Phoenix32890 wrote:
Is there any credible proof that the behavior of these troops towards prisoners WAS sanctioned?
Nope, that's why it's still just my opinion. There are things that make me think so, and that are pretty damning, but no
proof.
I think the general idea of using sexual humiliation was sanctioned if not the very specific acts themselves.
There was more than just soldiers having fun going on. The hoods and nudity were all part of what the soldiers were told to do, to "fear up" the Iraqis.
Almost everything they did seems to me to be methods to that end.
The hoods are a classic element in such interogations.
Using dogs to attack and threaten them seems to be a way to make them fearfull.
Keeping them naked for days and making them defacate on themselves (they were placed in cells with no toilets) is a way to make them uncomfortable.
Attaching wires to their genitals and threatening electrocution is a common, if crude, interrogation technique.
The prisoners were being prepared and held for interrogations. This much is already
known. So the question is how much of this was sactioned by the interrogators as preparations for the interrogations.
Quote:One of the men being court-marshaled for this is Chip Frederick and he wrote of the CIA operatives and civilian contractors condoning the acts:
In letters and e-mails to family members, Frederick repeatedly noted that the military-intelligence teams, which included C.I.A. officers and linguists and interrogation specialists from private defense contractors, were the dominant force inside Abu Ghraib. In a letter written in January, he said:
I questioned some of the things that I saw . . . such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell?-and the answer I got was, [b]"This is how military intelligence (MI) wants it done."[/b] . . . . MI has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window, for as much as three days.
The military-intelligence officers have "encouraged and told us, ?'Great job,' they were now getting positive results and information," Frederick wrote. "CID has been present when the military working dogs were used to intimidate prisoners at MI's request." At one point, Frederick told his family, he pulled aside his superior officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Phillabaum, the commander of the 320th M.P. Battalion, and asked about the mistreatment of prisoners. "His reply was ?'Don't worry about it.'"
In November, Frederick wrote, an Iraqi prisoner under the control of what the Abu Ghraib guards called "O.G.A.," or other government agencies?-that is, the C.I.A. and its paramilitary employees?-was brought to his unit for questioning. "They stressed him out so bad that the man passed away. They put his body in a body bag and packed him in ice for approximately twenty-four hours in the shower. . . . The next day the medics came and put his body on a stretcher, placed a fake IV in his arm and took him away." The dead Iraqi was never entered into the prison's inmate-control system, Frederick recounted, "and therefore never had a number."
The killed prisoner who was dumped is photographed, so I can provide that evidence if necessary.
The coverup of this murder is something I think indicated more than just isolated involvement.
The Army's chief law-enforcement officer, Provost Marshal Donald Ryder said in a report way back on November 5th that these issues existed.
I'll again quote
this article.
Quote:Last fall, General Sanchez ordered Ryder to review the prison system in Iraq and recommend ways to improve it. Ryder's report, filed on November 5th, concluded that there were potential human-rights, training, and manpower issues, system-wide, that needed immediate attention.
There was evidence dating back to the Afghanistan war, the Ryder report said, that M.P.s had worked with intelligence operatives to "set favorable conditions for subsequent interviews"?-a euphemism for breaking the will of prisoners. "Such actions generally run counter to the smooth operation of a detention facility, attempting to maintain its population in a compliant and docile state."
That is from a man's report that some have considered more of a cover up than an exposé.
There are sworn statements from involved soldiers saying that
some of these acts were part of their tasked duties that are in a internal report made by Major General Antonio M. Taguba.
Quote:Another witness, Sergeant Javal Davis, who is also one of the accused, told C.I.D. investigators, "I witnessed prisoners in the MI hold section . . . being made to do various things that I would question morally. . . . We were told that they had different rules." Taguba wrote, "Davis also stated that he had heard MI insinuate to the guards to abuse the inmates. When asked what MI said he stated: ?'Loosen this guy up for us.'?'Make sure he has a bad night.'?'Make sure he gets the treatment.'" Military intelligence made these comments to Graner and Frederick, Davis said. "The MI staffs to my understanding have been giving Graner compliments . . . statements like, ?'Good job, they're breaking down real fast. They answer every question. They're giving out good information.'"
When asked why he did not inform his chain of command about the abuse, Sergeant Davis answered, "Because I assumed that if they were doing things out of the ordinary or outside the guidelines, someone would have said something. Also the wing"?-where the abuse took place?-"belongs to MI and it appeared MI personnel approved of the abuse."
Another witness, Specialist Jason Kennel, who was not accused of wrongdoing, said, "I saw them nude, but MI would tell us to take away their mattresses, sheets, and clothes." (It was his view, he added, that if M.I. wanted him to do this "they needed to give me paperwork.") Taguba also cited an interview with Adel L. Nakhla, a translator who was an employee of Titan, a civilian contractor. He told of one night when a "bunch of people from MI" watched as a group of handcuffed and shackled inmates were subjected to abuse by Graner and Frederick.
General Taguba saved his harshest words for the military-intelligence officers and private contractors. He recommended that Colonel Thomas Pappas, the commander of one of the M.I. brigades, be reprimanded and receive non-judicial punishment, and that Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, the former director of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center, be relieved of duty and reprimanded. He further urged that a civilian contractor, Steven Stephanowicz, of CACI International, be fired from his Army job, reprimanded, and denied his security clearances for lying to the investigating team and allowing or ordering military policemen "who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations by ?'setting conditions' which were neither authorized" nor in accordance with Army regulations. "He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse," Taguba wrote. He also recommended disciplinary action against a second CACI employee, John Israel. (A spokeswoman for CACI said that the company had "received no formal communication" from the Army about the matter.)
"I suspect," Taguba concluded, that Pappas, Jordan, Stephanowicz, and Israel "were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuse at Abu Ghraib," and strongly recommended immediate disciplinary action.
Thing is, the recommended punishments I've seen so far do not involve a day of jail time. Just losing their jobs and such.
The saddest thing is that most of these prisoners were picked up in checkpoints and searches and even by the military's own report (Taguba's) 60% of the prisoners at this prison "have nothing to do with anything."
In other words, most of the prisoners processed in this prison were not threats to the coalition at all, they were not even just criminals caught in crimes and were innocent altogether.