View Full Version : Bush using 'HO's' against muslims at Guantanamo prison camp
muckraker10021
01-27-2005, 02:47 PM
<font face="verdana" size="5" color="#d90000">
The bush junta has completely lost their minds. I guess bush was watching the live video feed in the oval office with Gonzales and Condi. :D :D :D :D </font>
<img src="http://www.ap.org/media/images/logo.gif">
<font face="Trebuchet MS, Arial Unicode MS, Bookman Old Style, sans-serif" size="3" color="#000000">
Thursday, January 27, 2005 · Last updated 2:43 a.m. ET
<font face="arial black" color="#D90000" size="5">Pentagon Had Female Interrogators Use Sexual Tactics to Break Muslim Detainees</font>
<b>By PAISLEY DODDS
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
Thursday, January 27, 2005 · Last updated 2:43 a.m. ET</b>
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- Female interrogators tried to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay by sexual touching, wearing a miniskirt and thong underwear and in one case smearing a Saudi man's face with fake menstrual blood, according to an insider's written account.
A draft manuscript obtained by The Associated Press is classified as secret pending a Pentagon review for a planned book that details ways the U.S. military used women as part of tougher physical and psychological interrogation tactics to get terror suspects to talk.
It's the most revealing account so far of interrogations at the secretive detention camp, where officials say they have halted some controversial techniques.
"I have really struggled with this because the detainees, their families and much of the world will think this is a religious war based on some of the techniques used, even though it is not the case," the author, former Army Sgt. Erik R. Saar, 29, told AP.
Saar didn't provide the manuscript or approach AP, but confirmed the authenticity of nine draft pages AP obtained. He requested his hometown remain private so he wouldn't be harassed. Saar, who is neither Muslim nor of Arab descent, worked as an Arabic translator at the U.S. camp in eastern Cuba from December 2002 to June 2003. At the time, it was under the command of Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who had a mandate to get better intelligence from prisoners, including alleged al-Qaida members caught in Afghanistan.
Saar said he witnessed about 20 interrogations and about three months after his arrival at the remote U.S. base he started noticing "disturbing" practices.
One female civilian contractor used a special outfit that included a miniskirt, thong underwear and a bra during late-night interrogations with prisoners, mostly Muslim men who consider it taboo to have close contact with women who aren't their wives.
Beginning in April 2003, "there hung a short skirt and thong underwear on the hook on the back of the door" of one interrogation team's office, he writes. "Later I learned that this outfit was used for interrogations by one of the female civilian contractors ... on a team which conducted interrogations in the middle of the night on Saudi men who were refusing to talk."
Some Guantanamo prisoners who have been released say they were tormented by "prostitutes."
In another case, Saar describes a female military interrogator questioning an uncooperative 21-year-old Saudi detainee who allegedly had taken flying lessons in Arizona before the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Suspected Sept. 11 hijacker Hani Hanjour received pilot instruction for three months in 1996 and in December 1997 at a flight school in Scottsdale, Ariz.
"His female interrogator decided that she needed to turn up the heat," Saar writes, saying she repeatedly asked the detainee who had sent him to Arizona, telling him he could "cooperate" or "have no hope whatsoever of ever leaving this place or talking to a lawyer.'"
The man closed his eyes and began to pray, Saar writes.
The female interrogator wanted to "break him," Saar adds, describing how she removed her uniform top to expose a tight-fitting T-shirt and began taunting the detainee, touching her breasts, rubbing them against the prisoner's back and commenting on his apparent erection.
The detainee looked up and spat in her face, the manuscript recounts.
The interrogator left the room to ask a Muslim linguist how she could break the prisoner's reliance on God. The linguist told her to tell the detainee that she was menstruating, touch him, then make sure to turn off the water in his cell so he couldn't wash.
Strict interpretation of Islamic law forbids physical contact with women other than a man's wife or family, and with any menstruating women, who are considered unclean.
"The concept was to make the detainee feel that after talking to her he was unclean and was unable to go before his God in prayer and gain strength," says the draft, stamped "Secret."
The interrogator used ink from a red pen to fool the detainee, Saar writes.
"She then started to place her hands in her pants as she walked behind the detainee," he says. "As she circled around him he could see that she was taking her hand out of her pants. When it became visible the detainee saw what appeared to be red blood on her hand. She said, 'Who sent you to Arizona?' He then glared at her with a piercing look of hatred.
"She then wiped the red ink on his face. He shouted at the top of his lungs, spat at her and lunged forward" - so fiercely that he broke loose from one ankle shackle.
"He began to cry like a baby," the draft says, noting the interrogator left saying, "Have a fun night in your cell without any water to clean yourself."
Events Saar describes resemble two previous reports of abusive female interrogation tactics, although it wasn't possible to independently verify his account.
In November, in response to an AP request, the military described an April 2003 incident in which a female interrogator took off her uniform top, exposed her brown T-shirt, ran her fingers through a detainee's hair and sat on his lap. That session was immediately ended by a supervisor and that interrogator received a written reprimand and additional training, the military said.
In another incident, the military reported that in early 2003 a different female interrogator "wiped dye from red magic marker on detainees' shirt after detainee spit (cq) on her," telling the detainee it was blood. She was verbally reprimanded, the military said.
Sexual tactics used by female interrogators have been criticized by the FBI, which complained in a letter obtained by AP last month that U.S. defense officials hadn't acted on complaints by FBI observers of "highly aggressive" interrogation techniques, including one in which a female interrogator grabbed a detainee's genitals.
About 20 percent of the guards at Guantanamo are women, said Lt. Col. James Marshall, a spokesman for U.S. Southern Command. He wouldn't say how many of the interrogators were female.
Marshall wouldn't address whether the U.S. military had a specific strategy to use women.
"U.S. forces treat all detainees and conduct all interrogations, wherever they may occur, humanely and consistent with U.S. legal obligations, and in particular with legal obligations prohibiting torture," Marshall said late Wednesday.
But some officials at the U.S. Southern Command have questioned the formation of an all-female team as one of Guantanamo's "Immediate Reaction Force" units that subdue troublesome male prisoners in their cells, according to a document classified as secret and obtained by AP.
In one incident, dated June 19, 2004, "The detainee appears to be genuinely traumatized by a female escort securing the detainee's leg irons," according to the document, a U.S. Southern Command summary of videotapes shot when the teams were used.
The summary warned that anyone outside Department of Defense channels should be prepared to address allegations that women were used intentionally with Muslim men.
At Guantanamo, Saar said, "Interrogators were given a lot of latitude under Miller," the commander who went from the prison in Cuba to overseeing prisons in Iraq, where the Abu Ghraib scandal shocked the world with pictures revealing sexual humiliation of naked prisoners.
Several female troops have been charged in the Abu Ghraib scandal.
Saar said he volunteered to go to Guantanamo because "I really believed in the mission," but then he became disillusioned during his six months at the prison.
After leaving the Army with more than four years service, Saar worked as a contractor briefly for the FBI.
The Department of Defense has censored parts of his draft, mainly blacking out people's names, said Saar, who hired Washington attorney Mark S. Zaid to represent him. Saar needed permission to publish because he signed a disclosure statement before going to Guantanamo.
The book, which Saar titled "Inside the Wire," is due out this year with Penguin Press.
Guantanamo has about 545 prisoners from some 40 countries, many held more than three years without charge or access to lawyers and many suspected of links to al-Qaida or Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime, which harbored the terrorist network.
---
EDITOR'S NOTE: Paisley Dodds is an Associated Press reporter based in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and has been covering the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since it opened in 2002.
---
<font face="arial" size="2" color="#0000FF"><b>
On the Web:
http://www.defenselink.mil</font></font>
<img src="http://www.bloodforoil.org/neocon/neocon.jpg" width="350" height="540"><img src="http://www.bloodforoil.org/neocon/neocon2.jpg" width="350" height="540">
</body>
</html>
Makkonnen
01-27-2005, 03:46 PM
"The concept was to make the detainee feel that after talking to her he was unclean and was unable to go before his God in prayer and gain strength," says the draft, stamped "Secret."
QueEx
01-27-2005, 04:34 PM
<font face="verdana" size="5" color="#d90000">
The bush junta has completely lost their minds ... </font>
-- Female interrogators tried to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay by sexual touching, wearing a miniskirt and thong underwear and in one case smearing a Saudi man's face with fake menstrual blood, according to an insider's written account.
You are cracking me the fuck up with those lead ins !!! More seriously, it appears that they are reading from the same book of tactics used at Abu Ghraib. The sad thing is apparently they can't see that they are playng right into the hands of the supposed foe (Al Qaeda/recruitment); the good thing, if there is one, is that these continuous relevations at some point <u>must</u> take their toll on the administration, if not, at least with those who have shaky loyalties and allegiances to the adminstration.
QueEx
Makkonnen
01-27-2005, 04:45 PM
Que - the general at Abu Garaib came from Guantanamo- he was sent to Iraq to duplicate his work at Gitmo
pitbull
01-27-2005, 06:03 PM
No wonder were losing this war... the best we can do.
blackbull1970
01-27-2005, 07:25 PM
I would lie like a mofo under that type of Interrogation for a Free ASS and Titty show.
If this is true......it's funny as Hell!
Peace.
Makkonnen
01-27-2005, 11:22 PM
I would lie like a mofo under that type of Interrogation for a Free ASS and Titty show.
If this is true......it's funny as Hell!
Peace.
smearing period juice in your grill too? chill
muckraker10021
01-28-2005, 09:20 AM
I would lie like a mofo under that type of Interrogation for a Free ASS and Titty show.
If this is true......it's funny as Hell!
Peace.
<font face="times new roman" color="#D90000" size="4"><b>It's true.....
CNN -Associated Press - GITMO SOLDIER "FEMALE INTERROGATORS USED" (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005012808100001466534&dt=20050128081000&w=APO&coview=)
.....and it's only funny if viewed as a Tragicomedy.........What are they going to do next? .........Put electric vibrators up muslim men's asses and then ask them where bin laden is..........</b></font>
Fuckallyall
01-28-2005, 12:15 PM
and it's only funny if viewed as a Tragicomedy.........What are they going to do next? .........Put electric vibrators up muslim men's asses and then ask them where bin laden is
I think you misunderstanding torture. Grossing people out and making them uncomfortable is not torture. If it is, MOST interrogation is torture. Shoving things up thier asses, and maybe even touching thier genitalia (if it is in a painful manner) is torture. Offending thier societal/cultural morays is not torture.
tehuti
01-28-2005, 12:32 PM
Torture involves causing extreme physical pain; bodily and/or mental anguish.
The intent of these interrogation tactics is obviously to cause extreme mental anguish.
Fuckallyall
01-28-2005, 12:42 PM
If that is your definition, then like I said, MOST interrogation is torture.
