CI--The torture had been reported and was being investigated since January. The press dropped the story, I guess because it wasn't sparking interest.
The release of the pictures whipped up a frenzy, which really backs the assertion that the war is between the images, as well as the troops/ combatants. (I hadn't even heard about it.)
----------------------
I do understand chain of command, but I don't know why Bush wasn't told. Is it always military practice to keep reports of torture and associated investigations from the President? (Actually, as I wrote it, I decided it isn't probably a practice to inform a President of such as this...)
I appreciate all the feedback, and the links. I'm still roving around trying to find a list of acceptable 'interrogation techniques'.
Quote:I do understand chain of command, but I don't know why Bush wasn't told. Is it always military practice to keep reports of torture and associated investigations from the President? (Actually, as I wrote it, I decided it isn't probably a practice to inform a President of such as this...)
Bush was told. I think even Rumsfeld has acknowledged that. So it comes down to 'what was he told?'. I think it is safe to assume that he was told rather more than the January press release told us..."Reports of some abuses...we're investigating" was what we were told. Bland, rather.
I do not assume that Rumsfeld will tell the full truth about how much Bush was told. I assume he will do whatever he can to protect his president, including lying through his teeth.
If we consider what Bush 'needed' to know, then that presents a different picture. That will vary from administration to administration, depending on management style and organization. But I think we can assume that "plausible deniability" will be the operating principle on a matter as touchy as this one. Thus, unless someone high up gets really pissed and does the whistleblower thing, we'll likely never know.
The question of 'even if he didn't know, how responsible is he for what goes on in his command?' is also a matter for reflection.
As with many laws, ignorance is no excuse. With the knowledge that such information if made public could be damaging to any administration should have been the SOP; this kind of situation does not evolve from the lower echelon enlisted men and women to initiate torture of prisoners whether they were "trained" or not. Those of us that have served in the US military knows better.
On that death certificate, nimh, my admittedly vague impression is that everyone dying when not under the care of a doctor is autopsied, but I could be way off the mark.
I do understand chain of command, but I don't know why Bush wasn't told.
Perhaps, because Bush is largely out of the loop and remains not particularly engaged?
The American media never seem to have picked up on the story about Jaleel, though mainstream media in Germany, Austria, France, Holland and the UK all reported it - no surprise there. But under the same heading we might now have Manadel al-Jamadi:
Quote:U.S. probes death of prisoner seen in photos
Images show 2 U.S. soldiers near body with thumbs-up
[..] The detainee, whose badly bruised corpse was in a body bag packed with ice, died in the prison's showers while being interrogated by the CIA or other civilian agents, ABC reported Wednesday. At least three such CIA cases have been referred by the agency to the Justice Department for prosecution, the official said.
In an account published Monday, the Los Angeles Times reported that the victim had been brought to the prison with his head covered by an empty sandbag. It said he died in the midst of intensive questioning in the shower by military intelligence officials. After he collapsed, the interrogators removed the bag and then saw severe head wounds that had not been treated.
Away from Abu G. prison, however, there might be a
far more volatile story:
Quote:New front in Iraq detainee abuse scandal?routinely drug prisoners, hold a prisoner under water until he thinks he's drowning, or smother them almost to suffocation. [..] All of those practices would be violations of the Geneva Conventions.
[..]
So, does Rumfeld know about the BIF and what goes on there?
Several top U.S. military and intelligence sources say yes, and that he, through other top Pentagon officials, directed the U.S. head of intelligence in Iraq, Gen. Barbara Fast, and others to bring some of the methods used at the BIF to prisons like Abu Ghraib, in hopes of getting better intelligence from Iraqi detainees.
I had to post today, because I read in the San Jose Mercury News that the guards at the Iraqi prison were not hazing their prisoners from direct orders from higher ups. It seems they were doing it on their own to humiliate the prisoners that supposedly made trouble. It makes sense, because the experiments done at Stanford resulted in the same hazing style of making the prisoners shed their clothes, and treating them in similar ways. I must admit that my assumptions were wrong.
Pasted from nimh to avoid those maddening multiple quotes - "These sources say the prisoners there are hooded from the moment they are captured. They are kept in tiny dark cells. And in the BIF's six interrogation rooms, Delta Force soldiers routinely drug prisoners, hold a prisoner under water until he thinks he's drowning, or smother them almost to suffocation. [..]
Not terribly surprising in a sense. I believe the SAS trainees are subjected to this, themselves, and SAS was the inspiration for Delta. The intent may be to teach them to resist the techniques, but the result might be to convince them of their effectiveness.
cicerone imposter wrote:I had to post today, because I read in the San Jose Mercury News that the guards at the Iraqi prison were not hazing their prisoners from direct orders from higher ups. [..] I must admit that my assumptions were wrong.
