lasted 10 weeks. The summary said they "forced into asphyxiations numerous detainees in an attempt to obtain information." [..]

Another incident, whose general outlines had been previously known, involved the death in custody of a senior Iraqi officer, Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush, who died last November at a detention center run by the Third Armored Cavalry, of Fort Carson, Colo. Soldiers acknowledged to investigators that interviews with the general on Nov. 24 and 25 involved "physical assaults."

In fact, investigators determined that General Mowhoush died after being shoved head-first into a sleeping bag, and questioned while being rolled repeatedly from his back to his stomach. That finding was first reported in The Denver Post.

According to Army officials and documents, at least 12 prisoners have died of natural or undetermined causes, including nine in Abu Ghraib. In six of those cases, the military conducted no autopsy to confirm the presumed cause of death. As a result, the investigations into their deaths were closed by Army investigators.

In another case, an autopsy found that a detainee, Muhammad Najem Abed, died of cardiac arrest complicated by diabetes, without noting, as the investigation summary does, that he died after "a self-motivated hunger strike." [..]

At a Pentagon briefing on Friday, a senior military official and a senior Pentagon medical official said the Army was investigating the deaths of 37 detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, an increase from at least 25 deaths that a senior Army general described on May 4. [..]

DEPT. OF NOT REASSURING MILITARY LINGO:
Still more grim news from Abu Ghraib, and other detention facilities. This time care of the Times...

The article pretty much speaks for itself. But one minor thing stood out for me:

Quote:

In another case, an autopsy found that a detainee, Muhammad Najem Abed, died of cardiac arrest complicated by diabetes, without noting, as the investigation summary does, that he died after "a self-motivated hunger strike."

Self-motivated hunger strike? Sounds a little ominous, no? Would we have to identify the hunger strike as "self-motivated" if there weren't some other kind?

posted 10:32 a.m.

dlowan wrote:

Actually, I think this horror illustrates something I really like about the US - the culture of openness.

I honestly cannot imagine such a story about Oz troops, for instance, getting out so fast and increasingly fully with such a fearless press. Sure, people want to muzzle things - it is hard and tough having this stuff come out.

But, out it comes.

Good on you America, I say.

I wish I could share the sentiment - always good to be able to throw something positive in the mix. But I have a problem buying it.

First off, like Foxfyre said, the story did appear back in January, and sank without a trace. Apparently, they either werent brave enough, or interested enough to wanna find out about it.

All credits go to 60 minutes for then coming out with the story again in a way that noone could ignore. Yet they almost did, again - press reporting on the story was strangely subdued for about another week, even as it splashed straight on to the frontpages here.

Perhaps it was the splash abroad that forced the US media to finally catch up - perhaps they were just slow. Perhaps there was some state-of-denial thing going on, perhaps a recitence to rouse the wrath of the administration - or, more likely, to offend the audience/readership.

Granted, not that the Dutch press was very fast in picking up on the Srebrenica story coupla years back ...

We know isolation, food restrictions, nudity, cold blasts of water...happen when an army is desperate to get information about impending attacks... If you know, or strongly suspect, a detainee has information that can save innocent life--how far do you go to get that information? I think its a pertinent question.

What happened at Abu Ghraib may not fall into this basic conversation--but the application of some questioning techniques, which may be called torture...juxtaposed with the information considered vital to saving people-- considered with upholding Human Rights is a paradoxical mess.

U.S. officials hate to talk about it openly, but a primary function of places like Baghram and Abu Ghurayb is interrogation. The lives of American soldiers can depend on secrets spilled there.

I personally don't care if those who target innocents and are committed to kill anybody and everybody who doesn't conform to their beliefs are comfortable or not.

The questioning of hundreds of Iraqi prisoners last fall in the newly established interrogation center at Abu Ghraib prison yielded very little valuable intelligence, according to civilian and military officials.

The interrogation center was set up in September to obtain better information about an insurgency in Iraq that was killing American soldiers almost every day by last fall. The insurgency was better organized and more vigorous than the United States had expected, prompting concern among generals and Pentagon officials who were unhappy with the flow of intelligence to combat units and to higher headquarters.

But civilian and military intelligence officials, as well as top commanders with access to intelligence reports, now say they learned little about the insurgency from questioning inmates at the prison. Most of the prisoners held in the special cellblock that became the setting for the worst abuses at Abu Ghraib apparently were not linked to the insurgency, they said.

To be fair, in my post, I said the larger conversation about "approved" or "unapproved" interrogation techniques may not apply to the particular Abu Ghraib story.

We know isolation, food restrictions, nudity, cold blasts of water...happen when an army is desperate to get information about impending attacks... If you know, or strongly suspect, a detainee has information that can save innocent life--how far do you go to get that information? I think its a pertinent question.

What happened at Abu Ghraib may not fall into this basic conversation--but the application of some questioning techniques, which may be called torture...juxtaposed with the information considered vital to saving people-- considered with upholding Human Rights is a paradoxical mess.

What is acceptable? Under what circumstances?