QueEx
01-28-2005, 12:51 PM
I think you misunderstanding torture. Grossing people out and making them uncomfortable is not torture. If it is, MOST interrogation is torture. Shoving things up thier asses, and maybe even touching thier genitalia (if it is in a painful manner) is torture. Offending thier societal/cultural morays is not torture.
Is that not a distinction without a difference ??? Among some people, cultural insults maybe equally as uncomfortable as physical pain; and either may generate as much disdain as the other.
QueEx
Fuckallyall
01-28-2005, 12:59 PM
Among some people, cultural insults maybe equally as uncomfortable as physical pain; and either may generate as much disdain as the other.
That is my point, although you put expressed it more eloquently than I did. My point is that the term torture was put in the Geneva convention to prevent mutilation and killing of POW's beyond the pale of acceptable warfare. It was not put there to keep POW's from being mistreated at all, because any form of interrogation can be arguably torture, since interrogation aims to provoke the dissemination of information by one who wishes to halt the interrogation. Holla.
tehuti
01-28-2005, 01:50 PM
That is my point, although you put expressed it more eloquently than I did. My point is that the term torture was put in the Geneva convention to prevent mutilation and killing of POW's beyond the pale of acceptable warfare.
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of
International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva
from 21 April to 12 August, 1949
entry into force 21 October 1950
PART I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 1
The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
Article 2
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
muckraker10021
01-28-2005, 02:55 PM
<font face="arial unicode ms, verdana, sans-serif" color="#333333" size="4">
<table id="table4" bgcolor="#bf001f" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="44%"><br /> <tr><td width="181"><img src="http://www.geobop.com/education/911/images/mine/bush/nazi.jpg"><img src="http://www.geobop.com/education/911/images/mine/bush/nazi.jpg"></td><br /> <td bgcolor="#bf001f"><br /> <table id="table5" bordercolorlight="#BF001F" bordercolordark="#BF001F" bgcolor="#bf001f" border="5" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="335" width="200"><br /> <tr><br /> <td><br /> <img src="http://www.nypress.com/17/31/news&columns/BUSH-FEATURE-300.jpg" border="0" height="335" width="200"></td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /></table>
'Fuckall' , you are are walking in the forest but you can't see the trees. The members of the bush junta are not stupid. The bush junta knew that the treatment they wanted to inflict upon the detainees at Iraq & Cuba was ILLEGAL under US law. They know that they are engaged in fascism. Their model is no different than what Benito Mussolini tried to implement in Italy in the 1930's -1940's.
Mussolini said:
"<u>FASCISM</U> should more properly be called <u>CORPORATISM</U> because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
"State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management." -- Benito Mussolini
The bush junta can't call it 'fascism', or 'national socialism', or 'corporatism' because the American people would reject such terminology and remove them and there allies in the congress & senate from office. So they use phrases like "Ownership Society", "It's You Money" etc. as they pursue Corporatism.
More importantly, unlike Mussolini or Hitler or Franco, the bush junta can not seize complete power via the barrel of a gun and arbitrarily suspend all laws.
The bush junta under current American law which they can not arbitrarily suspend knows that they are accountable for their actions.
How does this relate to the abuse of prisoners?
The bush junta knew that the treatment they wanted to inflict upon the detainees at Iraq & Cuba was ILLEGAL under US law. They had to CYA- (Cover Your Ass) before they gave the orders to abuse, torture, humiliate (you pick the word that you like best) detainees.
So, bush had is butt-boy, Alberto Gonzales, contact John Ascroft's Justice Department for a "new legal opinion" of what abuse, humiliation & torture actually means under US law. They key word here is OPINION.
Jay S. Bybee wrote the Justice Department 'OPINION'. Bybee's 'OPINION'. contravened US LAW enacted by Congress in 1996 . That US law was The Convention Against Torture and the accompanying criminal provisions enacted by Congress in 1996 to prohibit abuse and torture.
Bybee's gave the bush junta the CYA- (Cover Your Ass) paperwork that they needed to invoke plausible deniability if the activities at Abu Garaib and Guantanamo became public. Bybee's 'OPINION' gave the Bush Administration cover for twenty-two months.
Two weeks before sending Gonzales to the senate for his Attorney General confirmation hearings, the bush junta suspended the Bybee 'OPINION' and said that they no longer agreed with Bybee's 'OPINION'.
Oh . by the way, Jay S. Bybee, was rewarded for writing the 'OPINION' with a Federal Judgeship. Bybee is now a Federal Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He was confirmed by the Senate on March 13, 2003.
Did the senate know that Jay S. Bybee wrote the 'Torture Opinion' when they voted to confirm him? Of course not!
</font>
<h2>READ:
<u>Making Torture Legal</u> (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17230) </h2><font face="arial" color="#0000FF" size="3"><b>
......"Reading through the memoranda written by Bush administration lawyers on how prisoners of the "war on terror" can be treated is a strange experience. The memos read like the advice of a mob lawyer to a mafia don on how to skirt the law and stay out of prison. Avoiding prosecution is literally a theme of the memoranda.".....</b></font>
<hr noshade size="12"></hr>
<font face="verdana" size="4" color="#0000FF">
<font color="#333333"><h3>READ:</h3>
Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror by Mark Danner</font>
Excellent Book!, it contains all the documents that the "Media of Mass Distraction" didn't publish.
A 30 year veteran Israeli torture expert says:
<font face="times new roman" color="#FF0000"><b>
“I hate Arabs, I’ve been fighting and killing them for years. If we treated our Arab and Palestinian prisoners the way you Americans do at Abu Ghraib & Cuba, the state of Israel despite our military power would no longer exist. Every Arab man, women & child would be committed to killing us.” </b></font>
<img src="http://lookinside2-images.amazon.com/Qffs+v35lerRqTz/pIRYnCvYHCGUo4WBY8szw9V7zjoNur4SzLaZyHzFpO4ZL2zW" width="400" height="624">
</font>
Gods_Favorite
01-28-2005, 03:19 PM
If we treated our Arab and Palestinian prisoners the way you Americans do at Abu Ghraib & Cuba, the state of Israel despite our military power would no longer exist. Every Arab man, women & child would be committed to killing us.”
The mans right.
pitbull
01-28-2005, 03:30 PM
If we treated our Arab and Palestinian prisoners the way you Americans do at Abu Ghraib & Cuba, the state of Israel despite our military power would no longer exist. Every Arab man, women & child would be committed to killing us.”
He's kidding right..? GTFOH. (rather be in US jail over Israel.)
Makkonnen
01-28-2005, 04:02 PM
arent palestinian men and women and older children committed to killing israelis?
Fuckallyall
01-28-2005, 04:39 PM
The bush junta knew that the treatment they wanted to inflict upon the detainees at Iraq & Cuba was ILLEGAL under US law.
Of course they knew. And they acted like they knew, and that was thier mistake. They should have just had fall guys and payoff money handy.
On to the larger point, I think it is naive to really think that there are no agressive interrogation tactics (torture) going on in any widescale conflict. If you were personally involved in a conflict, I would bet my retirement money that you would give a guy a shot in the jaw (or something to that effect) to get information that may save the lives of you comrades.
Also, on the fascism theme, I agree, to a point. That is why I complain so frequently about the amount of power we want to give the government. One can only influence events with power, and this government has abused every power entrusted to it. I will get worried when they try to change the form of electing our leaders.
muckraker10021
01-29-2005, 04:20 PM
He's kidding right..? GTFOH. (rather be in US jail over Israel.)
<FONT FACE="times new roman" size="4" color="#000000">
<font color="#0000FF">No I'm not kidding.</font>
In 1999 the Israeli Supreme Court took the courageous and long overdue decision to ban outright <u>ALL FORMS</u> OF PHYSICAL FORCE AND TORTURE DURING INTERROGATION.
<font face="verdana">
<u>The Painful Lesson Israel Learned About Torture</u> (http://www.shalomctr.org/index.cfm/action/read/section/torture/article/article622.html) </font></font><p><p><p>
<img src="http://bitterfact.tripod.com/iraq/images/torture/040510onslpo_prison_01_p350.jpg">
</font>
<font face="times new roman" color="#FF0000" size="4"><b>
What type of information was Rumsfeld and company trying to get by allowing US soldiers at Abu Gharib to Fuck teenage Iraqi boys in the ASS while their parents watched???
This sordid act was filmed and every US senator saw this film when they were allowed to see the entire Abu Gharib cache of pictures and videos. The Abu Gharib pictures that we all saw in the newspapers and on television were less than 5% of what the Defense Department has. </b></font>
<font size="4">
The truth about what the US government is doing "In Our Name" is freely available if you give a damn about reality. Many americans don't give a shit about what our government does as long as they can put gas in their Hummer, get a chemical-burger at McDonalds, get their Viagra pills, and keep the NIĢĢERs out of their neighboorhood.
<h2>READ:</h2>America's Disappeared: Secret Imprisonment, Detainees, and the "War on Terror"</font>
<img src="http://a1204.g.akamai.net/7/1204/1401/04031518011/images.barnesandnoble.com/images/7510000/7517582.jpg">
</font>
tehuti
01-31-2005, 01:26 PM
Just for the title, I had to post this op/ed.
Torture Chicks Gone Wild
By the time House Republicans were finished with him, Bill Clinton must have thought of a thong as a torture device.
For the Bush administration, it actually is.
A former American Army sergeant who worked as an Arabic interpreter at Gitmo has written a book pulling back the veil on the astounding ways female interrogators used a toxic combination of sex and religion to try to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Cuba. It's not merely disgusting. It's beyond belief.
The Bush administration never worries about anything. But these missionaries and zealous protectors of values should be worried about the American soul. The president never mentions Osama, but he continues to use 9/11 as an excuse for American policies that bend the rules and play to our worst instincts.
"I have really struggled with this because the detainees, their families and much of the world will think this is a religious war based on some of the techniques used, even though it is not the case," the former sergeant, Erik R. Saar, 29, told The Associated Press. The A.P. got a manuscript of his book, deemed classified pending a Pentagon review.
What good is it for President Bush to speak respectfully of Islam and claim Iraq is not a religious war if the Pentagon denigrates Islamic law - allowing its female interrogators to try to make Muslim men talk in late-night sessions featuring sexual touching, displays of fake menstrual blood, and parading in miniskirt, tight T-shirt, bra and thong underwear?
It's like a bad porn movie, "The Geneva Monologues." All S and no M.
The A.P. noted that "some Guantánamo prisoners who have been released say they were tormented by 'prostitutes.' "
Mr. Saar writes about what he calls "disturbing" practices during his time in Gitmo from December 2002 to June 2003, including this anecdote related by Paisley Dodds, an A.P. reporter:
A female military interrogator who wanted to turn up the heat on a 21-year-old Saudi detainee who allegedly had taken flying lessons in Arizona before 9/11 removed her uniform top to expose a snug T-shirt. She began belittling the prisoner - who was praying with his eyes closed - as she touched her breasts, rubbed them against the Saudi's back and commented on his apparent erection.