Though its always good to admit when one's wrong, I think the various newspaper reports on this are way too mixed to depend on any one of them to conclude that there was or was not an order from above. Just look at that "New front in Iraq detainee abuse scandal? " in the post above yours - which is about
another prison - for an example where "top U.S. military and intelligence sources" say yes, Rumsfeld knew or even directed what went on.
Personally, I highly doubt there was a direct order all the way up from Rumsfeld that soldier X or interrogator Y should apply torture technique A or B. My guess would be that he merely had guidelines passed downwards emphasizing, say, the relativity of the Geneva conventions in light of the "unique" dangers in this war, etc - the military intelligence people would then have been able to come up themselves with what that meant.
This story isn't improving. New cases were revealed, including numerous homicides, and chain of command issues, over the last couple of days.
Sounds like they're trying to legally weasle out of the "fully applicable" Geneva conventions thing, even as they're still trying to convince the broader public that all that happened was a handful of GIs misbehavin' ...
Understandable - admitting Geneva conventions were fully applicable when it turns out there's a lot more "cases" means admitting each of those cases fundamentally constitute war crimes, right?
Yes. And it makes Rumsfeld and all the generals who testified under oath to be liars.
Everyone is lying scum except ---of course the RCMP.
My God you are regal and -----on duty----Man ---talk about judgmental.
Have you signed up with Michael Moore yet?
nimh, From what I understand, the soldiers during the court martial admitted they did the hazing without any orders from anybody. Beyond that, I suppose anything is possible, but the one thing that does bother me is that these soldiers were able to treat their prisoners without the knowledge of their superiors is unforgivable. There is a lack of supervision that goes to the upper ranks no matter what is found at the lower levels. For that alone, some heads need to roll. They were negligent, and that cannot be taken lightly in the military.
Hot off the press.
**************
Report Links U.S. General to Iraq Prison Abuse Case
16 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A lawyer for a soldier charged in the Abu Ghraib abuse case said a captain at the Iraqi prison has charged that Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez was present during some unspecified "interrogations and/or allegations of the prisoner abuse," The Washington Post reported on Sunday.
Citing a recording of a military hearing obtained by the newspaper, The Post said the military lawyer, Capt. Robert Shuck, was told that Sanchez, the highest-ranking U.S. military officer in Iraq (news - web sites), and other senior officials were aware of what was taking place at Abu Ghraib.
Shuck is assigned to defend Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick, one of the seven U.S. soldiers, four men and three women, accused of abuses at the prison. One pleaded guilty on Wednesday and was imprisoned.
The Post reported on Saturday that Frederick had been accused by military police officers involved in the scandal of being an organizer of the abuse.
The U.S. Congress and the Pentagon (news - web sites) are both investigating the revelations of physical and sexual abuse of Iraqi inmates at the prison outside Baghdad that have surfaced in the past month. Details of the abuse, including graphic photos and sworn depositions, have shaken the Bush administration as it attempts turn back sovereignty to the Iraqis on June 30.
The Post on Saturday published testimony of soldiers speaking of fun and sadistic pleasure in abusing prisoners. A day earlier it published new images, including video, of Iraqis being beaten and sexually humiliated.
The newspaper said Shuck made the allegation regarding Sanchez at an April 2 hearing, stating he had been told that by the company commander, Capt. Donald Reese.
"Are you saying that Captain Reese is going to testify that General Sanchez was there and saw this going on?" the military prosecutor asked, according to the transcript.
"That's what he told me," Shuck said.
A Defense Department spokesman referred questions to U.S. military officials in the Middle East. The spokesman told The Post that statements by defense lawyers or their clients should be treated with "appropriate caution." The hearing was held at Camp Victory in Baghdad, the newspaper said, and that it obtained a copy of an audio recording.
Shuck was quoted as saying, "Present during some of these happenings, it has come to my knowledge that Lieutenant General Sanchez was even present at the prison during some of these interrogations and/or allegations of the prisoner abuse by those duty (noncommissioned officers)."
The newspaper said Reese did not testify that day, instead invoking the military version of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Post said Reese has not been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony.
Sofia wrote:
What is acceptable? Under what circumstances?
NOthing of what the US is done is acceptable. The universes centre of justice and liberty? What a crock of sh!t.
Another sensible response...
There are universally used interrogation techniques. Sensory deprivation, manipulating someone's view, isolation... I asked which of these did people consider OK, which ones are not...
If someone has mistakenly affixed a sign reading "Universe's Centre of Justice and Liberty" somewhere around here, I will ask for it to be removed. We can send it to your country.