After the prisoner spat in her face, she left the room to ask a Muslim linguist how she could break the prisoner's reliance on God. The linguist suggested she tell the prisoner that she was menstruating, touch him, and then shut off the water in his cell so he couldn't wash.
"The concept was to make the detainee feel that after talking to her he was unclean and was unable to go before his God in prayer and gain strength," Mr. Saar recounted, adding: "She then started to place her hands in her pants as she walked behind the detainee. As she circled around him he could see that she was taking her hand out of her pants. When it became visible the detainee saw what appeared to be red blood on her hand. She said, 'Who sent you to Arizona?' He then glared at her with a piercing look of hatred. She then wiped the red ink on his face. He shouted at the top of his lungs, spat at her and lunged forward," breaking out of an ankle shackle.
"He began to cry like a baby," the author wrote, adding that the interrogator's parting shot was: "Have a fun night in your cell without any water to clean yourself."
A female civilian contractor kept her "uniform" - a thong and miniskirt - on the back of the door of an interrogation room, the author says.
Who are these women? Who allows this to happen? Why don't the officers who allow it get into trouble? Why do Rummy and Paul Wolfowitz still have their jobs?
The military did not deny the specifics, but said the prisoners were treated "humanely" and in a way consistent "with legal obligations prohibiting torture." However the Bush White House is redefining torture these days, the point is this: Such behavior degrades the women who are doing it, the men they are doing it to, and the country they are doing it for.
There's nothing wrong with trying to squeeze information out of detainees. But isn't it simply more effective to throw them in isolation and try to build some sort of relationship?
I doubt that the thong tease works as well on inmates at Gitmo as it did on Bill Clinton in the Oval Office.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/opinion/30dowd.html?oref=login&8hpib
muckraker10021
02-04-2005, 06:25 PM
<font face="verdana" size="4" color="#000066">
Here is the link to the Bybee Memo which was the "opinion" that the bush junta use to CYA-(Cover Your Ass) as they violated US law and gave the specific orders to US military officers and private torture contracters to <font size="2" color="#ff0000">these are their own words</font>"Take The Gloves Off" and torture & abuse detainees.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="1">
<a href="http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Feb-06-Thu-2003/photos/bybee.jpg">
<img src="http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Feb-06-Thu-2003/photos/bybee1.jpg" vspace="5"></a> <img src="http://www.geobop.com/education/911/images/mine/bush/nazi.jpg"><br>
</font><b><font face="Arial">Jay S. Bybee</font><font face="Arial" size="2"> <br>
</font></b><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="1">AP Photo</font>
<font size="5"><b><a target="_blank" href="http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/doj/bybee80102mem.pdf">
THE BYBEE TORTURE MEMO</a></b></font></font>
<p>
<hr noshade size="12" color="#FF0000"> </hr>
<font face="Century Gothic, Trebuchet MS, arial unicode ms, helvetica, sans-serif" color="#0000FF" size="4"><b>The quote below from former President Dwight D. Eisenhower has been removed from the public schools in the RepubliKlan controlled states of Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi . <font color="#ff0000">FASCISM IS HERE GUYS</b></font></font>
<table border="5" style="border-collapse: collapse" width="650" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="4" bordercolorlight="#FF0000" bordercolordark="#FF0000"><tr><td width="300" bgcolor="#000000">
<img src="http://i.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1960/1101600104_400.jpg" width="300" height="395"></td><td bgcolor="#000000"> <p><font color="#FFFFFF" face="Arial" size="4">"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, as only one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidiy . Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, from those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." </font></p> <p> </p><center><font color="Black" face="Times New Roman,Times"><b><i><font color="#FFFFFF" size="3">President Dwight D. Eisenhower</font></i></b></font></center><p> </td></tr>
</table>
<hr noshade size="12" color="#FF0000"> </hr>
:( :( :( :( :( :(
tehuti
02-10-2005, 07:04 AM
Detainees Accuse Female Interrogators
Pentagon Inquiry Is Said to Confirm Muslims' Accounts of Sexual Tactics at Guantanamo
By Carol D. Leonnig and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 10, 2005; Page A01
Female interrogators repeatedly used sexually suggestive tactics to try to humiliate and pry information from devout Muslim men held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to a military investigation not yet public and newly declassified accounts from detainees.
The prisoners have told their lawyers, who compiled the accounts, that female interrogators regularly violated Muslim taboos about sex and contact with women. The women rubbed their bodies against the men, wore skimpy clothes in front of them, made sexually explicit remarks and touched them provocatively, at least eight detainees said in documents or through their attorneys.
A wide-ranging Pentagon investigation, which has not yet been released, generally confirms the detainees' allegations, according to a senior Defense Department official familiar with the report. While isolated accounts of such tactics have emerged in recent weeks, the new allegations and the findings of the Pentagon investigation indicate that sexually oriented tactics may have been part of the fabric of Guantanamo interrogations, especially in 2003.
The inquiry uncovered numerous instances in which female interrogators, using dye, pretended to spread menstrual blood on Muslim men, the official said. Separately, in court papers and public statements, three detainees say that women smeared them with blood.
The military investigation of U.S. detention and interrogation practices worldwide, led by Vice Adm. Albert T. Church III, confirmed one case in which an Army interrogator took off her uniform top and paraded around in a tight T-shirt to make a Guantanamo detainee uncomfortable, and other cases in which interrogators touched the detainees suggestively, the senior Pentagon official said.
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the report has not yet been made public, said the fake blood was used on Muslim men before they intended to pray, because some Muslims believe that "if a woman touches him prior to prayer, then he's dirty and can't pray." Muslim men also believe that contact with women other than their wives diminishes religious purity.
Defense Department officials said they have reprimanded two female interrogators for such tactics. It is unclear whether military personnel, employees of other agencies or private contractors were involved.
The attorney interviews of detainees are the result of a Supreme Court decision last summer that gave the captives access to lawyers and the opportunity to challenge their incarceration in U.S. courts.
In previous documents, detainees have complained of physical abuse, including routine beatings, painful shackling, and exposure to extremes of hot and cold. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld insisted then that detainees were treated "humanely," and Pentagon officials said terrorists were trained to fabricate torture allegations.
Some of the accounts resemble the sexual aspects of the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at the U.S. prison at Abu Ghraib. Photographs that became public last year showed a servicewoman there holding naked prisoners on a leash and posing next to a pile of naked prisoners.
Pentagon officials said yesterday that wearing skimpy clothing or engaging in provocative touching and banter would be inappropriate interrogation techniques.
"I don't see that as being authorized by secretary of defense's approved interrogation techniques for Guantanamo," said Col. David McWilliams, a spokesman for the U.S. Southern Command in Miami, which oversees operations at Guantanamo Bay.
McWilliams said it is premature to comment on whether the detainee allegations are credible until a second military investigation that focuses on Guantanamo Bay abuse allegations is complete. The inquiry, which began in early January after the release of documents in which FBI agents said they witnessed abuse, is scheduled to be completed this month.
"That's exactly why we're doing an investigation," McWilliams said. "We're going to establish the facts and the truth."
Church's report found that interrogators used sexually oriented tactics and harassment to shock or offend Muslim prisoners, the senior Pentagon official said. The official said that the military would not condone "sexual activity" during interrogation, but that good interrogators "take initiative and are a little creative."
"They are trying to find the key that will get someone to talk to them. Using things that are culturally repulsive is okay as long as it doesn't extend to something prohibited by the Geneva Conventions."
Attorneys for detainees scoffed at the Pentagon's insistence that the military can fairly investigate its own personnel. They noted that the Defense Department last fall initially dismissed torture allegations, insisting that detainees were trained at terrorist camps to lodge false claims.
Even detainee lawyers doubted that interrogators would spread menstrual blood on prisoners when a recently released British detainee first made the allegation in early 2004. A month ago, a Pentagon spokesman confirmed it had verbally reprimanded one female interrogator who, in early 2003, had smeared red dye from a marker on a detainee's shirt and told him it was blood.
In a yet-to-be-published book, former Army translator Erik Saar said he saw a female interrogator smear red dye on a Saudi man's face, telling him it was blood. Saar's account was first reported by the Associated Press last month. And Mamdouh Habib, an Australian man released from Guantanamo Bay last month, said he was strapped down while a woman told him she was "menstruating" on his face.
One lawyer, Marc Falkoff, said in an interview that when a Yemeni client told him a few weeks ago about an incident involving menstrual blood, "I almost didn't even write it down." He said: "It seemed crazy, like something out of a horror movie or a John Waters film. Now it doesn't seem ludicrous at all."
Some of the newly declassified accounts of detainees evoke scenes from a rock music video. German detainee Murat Kurnaz told his lawyer that three women in lacy bras and panties strutted into the interrogation room where he was sitting in chains. They cooed about how attractive he was and suggested "they could have some fun," he said.
When Kurnaz averted his eyes, he said, one woman sat on his lap, another rubbed her breasts against his back and massaged his chest and a third squatted near his crotch. He head-butted the woman behind him, he said, knocking her off him. All three ran out and a team of soldiers stormed in and beat him, he said.
Detainee lawyers likened the tactics to Nazis shaving the beards of orthodox Jews or artists dunking a crucifix in urine to shock Christians. "They're exploiting religious beliefs to break them down, to destroy them," said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents several dozen detainees. "What they're doing, it reminds me of a pornographic Web site -- it's like the fantasy of all these S&M clubs."
Falkoff said some of his clients have also been threatened with rape by male interrogators.
One soldier told another detainee, Muktar Warafi, that he had to start telling the truth or he would be raped, according to Falkoff's notes of the interview. When he left the room, another person immediately came into the room and told Warafi: "That interrogator is new and doesn't know the rules. We apologize on his behalf. Now let's talk."
Yasein Esmail, a Yemeni detainee, said he had been interrogated more than 100 times since being "kidnapped" in a marketplace in Kabul, Afghanistan, and brought to Guantanamo Bay. He recounted to his lawyer that when he refused to talk in one interview, a female soldier entered wearing a tight T-shirt.
"Why aren't you married?" she reportedly asked Esmail. " You are a young man and have needs. What do you like?"
Esmail said "she bent down with her breasts on the table and her legs almost touching" him. "Are you going to talk," she asked, "or are we going to do this for six hours?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12431-2005Feb9.html
QueEx
03-12-2005, 04:10 AM
Bump to save thread from auto-deletion.
Greed
04-21-2005, 05:12 PM
U.N. Rights Body Rejects Call for Guantanamo Probe
2 hours, 14 minutes ago
GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States comfortably defeated a call to the U.N.'s top human rights body on Thursday to launch a probe into alleged violations at Guantanamo Bay.
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights rejected by 22 votes to 8, with 23 abstentions, a resolution brought by Cuba calling for the setting up of a special U.N. investigator for the detention center at a U.S. naval base on its territory.
European Union states on the 53-state commission sided with the United States in rejecting the resolution, saying that Washington was already in discussions with existing U.N. investigators about possible visits to the prison.
The United States holds over 500 alleged suspects in its declared war on terrorism at Guantanamo with many detainees having been there for more than three years.
Washington calls prisoners sent to Guantanamo enemy combatants and says that they are not entitled to the rights accorded to prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.
Human rights activists have accused the United States of condemning Guantanamo prisoners to indefinite detention in a "legal black hole," and note that some former detainees have said they were tortured by U.S. personnel at the base.
Cuban ambassador Jorge Ivan Mora Godoy, whose resolution was seconded by Syria, North Korea, Libya and Belarus, said the move aimed to "put an end to the impunity and conspiratorial silence" over one of the "gravest chapters of massive and flagrant violations of human rights in recent history."
The United States called the move by Cuba "ironic," because Havana has itself consistently refused to allow visits by special U.N. rights investigators.
Acknowledging that the situation of prisoners at Guantanamo "raised issues," U.S. delegate Lino Piedra said that the U.S. judiciary system was already showing its independence in monitoring respect for prisoners' rights there.
Dutch ambassador Ian de Jong, speaking for the EU, said that the bloc saw no need for a separate investigation because the United States was already in discussions with the U.N. about allowing special rights investigators to visit Guantanamo.
Canada abstained in the vote for a similar reason. But both Ottawa's delegate Ian Ferguson and de Jong said that they hoped Washington would agree to the U.N. visits to Guantanamo soon.
The commission concludes its annual six-week session on Friday.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20050421/ts_nm/rights_guantanamo_dc
muckraker10021
04-23-2005, 01:15 AM
<font face="verdana" size="4" color="#333333">
"...26 prisoners have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 -- in what Army and Navy investigators have concluded or suspect were acts of criminal homicide."
"...killing prisoners of war, presumably in the act of torture, is an inexcusable outrage. The fact that Congress has just shrugged this off, and no senior official or officer has been fired, is a travesty. This administration is for ''ownership'' of everything except responsibility."
</font>
<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="12"></hr>
<img src="http://proquest.umi.com/i/pub/7818.gif"><br>
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#D90000">
George W. to George W.</font>
<font face="arial unicode ms, microsoft sans serif" color="#000000" size="3">
<b>Thomas L. Friedman
Mar 24, 2005. pg. A.23</b>
Of all the stories about the abuse of prisoners of war by American soldiers and C.I.A. agents, surely none was more troubling and important than the March 16 report by my Times colleagues Douglas Jehl and Eric Schmitt that at least 26 prisoners have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 -- in what Army and Navy investigators have concluded or suspect were acts of criminal homicide.
You have to stop and think about this: We killed 26 of our prisoners of war. In 18 cases, people have been recommended for prosecution or action by their supervising agencies, and eight other cases are still under investigation. That is simply appalling. Only one of the deaths occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, reported Jehl and Schmitt -- ''showing how broadly the most violent abuses extended beyond those prison walls and contradicting early impressions that the wrongdoing was confined to a handful of members of the military police on the prison's night shift.''
Yes, I know war is hell and ugliness abounds in every corner. I also understand that in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we are up against a vicious enemy, which, if it had the power, would do great harm to our country. You do not deal with such people with kid gloves. But killing prisoners of war, presumably in the act of torture, is an inexcusable outrage. The fact that Congress has just shrugged this off, and no senior official or officer has been fired, is a travesty. This administration is for ''ownership'' of everything except responsibility.
President Bush just appointed Karen Hughes, his former media adviser, to head up yet another U.S. campaign to improve America's image in the Arab world. I have a suggestion: Just find out who were the cabinet, C.I.A. and military officers on whose watch these 26 homicides occurred and fire them. That will do more to improve America's image in the Arab-Muslim world than any ad campaign, which will be useless if this sort of prisoner abuse is shrugged off. Republicans in Congress went into overdrive to protect the sanctity of Terri Schiavo's life. But they were mute when it came to the sanctity of life for prisoners in our custody. Such hypocrisy is not going to win any P.R. battles.
By coincidence, while following this prisoner abuse story, I've been reading ''Washington's Crossing,'' the outstanding book by the Brandeis historian David Hackett Fischer about how George Washington and his troops rescued the American Revolution after British forces and German Hessian mercenaries had routed them in the early battles around New Jersey.
What is particularly moving is one of Mr. Fischer's concluding sections, ''An American Way of War,'' in which he contrasts how Washington dealt with prisoners of war with how the British and Hessian forces did: ''According to the 'the laws' of European war, quarter was the privilege of being allowed to surrender and to become a prisoner. By custom and tradition, soldiers in Europe believed that they had a right to extend quarter or deny it. In these 'laws of war,' no captive had an inalienable right to be taken prisoner, or even to life itself.''
American attitudes were very different. ''With some exceptions, American leaders believed that quarter should be extended to all combatants as a matter of right. Americans were outraged when quarter was denied to their soldiers.'' In one egregious incident, at the battle at Drake's Farm, British troops murdered all seven of Washington's soldiers who had surrendered, crushing their brains with muskets.
''The Americans recovered the mutilated corpses and were shocked,'' wrote Mr. Fischer. The British commander simply denied responsibility. ''The words of the British commander, as much as the acts of his men,'' wrote Mr. Fischer, ''reinforced the American resolve to run their own war in a different spirit. Washington ordered that Hessian captives would be treated as human beings with the same rights of humanity for which Americans were striving. The Hessians were amazed to be treated with decency and even kindness. At first they could not understand it.'' The same policy was extended to British prisoners.
In concluding his book, Mr. Fischer wrote lines that President Bush would do well to ponder: George Washington and the American soldiers and civilians fighting alongside him in the New Jersey campaign not only reversed the momentum of a bitter war, but they did so by choosing ''a policy of humanity that aligned the conduct of the war with the values of the Revolution. They set a high example, and we have much to learn from them.''
</font>
TOOSXY4U
04-27-2005, 10:22 PM
You Know If Thats True, Its A Damn Shame That They Are Using These Guys Beleifs In Keeping Their Hearts And Body Pure For Their Wives, Against Them. What Kind Of Tactic Is That. And Those Bitches That Are Participating In The Nonsense Are A Buch Of Fuckin Whores.if The Prisoners Werent So Spooked Out,they Would Practice What They Preach About Allah Being Merciful And Forgiving.god Knows His Creation, And Knows His/her Weaknesses. The Erection Is Involuntary Just Ask For Forgivness. God Is Most Merciful To Your Circumstances.
QueEx
05-25-2005, 08:12 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4578627.stm
You Know If Thats True, Its A Damn Shame That They Are Using These Guys Beleifs In Keeping Their Hearts And Body Pure For Their Wives, Against Them. What Kind Of Tactic Is That. And Those Bitches That Are Participating In The Nonsense Are A Buch Of Fuckin Whores.if The Prisoners Werent So Spooked Out,they Would Practice What They Preach About Allah Being Merciful And Forgiving.god Knows His Creation, And Knows His/her Weaknesses. The Erection Is Involuntary Just Ask For Forgivness. God Is Most Merciful To Your Circumstances.
I don't mean to sound cruel, but I ask you: what "heart and body pure for their wives" is that? Did not the Islamic terrorists who murdered all of those people in New York used to frequent strip clubs down in Florida? Is it not the truth that right now pornography in Baghdad is such a big seller that it's getting ridiculous? There's a lot of hypocrisy, I'm telling you, because these "chaste" terrorists are killing themselves with the promise that they will go to paradise and be with 70 virgins....
tian
TOOSXY4U
07-09-2005, 09:19 AM
I don't mean to sound cruel, but I ask you: what "heart and body pure for their wives" is that? Did not the Islamic terrorists who murdered all of those people in New York used to frequent strip clubs down in Florida? Is it not the truth that right now pornography in Baghdad is such a big seller that it's getting ridiculous? There's a lot of hypocrisy, I'm telling you, because these "chaste" terrorists are killing themselves with the promise that they will go to paradise and be with 70 virgins....
tian
U DONT SOUND CRUEL, I AGREE BUT THATS WHAT IM TRYING TO SAY THOSE ARE NOT REAL MUSLIMS BY THE TRUE DEFINITION. THESE PPL THAT GOING AROUND BOMBING ARE HIPPOCRITESIF THEY REALLY BELIEVE IN GODS WRATH THEY WOULD LET GOD DO HIS WILL, BUT INSTEAD THEY USE RELIGION AS AN EXCUSE TO CAUSE HAVOC. THERES A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MUSLIM AND TERRORIST. AND PPL REALLY NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
QueEx
07-09-2005, 04:14 PM
... WHAT IM TRYING TO SAY THOSE ARE NOT REAL MUSLIMS BY THE TRUE DEFINITION.
Unless one is a Muslim, don't you think its a matter for <u>Muslims</u> to define what is and what isn't a "Real Muslim" by what ever "True Definition" they have ???
THERES A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MUSLIM AND TERRORIST. AND PPL REALLY NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
I agree that people need to understand the difference, but shouldn't the distinction first be made and articulated to world by Muslims ??? If they don't forcefully do that, isn't it reasonable to assume at least their tacit agreement with the extremists ???
QueEx
QueEx
02-15-2006, 07:41 PM
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/nataffdaily/story/9317394/ghraib_new_images?rnd=1140053283086&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1212
QueEx
02-15-2006, 07:55 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4716280.stm
muckraker10021
02-16-2006, 05:49 PM
All the Abu pixs and videos are below
<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="14"></hr>
http://www.chris-floyd.com/abu/
hustleman08
02-17-2006, 02:25 AM
If these guys weren't terrorists when they came in...they are sure gonna be terrorists when they get out
QueEx
10-18-2006, 11:58 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6063386.stm
muckraker10021
10-29-2006, 06:31 PM
<img src="http://img.slate.com/images/redesign/slate_logo.jpg">
<font face="arial black" size="7" color="#d90000">
Containing Torture<font face="tahoma" size="4" color="#0000ff"><b>
How Torture Begets Even More Torture</b></font>
<img src="http://mywebpage.netscape.com/camarilla10029/Bush_Cheney_Rumsfeld.jpg">
<font face="helvetica, verdana" size="3" color="#000000"><b>
By Darius Rejali
Friday, Oct. 27, 2006</b>
President Bush has insisted that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is an essential tool for military and CIA prosecution of the war against terrorists. And yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney <font color="#FF0000"><b>argued that choking</b></FONT> (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061024-7.html) someone in water to gather needed intelligence is a "no brainer" and that the MCA covered the White House's "fairly robust interrogation program," including this technique. Legislation of this sort is always slippery, and the newspapers and legal blogs are full of disagreements about exactly what the new law means and what its effects will be. But one lasting effect is almost certain: Historically, laws like the Military Commissions Act have powerful corrupting forces on the militaries that use them, making them less able to achieve their ultimate goals.
<br>The MCA creates a two-track system for interrogation: CIA interrogators can use painful, physical, "enhanced interrogation" techniques; military interrogators cannot. But it is only a matter of time before military interrogators will wonder why they are stuck using techniques that are allegedly less effective than the CIA's. Then, they too will start quietly adopting these "robust" interrogation techniques.
<br>Prior to the enactment of the new legislation, the definition of torture, for both military and CIA interrogators, was broad and comprehensive. Torture was defined as an "act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions)" on someone in his control. This definition affirmed the definition of torture in the United Nations Convention Against Torture, to which the United States is a signatory.<div align="right"><!-- MSTableType="layout" --><img src="http://mywebpage.netscape.com/camarilla10029/Torture1.jpg" align="right"></div>
<br>The MCA changed the definition of torture. In clarifying what "severe physical or mental pain or suffering meant," it created a new standard: Torture must involve a "substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature, not to include cuts, abrasions or bruises; or significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ or mental faculty."
Every torturer knows death in torture is failure, as is driving your prisoner mad. This is why most torturers around the world avoid techniques that cause serious risk of organ failure, madness, or substantial risk of death. The new U.S. legislation absurdly disqualifies as torture not just the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA, but the vast majority of techniques used by torturers worldwide. Among the CIA's authorized techniques, only choking someone in water comes close to failing to meet this standard, and even this is debatable. The vice president, who endorsed waterboarding in some circumstances, clearly believes it does not, emphasizing yesterday that "we don't torture" and that he is not the vice president "for torture."
<br>Is anyone so credulous as to believe that these "alternative" techniques will remain confined to the CIA interrogators? There is ample cause to believe that the new techniques will seep into other agencies. And by their very nature, these techniques are almost impossible to prove after the fact.
<br>We have seen this pattern before in the war on terror. In Iraq and Afghanistan, <font color="#FF0000"><b>soldiers reported</b></font> (http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us0905/) having learned their interrogation techniques by imitating CIA field officers. This slippery slope will now undoubtedly be slicker and sharper with the official endorsement of enhanced interrogation techniques.
<div align="left"><!-- MSTableType="layout" --><img src="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/02/16/wtort16.jpg" align="left"></div>
<br>New interrogation manuals, recently disseminated by the Pentagon, sharply discourage torture, but it is unlikely that military investigators will ever catch interrogators using these techniques. This is because all of the reported CIA techniques for enhanced interrogation—such as stress positions, waterboarding, and exposure to extreme temperatures—leave no lasting marks on the body. Again, this is not news to U.S. military interrogators. "No blood, no foul" was the motto of a group of American military interrogators who tortured at <font color="#FF0000"><b>Camp Nama, outside Baghdad</b></font> (http://hrw.org/reports/2006/us0706/)
<div align="right"><!-- MSTableType="layout" --><img src="http://nyc.indymedia.org/images/2006/02/65034.jpg" align="right"></div>.
<br>It is only a matter of time before new rot sets into the U.S. military, thanks to the new MCA. This is inevitable when you codify a two-track interrogation system. In the 1970s, the Brazilian military had a similar two-track system, and the state had to eliminate its torturers in order to preserve itself. As Brazilian journalist Elio Gaspari observed at the time: "Unless everyone in the army participates in torture, you very quickly develop two kinds of soldiers." He called them "the combatants," who fight the terrorists with torture, and the "bureaucrats," who are committed to preserving the military's everyday functioning and discipline. In Brazil, the day came when the combatant-torturers refused to accept the orders of the bureaucrats and regarded with contempt their peers who were committed to army discipline. The generals eventually concluded that "[t]he torturers were going to have to be isolated, marginalized and eliminated, <em>so as to save the Army.</em>"
<br>And this corruption will not be limited to the military. Two-track interrogation systems have similar corrupting influences in domestic policing, particularly as former interrogators and MPs seek jobs as police officers after being decommissioned. The military tortures in the Franco-Algerian War soon seeped into French policing in the 1960s. And in the United States, this kind of slippage has happened twice: initially, as the water tortures of the Spanish-American War began appearing in police stations in the 1920s, and again as electrical techniques used during the Vietnam War appeared in Chicago policing in the 1970s. These torturers-turned-policemen-turned-torturers were especially attracted to techniques that were clean, and there is every reason to believe that the clean techniques now approved in the Iraq war will, sooner or later, appear in a neighborhood near you.
<br>The nasty thing about "clean" torture techniques—and especially the six reportedly approved CIA techniques: the attention grab, the attention slap, the belly slap, the cold room, forced standing, and waterboarding—is that no one can tell how much pain the subject is in as the torture is done. And after the fact, victims have nothing to show to their communities or even to their families—who want to believe them.
<br>Clean tortures are unlike other tortures because they are calculated to prevent any kind of public expression of outrage or sympathy. They are also exceedingly hard to monitor and track, so their corrupting influence is pernicious.
<br>Forced standing was regular fare in Stalinist prisons and German concentration camps, where there were, sometimes, specialized "standing cells." The CIA's own study of this technique showed that ankles and feet swell to twice their normal size within 24 hours. Moving becomes agony, and large blisters develop. The heart rate increases, and some prisoners faint.
<br>Japan's fascist military police, the Kempeitai, routinely used hard slapping in the interrogation and punishment of Allied prisoners of war. "There can be few Allied prisoners of war," wrote Lord Russell of Liverpool, "who were not at some time slapped," adding that "a Japanese slap was something to remember." The pain and humiliation, he said, were intense. Few Allied prisoners would have been inclined to be forgiving when, in 1946, Prime Minister Tojo humbly apologized to the Allies for this particular form of torture.
<br>Hard shaking is a well-known Israeli torture technique the Palestinians call "al-Hazz," one that doctors suspect can cause long-term brain damage. And cold rooms are well-known features of the worst days of American policing: from the nasty days of the Denver Black Hole and Chicago policing in the 1920s, to the Alabama police of the 1960s, who froze Freedom Riders in chilled cells.
<br>Which brings us to the most notorious torture: waterboarding, or choking someone in water. In 1968, a soldier in the 1st Cavalry Division was court-martialed for waterboarding a prisoner in Vietnam. In fact, the practice was identified as a crime as early as 1901, when the Army judge advocate general court-martialed Maj. Edwin Glenn of the 5th U.S. Infantry for waterboarding, a technique he did not hesitate to call torture.
<br>That military judge went further, anticipating (and then dismissing) a key justification President Bush and his allies use for torture today. The judge said that the defense of needing to obtain information through torture "falls completely," even when at war with "a savage or semi-civilized enemy" who conducts "his operations in violation of the rules of civilized war. This no modern State will admit for an instant."
<br>Except, it seems, the United States in 2006.
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="8"></hr>
<i>Darius Rejali is a professor of political science at Reed College. He is the author of Torture and Modernity (Westview) and the forthcoming Torture and Democracy (Princeton)</i></font>
GET YOU HOT
10-31-2006, 01:00 AM
Interview of soldier participant and eyewitness account of tourture...
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Iq9SRqItQ0Q"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Iq9SRqItQ0Q" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
illdog
12-05-2006, 06:28 PM
is well seeded...
<center><a href="http://isohunt.com/download/15231726/axxo"><img src="http://members.cox.net/illmax/trtgitmo.JPG" border="0" alt="Image Hosted by Imagehigh.net" /></a></center>
Fuckallyall
10-04-2007, 12:07 PM
From the NY Times
Fucking bomshell
October 4, 2007
Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations
By SCOTT SHANE, DAVID JOHNSTON and JAMES RISEN
This article is by Scott Shane, David Johnston and James Risen.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 — When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.
But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.
The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.
Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.
Later that year, as Congress moved toward outlawing “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, the Justice Department issued another secret opinion, one most lawmakers did not know existed, current and former officials said. The Justice Department document declared that none of the C.I.A. interrogation methods violated that standard.
The classified opinions, never previously disclosed, are a hidden legacy of President Bush’s second term and Mr. Gonzales’s tenure at the Justice Department, where he moved quickly to align it with the White House after a 2004 rebellion by staff lawyers that had thrown policies on surveillance and detention into turmoil.
Congress and the Supreme Court have intervened repeatedly in the last two years to impose limits on interrogations, and the administration has responded as a policy matter by dropping the most extreme techniques. But the 2005 Justice Department opinions remain in effect, and their legal conclusions have been confirmed by several more recent memorandums, officials said. They show how the White House has succeeded in preserving the broadest possible legal latitude for harsh tactics.
A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said Wednesday that he would not comment on any legal opinion related to interrogations. Mr. Fratto added, “We have gone to great lengths, including statutory efforts and the recent executive order, to make it clear that the intelligence community and our practices fall within U.S. law” and international agreements.
More than two dozen current and former officials involved in counterterrorism were interviewed over the past three months about the opinions and the deliberations on interrogation policy. Most officials would speak only on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the documents and the C.I.A. detention operations they govern.
When he stepped down as attorney general in September after widespread criticism of the firing of federal prosecutors and withering attacks on his credibility, Mr. Gonzales talked proudly in a farewell speech of how his department was “a place of inspiration” that had balanced the necessary flexibility to conduct the war on terrorism with the need to uphold the law.
Associates at the Justice Department said Mr. Gonzales seldom resisted pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney and David S. Addington, Mr. Cheney’s counsel, to endorse policies that they saw as effective in safeguarding Americans, even though the practices brought the condemnation of other governments, human rights groups and Democrats in Congress. Critics say Mr. Gonzales turned his agency into an arm of the Bush White House, undermining the department’s independence.
The interrogation opinions were signed by Steven G. Bradbury, who since 2005 has headed the elite Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. He has become a frequent public defender of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program and detention policies at Congressional hearings and press briefings, a role that some legal scholars say is at odds with the office’s tradition of avoiding political advocacy.
Mr. Bradbury defended the work of his office as the government’s most authoritative interpreter of the law. “In my experience, the White House has not told me how an opinion should come out,” he said in an interview. “The White House has accepted and respected our opinions, even when they didn’t like the advice being given.”
The debate over how terrorist suspects should be held and questioned began shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the Bush administration adopted secret detention and coercive interrogation, both practices the United States had previously denounced when used by other countries. It adopted the new measures without public debate or Congressional vote, choosing to rely instead on the confidential legal advice of a handful of appointees.
The policies set off bruising internal battles, pitting administration moderates against hard-liners, military lawyers against Pentagon chiefs and, most surprising, a handful of conservative lawyers at the Justice Department against the White House in the stunning mutiny of 2004. But under Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Bradbury, the Justice Department was wrenched back into line with the White House.
After the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the Geneva Conventions applied to prisoners who belonged to Al Qaeda, President Bush for the first time acknowledged the C.I.A.’s secret jails and ordered their inmates moved to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The C.I.A. halted its use of waterboarding, or pouring water over a bound prisoner’s cloth-covered face to induce fear of suffocation.
But in July, after a monthlong debate inside the administration, President Bush signed a new executive order authorizing the use of what the administration calls “enhanced” interrogation techniques — the details remain secret — and officials say the C.I.A. again is holding prisoners in “black sites” overseas. The executive order was reviewed and approved by Mr. Bradbury and the Office of Legal Counsel.
Douglas W. Kmiec, who headed that office under President Ronald Reagan and the first President George Bush and wrote a book about it, said he believed the intense pressures of the campaign against terrorism have warped the office’s proper role.
“The office was designed to insulate against any need to be an advocate,” said Mr. Kmiec, now a conservative scholar at Pepperdine University law school. But at times in recent years, Mr. Kmiec said, the office, headed by William H. Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia before they served on the Supreme Court, “lost its ability to say no.”
“The approach changed dramatically with opinions on the war on terror,” Mr. Kmiec said. “The office became an advocate for the president’s policies.”
From the secret sites in Afghanistan, Thailand and Eastern Europe where C.I.A. teams held Qaeda terrorists, questions for the lawyers at C.I.A. headquarters arrived daily. Nervous interrogators wanted to know: Are we breaking the laws against torture?
The Bush administration had entered uncharted legal territory beginning in 2002, holding prisoners outside the scrutiny of the International Red Cross and subjecting them to harrowing pressure tactics. They included slaps to the head; hours held naked in a frigid cell; days and nights without sleep while battered by thundering rock music; long periods manacled in stress positions; or the ultimate, waterboarding.
Never in history had the United States authorized such tactics. While President Bush and C.I.A. officials would later insist that the harsh measures produced crucial intelligence, many veteran interrogators, psychologists and other experts say that less coercive methods are equally or more effective.
With virtually no experience in interrogations, the C.I.A. had constructed its program in a few harried months by consulting Egyptian and Saudi intelligence officials and copying Soviet interrogation methods long used in training American servicemen to withstand capture. The agency officers questioning prisoners constantly sought advice from lawyers thousands of miles away.
“We were getting asked about combinations — ‘Can we do this and this at the same time?’” recalled Paul C. Kelbaugh, a veteran intelligence lawyer who was deputy legal counsel at the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorist Center from 2001 to 2003.
Interrogators were worried that even approved techniques had such a painful, multiplying effect when combined that they might cross the legal line, Mr. Kelbaugh said. He recalled agency officers asking: “These approved techniques, say, withholding food, and 50-degree temperature — can they be combined?” Or “Do I have to do the less extreme before the more extreme?”
The questions came more frequently, Mr. Kelbaugh said, as word spread about a C.I.A. inspector general inquiry unrelated to the war on terrorism. Some veteran C.I.A. officers came under scrutiny because they were advisers to Peruvian officers who in early 2001 shot down a missionary flight they had mistaken for a drug-running aircraft. The Americans were not charged with crimes, but they endured three years of investigation, saw their careers derailed and ran up big legal bills.
That experience shook the Qaeda interrogation team, Mr. Kelbaugh said. “You think you’re making a difference and maybe saving 3,000 American lives from the next attack. And someone tells you, ‘Well, that guidance was a little vague, and the inspector general wants to talk to you,’” he recalled. “We couldn’t tell them, ‘Do the best you can,’ because the people who did the best they could in Peru were looking at a grand jury.”
Mr. Kelbaugh said the questions were sometimes close calls that required consultation with the Justice Department. But in August 2002, the department provided a sweeping legal justification for even the harshest tactics.
That opinion, which would become infamous as “the torture memo” after it was leaked, was written largely by John Yoo, a young Berkeley law professor serving in the Office of Legal Counsel. His broad views of presidential power were shared by Mr. Addington, the vice president’s adviser. Their close alliance provoked John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, to refer privately to Mr. Yoo as Dr. Yes for his seeming eagerness to give the White House whatever legal justifications it desired, a Justice Department official recalled.
Mr. Yoo’s memorandum said no interrogation practices were illegal unless they produced pain equivalent to organ failure or “even death.” A second memo produced at the same time spelled out the approved practices and how often or how long they could be used.
Despite that guidance, in March 2003, when the C.I.A. caught Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks, interrogators were again haunted by uncertainty. Former intelligence officials, for the first time, disclosed that a variety of tough interrogation tactics were used about 100 times over two weeks on Mr. Mohammed. Agency officials then ordered a halt, fearing the combined assault might have amounted to illegal torture. A C.I.A. spokesman, George Little, declined to discuss the handling of Mr. Mohammed. Mr. Little said the program “has been conducted lawfully, with great care and close review” and “has helped our country disrupt terrorist plots and save innocent lives.”
“The agency has always sought a clear legal framework, conducting the program in strict accord with U.S. law, and protecting the officers who go face-to-face with ruthless terrorists,” Mr. Little added.
Some intelligence officers say that many of Mr. Mohammed’s statements proved exaggerated or false. One problem, a former senior agency official said, was that the C.I.A.’s initial interrogators were not experts on Mr. Mohammed’s background or Al Qaeda, and it took about a month to get such an expert to the secret prison. The former official said many C.I.A. professionals now believe patient, repeated questioning by well-informed experts is more effective than harsh physical pressure.
Other intelligence officers, including Mr. Kelbaugh, insist that the harsh treatment produced invaluable insights into Al Qaeda’s structure and plans.
“We leaned in pretty hard on K.S.M.,” Mr. Kelbaugh said, referring to Mr. Mohammed. “We were getting good information, and then they were told: ‘Slow it down. It may not be correct. Wait for some legal clarification.’”
The doubts at the C.I.A. proved prophetic. In late 2003, after Mr. Yoo left the Justice Department, the new head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, began reviewing his work, which he found deeply flawed. Mr. Goldsmith infuriated White House officials, first by rejecting part of the National Security Agency’s surveillance program, prompting the threat of mass resignations by top Justice Department officials, including Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Comey, and a showdown at the attorney general’s hospital bedside.
Then, in June 2004, Mr. Goldsmith formally withdrew the August 2002 Yoo memorandum on interrogation, which he found overreaching and poorly reasoned. Mr. Goldsmith, who left the Justice Department soon afterward, first spoke at length about his dissenting views to The New York Times last month, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
Six months later, the Justice Department quietly posted on its Web site a new legal opinion that appeared to end any flirtation with torture, starting with its clarionlike opening: “Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and to international norms.”
A single footnote — added to reassure the C.I.A. — suggested that the Justice Department was not declaring the agency’s previous actions illegal. But the opinion was unmistakably a retreat. Some White House officials had opposed publicizing the document, but acquiesced to Justice Department officials who argued that doing so would help clear the way for Mr. Gonzales’s confirmation as attorney general.
If President Bush wanted to make sure the Justice Department did not rebel again, Mr. Gonzales was the ideal choice. As White House counsel, he had been a fierce protector of the president’s prerogatives. Deeply loyal to Mr. Bush for championing his career from their days in Texas, Mr. Gonzales would sometimes tell colleagues that he had just one regret about becoming attorney general: He did not see nearly as much of the president as he had in his previous post.
Among his first tasks at the Justice Department was to find a trusted chief for the Office of Legal Counsel. First he informed Daniel Levin, the acting head who had backed Mr. Goldsmith’s dissents and signed the new opinion renouncing torture, that he would not get the job. He encouraged Mr. Levin to take a position at the National Security Council, in effect sidelining him.
Mr. Bradbury soon emerged as the presumed favorite. But White House officials, still smarting from Mr. Goldsmith’s rebuffs, chose to delay his nomination. Harriet E. Miers, the new White House counsel, “decided to watch Bradbury for a month or two. He was sort of on trial,” one Justice Department official recalled.
Mr. Bradbury’s biography had a Horatio Alger element that appealed to a succession of bosses, including Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court and Mr. Gonzales, the son of poor immigrants. Mr. Bradbury’s father had died when he was an infant, and his mother took in laundry to support her children. The first in his family to go to college, he attended Stanford and the University of Michigan Law School. He joined the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, where he came under the tutelage of Kenneth W. Starr, the Whitewater independent prosecutor.
Mr. Bradbury belonged to the same circle as his predecessors: young, conservative lawyers with sterling credentials, often with clerkships for prominent conservative judges and ties to the Federalist Society, a powerhouse of the legal right. Mr. Yoo, in fact, had proposed his old friend Mr. Goldsmith for the Office of Legal Counsel job; Mr. Goldsmith had hired Mr. Bradbury as his top deputy.
“We all grew up together,” said Viet D. Dinh, an assistant attorney general from 2001 to 2003 and very much a member of the club. “You start with a small universe of Supreme Court clerks, and you narrow it down from there.”
But what might have been subtle differences in quieter times now cleaved them into warring camps.
Justice Department colleagues say Mr. Gonzales was soon meeting frequently with Mr. Bradbury on national security issues, a White House priority. Admirers describe Mr. Bradbury as low-key but highly skilled, a conciliator who brought from 10 years of corporate practice a more pragmatic approach to the job than Mr. Yoo and Mr. Goldsmith, both from the academic world.
“As a practicing lawyer, you know how to address real problems,” said Noel J. Francisco, who worked at the Justice Department from 2003 to 2005. “At O.L.C., you’re not writing law review articles and you’re not theorizing. You’re giving a client practical advice on a real problem.”
As he had at the White House, Mr. Gonzales usually said little in meetings with other officials, often deferring to the hard-driving Mr. Addington. Mr. Bradbury also often appeared in accord with the vice president’s lawyer.
Mr. Bradbury appeared to be “fundamentally sympathetic to what the White House and the C.I.A. wanted to do,” recalled Philip Zelikow, a former top State Department official. At interagency meetings on detention and interrogation, Mr. Addington was at times “vituperative,” said Mr. Zelikow, but Mr. Bradbury, while taking similar positions, was “professional and collegial.”
While waiting to learn whether he would be nominated to head the Office of Legal Counsel, Mr. Bradbury was in an awkward position, knowing that a decision contrary to White House wishes could kill his chances.
Charles J. Cooper, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel under President Reagan, said he was “very troubled” at the notion of a probationary period.
“If the purpose of the delay was a tryout, I think they should have avoided it,” Mr. Cooper said. “You’re implying that the acting official is molding his or her legal analysis to win the job.”
Mr. Bradbury said he made no such concessions. “No one ever suggested to me that my nomination depended on how I ruled on any opinion,” he said. “Every opinion I’ve signed at the Office of Legal Counsel represents my best judgment of what the law requires.”
Scott Horton, an attorney affiliated with Human Rights First who has closely followed the interrogation debate, said any official offering legal advice on the campaign against terror was on treacherous ground.
“For government lawyers, the national security issues they were deciding were like working with nuclear waste — extremely hazardous to their health,” Mr. Horton said.
“If you give the administration what it wants, you’ll lose credibility in the academic community,” he said. “But if you hold back, you’ll be vilified by conservatives and the administration.”
In any case, the White House grew comfortable with Mr. Bradbury’s approach. He helped block the appointment of a liberal Ivy League law professor to a career post in the Office of Legal Counsel. And he signed the opinion approving combined interrogation techniques.
Mr. Comey strongly objected and told associates that he advised Mr. Gonzales not to endorse the opinion. But the attorney general made clear that the White House was adamant about it, and that he would do nothing to resist.
Under Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Comey’s opposition might have killed the opinion. An imposing former prosecutor and self-described conservative who stands 6-foot-8, he was the rare administration official who was willing to confront Mr. Addington. At one testy 2004 White House meeting, when Mr. Comey stated that “no lawyer” would endorse Mr. Yoo’s justification for the N.S.A. program, Mr. Addington demurred, saying he was a lawyer and found it convincing. Mr. Comey shot back: “No good lawyer,” according to someone present.
But under Mr. Gonzales, and after the departure of Mr. Goldsmith and other allies, the deputy attorney general found himself isolated. His troublemaking on N.S.A. and on interrogation, and in appointing his friend Patrick J. Fitzgerald as special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case, which would lead to the perjury conviction of I. Lewis Libby, Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, had irreparably offended the White House.
“On national security matters generally, there was a sense that Comey was a wimp and that Comey was disloyal,” said one Justice Department official who heard the White House talk, expressed with particular force by Mr. Addington.
Mr. Comey provided some hints of his thinking about interrogation and related issues in a speech that spring. Speaking at the N.S.A.’s Fort Meade campus on Law Day — a noteworthy setting for the man who had helped lead the dissent a year earlier that forced some changes in the N.S.A. program — Mr. Comey spoke of the “agonizing collisions” of the law and the desire to protect Americans.
“We are likely to hear the words: ‘If we don’t do this, people will die,’” Mr. Comey said. But he argued that government lawyers must uphold the principles of their great institutions.
“It takes far more than a sharp legal mind to say ‘no’ when it matters most,” he said. “It takes moral character. It takes an understanding that in the long run, intelligence under law is the only sustainable intelligence in this country.”
Mr. Gonzales’s aides were happy to see Mr. Comey depart in the summer of 2005. That June, President Bush nominated Mr. Bradbury to head the Office of Legal Counsel, which some colleagues viewed as a sign that he had passed a loyalty test.
Soon Mr. Bradbury applied his practical approach to a new challenge to the C.I.A.’s methods.
The administration had always asserted that the C.I.A.’s pressure tactics did not amount to torture, which is banned by federal law and international treaty. But officials had privately decided the agency did not have to comply with another provision in the Convention Against Torture — the prohibition on “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” treatment.
Now that loophole was about to be closed. First Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, and then Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who had been tortured as a prisoner in North Vietnam, proposed legislation to ban such treatment.
At the administration’s request, Mr. Bradbury assessed whether the proposed legislation would outlaw any C.I.A. methods, a legal question that had never before been answered by the Justice Department.
At least a few administration officials argued that no reasonable interpretation of “cruel, inhuman or degrading” would permit the most extreme C.I.A. methods, like waterboarding. Mr. Bradbury was placed in a tough spot, said Mr. Zelikow, the State Department counselor, who was working at the time to rein in interrogation policy.
“If Justice says some practices are in violation of the C.I.D. standard,” Mr. Zelikow said, referring to cruel, inhuman or degrading, “then they are now saying that officials broke current law.”
In the end, Mr. Bradbury’s opinion delivered what the White House wanted: a statement that the standard imposed by Mr. McCain’s Detainee Treatment Act would not force any change in the C.I.A.’s practices, according to officials familiar with the memo.
Relying on a Supreme Court finding that only conduct that “shocks the conscience” was unconstitutional, the opinion found that in some circumstances not even waterboarding was necessarily cruel, inhuman or degrading, if, for example, a suspect was believed to possess crucial intelligence about a planned terrorist attack, the officials familiar with the legal finding said.
In a frequent practice, Mr. Bush attached a statement to the new law when he signed it, declaring his authority to set aside the restrictions if they interfered with his constitutional powers. At the same time, though, the administration responded to pressure from Mr. McCain and other lawmakers by reviewing interrogation policy and giving up several C.I.A. techniques.
Since late 2005, Mr. Bradbury has become a linchpin of the administration’s defense of counterterrorism programs, helping to negotiate the Military Commissions Act last year and frequently testifying about the N.S.A. surveillance program. Once he answered questions about administration detention policies for an “Ask the White House” feature on a Web site.
Mr. Kmiec, the former Office of Legal Counsel head now at Pepperdine, called Mr. Bradbury’s public activities a departure for an office that traditionally has shunned any advocacy role.
A senior administration official called Mr. Bradbury’s active role in shaping legislation and speaking to Congress and the press “entirely appropriate” and consistent with past practice. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Mr. Bradbury “has played a critical role in achieving greater transparency” on the legal basis for detention and surveillance programs.
Though President Bush repeatedly nominated Mr. Bradbury as the Office of Legal Counsel’s assistant attorney general, Democratic senators have blocked the nomination. Senator Durbin said the Justice Department would not turn over copies of his opinions or other evidence of Mr. Bradbury’s role in interrogation policy.
“There are fundamental questions about whether Mr. Bradbury approved interrogation methods that are clearly unacceptable,” Mr. Durbin said.
John D. Hutson, who served as the Navy’s top lawyer from 1997 to 2000, said he believed that the existence of legal opinions justifying abusive treatment is pernicious, potentially blurring the rules for Americans handling prisoners.
“I know from the military that if you tell someone they can do a little of this for the country’s good, some people will do a lot of it for the country’s better,” Mr. Hutson said. Like other military lawyers, he also fears that official American acceptance of such treatment could endanger Americans in the future.
“The problem is, once you’ve got a legal opinion that says such a technique is O.K., what happens when one of our people is captured and they do it to him? How do we protest then?” he asked.
QueEx
01-23-2009, 01:04 PM
<font size="5"><center>
Obama Bans Torture</font size><font size="4">
President Signs Executive Orders on
Interrogations and Detention Policy Options</font size></center>
Excerpted from:
The Huffington Post
By Andy Worthington (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-worthington/return-to-the-law-obama-o_b_160270.html)
Journalist and author "Guantanamo Files"
January 23, 2009
[President Barack Obama signed an Order which] establishes that the questioning of prisoners by any U.S. government agency must follow the interrogation guidelines laid down in the Army Field Manual, which guarantees humane treatment under the Geneva Conventions, and, of course, prohibits the use of torture.
Reverting to the "requirements" of the Federal torture statute, the UN Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and other legislation and treaties, the Order states that "in all circumstances" prisoners will be "treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment)."
As a result, the Order states, "All executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009, concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals, are revoked to the extent of their inconsistency with this order."
The Order also specifically revokes President Bush's Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007, which "reaffirm[ed]" his "determination," on February 7, 2002, that "members of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces are unlawful enemy combatants who are not entitled to the protections that the Third Geneva Convention provides to prisoners of war," sought to grant himself the right to "interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions" as he saw fit, and also sought to exclude the CIA from any oversight whatsoever.
It also orders the CIA to "close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates," adding that the agency "shall not operate any such detention facility in the future," and orders all departments and agencies of the government to allow representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross to have "timely access" to all prisoners.
And finally, the Order establishes a Special Interagency Task Force on Interrogation and Transfer Policies, to evaluate "whether the interrogation practices and techniques in the Army Field manual, when employed by departments or agencies outside the military, provide an appropriate means of acquiring the intelligence necessary to protect the Nation, and, if warranted, to recommend any additional or different guidelines for other departments or agencies." The Task Force is also required to evaluate "the practices of transferring individuals to other nations," to ensure that they do not face torture.
Related to this is a third Order, establishing another Special Interagency Task Force to provide an overview of detention policy options, which is charged with "conducting a comprehensive review of the lawful options available to the Federal Government with respect to the apprehension, detention, trial, transfer, release, or other disposition of individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations, and to identify such options as are consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice." Both Task Forces are to report their findings in the next six months.
The verdict
The majority of the Order regarding interrogations is a triumphant return to the rule of law, achieved by revoking all the "executive directives, orders, and regulations" that manifested the Bush administration's slippery zeal for allowing torture, by insisting on adherence to the Army Field Manual, which prohibits the use of physical violence, and, as above, by returning to the Geneva Conventions, with their prohibitions on "cruel and inhumane treatment" and coerced interrogations. However, although a sweeping repudiation of these documents is a start, I look forward to further detailed analysis from the White House regarding the secret memos and presidential orders that purported to justify the Bush administration's flight from the law and its attempts to justify torture.
And while it is wonderful to read that the CIA is obliged to close all secret prisons, it is absolutely imperative that this announcement is swiftly followed by the establishment of a robust means of accounting for the unknown number of prisoners (PDF) subjected to "extraordinary rendition" and torture, either in prisons run by the CIA or by other governments prepared to lend their torturers to the United States.
In addition, while the Order establishing a Task Force to overview detention policy insists that only "lawful options" are pursued, the Task Force on interrogation and transfer policies seems to be set up to find ways in which "extraordinary rendition" can be justified -- though not, admittedly, on an industrial scale -- and also seems designed to "recommend ... additional or different guidance" for agencies outside the military, which is troubling, of course, as this, in essence, is exactly what has been happening for the last seven years, with such dire results. The President should resist all calls for exceptions to lawful procedures, and confirm, categorically, his absolute commitment to non-coercive methods of interrogation, which have a proven track record. See, for example, the Human Rights First report (PDF) examining 107 terror trials on the U.S. mainland, and Jane Mayer's article on the FBI's interrogation of an-Qaeda informant.
I should also note that, just two weeks ago, psychologist and anti-torture activist Jeffrey S. Kaye explained, in an article for AlterNet, that, though widely praised by everyone in the new administration, including President Obama, the revised version of the Army Field Manual contains an Appendix that apparently keeps the door open for the use of the same torture techniques taught in U.S. military schools to train U.S. personnel to resist interrogation that were implemented by the Bush administration and that led directly to the widespread abuse of prisoners in Guantánamo, Afghanistan and Iraq, as a Senate Armed Services Committee report (PDF) explained last month.
`
QueEx
01-23-2009, 01:08 PM
<font size="4">
The Order:
</font size>
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/">link</A>
</IFRAME>
muckraker10021
01-23-2009, 07:35 PM
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
Big Ups QueEx-
For reviving these threads, that contain years of truth-telling outlining the criminal violations and deceitful contempt for the US Constitution that the Bushit administration engaged in throughout its disastrous eight year seizure of power. All the pro Bushit sycophants arguments have been exposed & relegated to the same trash bin that contains the Third Reich’s Nazi propaganda. The final act is – will anyone be prosecuted??
http://www.noir.theblog.com.br/bush_nazi.jpg
Greed
01-24-2009, 09:23 AM
Fear Hath No Shelf-Life: Our Torture Dilemma
by Robert D. Kaplan
The torture debate is critical not only because it gets us to the core of our values, but because the danger to American cities is not from tanks and armies, but from individuals and their intentions. Saving thousands of American lives may come down to the gifts of a talented interrogator and the tools at his or her disposal. Remember that usually only in the movies does a prisoner spill the beans on an upcoming plot. As interrogators will tell you, information about terrorist activities tends to come in fragments that are assembled from scores of interrogations, even as the truth is distilled—accidentally almost—from a spewing forth of lies and subtle evasions. The front line of our defense against al-Qaeda and its offshoots is painstaking, tedious work that rewards those best able to fill in the blank spaces from a shattered jigsaw puzzle.
Interrogators, because they deal with a single combatant face to face for hours at a time, often develop more sympathy for the enemy than any one else in our security establishment. After all, the combatant, because he has a real face, becomes human to them. Such sympathy is necessary if they are to do their jobs well. “To defeat the enemy you first have to love them—that is, their culture,” an army special forces lieutenant colonel told me years ago in Afghanistan.
Good interrogators become masters at discerning body language and eye movements in the person they are questioning. Their worst enemy is not the inability to torture, but their own bureaucracy, which often doesn’t share vital information with its constituent parts. There is a lot we can do to improve the quality of our interrogations without torturing people.
Also see:
'The Interrogators' and 'Torture': Hard Questions
(January 23, 2005)
Robert D. Kaplan's review of Chris Mackey and Greg Miller's The Interrogators in The New York Times.
And yet the problem is not that easily solved. It nags at one. Stating flatly that torture doesn’t work is a narrow version of the truth. Torture may not work, but the fear of it can work wonders. When a prisoner is captured, you may want him to be roughly handled, and put in grim and disorienting surroundings, for that heightens the fear of what might happen to him next. “Fear is often an interrogator’s best ally, but it doesn’t have a long shelf life,” write Chris Mackey and Greg Miller, authors of The Interrogators: Inside the Secret War Against al-Qaeda, a very wise book by a former interrogator and a journalist. Fear can by extended for a time through clever techniques such as spreading false rumors. Example: the authors report that they received added cooperation from prisoners in Afghanistan after deliberately spreading a rumor that they were going to be sent back to their home countries in the Middle East in return for a $100,000 payment per man. But ultimately, as the weeks pass, and nothing bad happens to him, the prisoner’s fear fades and he becomes less useful. While torture is bad, the thoroughly humane approach, contrary to our desires, has its limits. And that is our dilemma.
Spreading rumors, rough treatment, grim conditions are all the very beginnings of a slippery path toward much worse things. To say that we cannot step even one foot along that path is impractical, for that would deprive the nation of vital intelligence and threaten to leave it defenseless. But to go far along that path is morally unbearable. So the debate is really about how far we do go.
The extreme example that’s frequently discussed—Should we resort to torture in the event of a ticking bomb?—is interesting but statistically not very useful, since most scenarios are much more ambiguous. And again, a single prisoner is more likely to reveal a shard of evidence than the where and when of a plot.
The authors Mackey and Miller describe a group of interrogators who solved their moral dilemma through the use of a technique called “monstering.” That is, if the interrogator had to put up with the same ill-treatment as the prisoner, then it wasn’t immoral. To wit, sleep deprivation combined with long interrogations was allowed if the interrogator himself went without sleep for the same amount of time. But to double-team the prisoner, with one interrogator sleeping while the other worked the prisoner over verbally, was considered immoral. Monstering was a matter of who broke first, the interrogator or the prisoner. And if the prisoner broke first, even part of the time, it was worth doing.
Of course, one could carry this logic as far as waterboarding, since many of our own special operations forces and combat pilots have been waterboarded as part of their training at Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) School. Indeed, far more Americans have been waterboarded than prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. But while the Americans who have been waterboarded have been physically and psychologically trained to perfection beforehand, and experience it only for short periods, unsuspecting detainees experience waterboarding under far more onerous circumstances. So what is hard, tough training in one instance, can be torture in another.
But if we can’t—or shouldn’t—waterboard, then how far do we push the envelope? Because if we don’t push it somewhat, we face what I call the 15 percent dilemma. Let me explain.
If we act like angels, and another, even more massive attack occurs in the United States, then the public might cry for blood, as it did to an extent in the immediate days and weeks after 9/11, when torture was occasionally spoken of in different terms than it is now. Remember that some Bush Administration policies were drawn up in the context of one public mood, and carried out in the context of another. Were that to happen, detainees’ rights might decline by, say, 50 percent. But if we push the envelope only 15 percent along that dangerous path, then we might avoid the 50 percent trap, and save many of our own lives.
But even 15 percent makes me queasy. To avoid the question, though, is itself irresponsible.
Robert D. Kaplan is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200901u/kaplan-torture
QueEx
05-29-2009, 04:21 AM
<font size="5"><center>
U.S. General: 'mere description' of
torture photos 'horrendous' </font size><font size="4">
controversy over release grows</font size></center>
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/05/29/amd_hooded_detainee.jpg
A detainee at the Abu Ghraib prision in
Baghdad, Iraq shows a prisoner with a
bag over his head, attached to wires.
A former U.S. General says unreleased
photos show prisoners being raped.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thursday, May 28th 2009, 10:36 AM
A former U.S. general said graphic images of rape and torture are among the photos of Iraqi prisoner abuse that President Barack Obama's administration does not want released.
Retired Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, who oversaw the U.S. investigation into the abuses at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, was quoted as telling Britain's Daily Telegraph in an article Wednesday that he agreed with Obama's decision not to release the pictures.
"I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them," Taguba was quoted by the Daily Telegraph. "The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."
It was not exactly clear what photos Taguba was referring to.
A U.S. military official in Baghdad, however, said "the photos referred to are ones that Taguba is not aware of." The official spoke on condition of anonymity Thursday because he was not authorized to release the information.
The military is referring all questions on the matter to Washington. The Obama administration did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Iraqis called for an investigation into the Daily Telegraph report.
"The Iraqi government must demand the reopening of the Abu Ghraib scandal case again," said Ali Kadom, 45, who works at the Ministry of Transportation.
Khalid Bashi, 35, a trade office owner in Baghdad, said Obama should release the photos to put a stop to a possible scandal.
"Sooner or later, more scandals will appear that show crimes against humanity carried out by American troops in Iraq," Bashi said.
The prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib exploded after photos taken by soldiers appeared in 2004.
According to the Telegraph, the new photos depicted much more serious abuses than previously documented. One photo reportedly showed an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner and another was said to show a male translator raping a male detainee, the paper reported.
The Telegraph said the photos related to 400 cases of alleged abuse between 2001 and 2005 at Abu Ghraib and six other prisons. It was not immediately clear from the newspaper report who had seen the photos or how they might have been obtained.
The newspaper said the images in the photos were backed up by statements from Taguba's report into prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib obtained under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/05/28/2009-05-28_us_general_calls_unreleased_torture_photos_.htm l
muckraker10021
11-19-2012, 05:27 AM
WATCH THIS FILM
"TORTURING DEMOCRACY" (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/torturingdemocracy/program/index1.html)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/torturingdemocracy/program/index1.html
<iframe src="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/torturingdemocracy/program/index1.html" width="1000" height="900">
<p>Your browser does not support iframes.</p>
</iframe>
Download Film - Video: MPEG4 Video 560x272 29.97fps 749kbps -watch on IPad, Android Tablet, ITouch, IPhone, Android Smart Phone, Computer
https://www.rapidshare.com/files/1358805240/Torturing_Democracy_PBS_2008.mp4
The film documentary "Torturing Democracy" aired once on PBS stations in 2008 and then literally disappeared. PBS was so afraid (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/arts/television/16pbs.html) of this scrupulously researched film, consisting of on-the-record interviews with U.S. citizens and military personal who actually witnessed the Cheney-BuShit-Rumsfeld-Rice illegally sanctioned torture of hundreds of Arab prisoners - which resulted in more than 50 deaths, -that many PBS stations refused to air the film. Innocent Arab men, who where misidentified & snatched by U.S. 'black-ops' forces from their homes- who survived as long as 4 years of torture in Afghanistan & Gitmo are interviewed in this film and they describe their harrowing ordeal and the continuing road back to sanity they are traveling. Film footage chronicling Cheney-BuShit-Rumsfeld-Rice authorized, U.S. torture & barbarism, seen hundreds of times in every country in the world except the U.S. is contained in this documentary. With the 2012 U.S. elections just ended, we should not quickly forget that if Romney was elected, the same ideologues who stood with and supported BuShit & company in their zeal and preference for torture would have re-initiated the Cheney-BuShit-Rumsfeld-Rice torture program with full vigor.
For those like myself who were angrily perturbed at Obama's & Holder's failure to prosecute anyone from the BuShit camarilla for deliberately violating U.S. law as it pertains to torture, we get the obvious answer -(I read the info below over a year ago)- that they feared that Obama would literally be killed by the Military-Industrial-Complex -(just like J.F.K.)- if they actually prosecuted and put BuShit capos in jail.
<blockquote>
...Edley apparently tried to justify Obama's "look forward, not backwards" policy toward Bush-era lawbreaking. Instead, Kreig writes, Edley revealed the Obama team's weakness in the face of Republican thuggery:
Edley's rationale implies that Obama and his team fear the military/national security forces that he is supposed be commanding--and that Republicans have intimidated him right from the start of his presidency even though voters in 2008 rejected Republicans by the largest combined presidential-congressional mandate in recent U.S. history. Edley responded to our request for additional information by providing a description of the transition team's fears, which we present below as an exclusive email interview. Among his important points is that transition officials, not Obama, agreed that he faced the possibility of a coup.
... Obama’s team feared that leadership in the U.S. armed forces, the CIA and NSA might “revolt” if the new Obama administration prosecuted war crimes by U.S. authorities and lower-ranking personnel. Also, Edley told Harman that his fellow decision-makers on Obama's team feared that a prosecution inquiry could lead to Republican efforts to thwart the Obama agenda in Congress.
Chris Edley volunteered that he’d been party to very high-level discussions during Obama’s transition about prosecuting the criminals. He said they decided against it. I asked why. Two reasons: 1) it was thought that the CIA, NSA, and military would revolt, and 2) it was thought the Repugnants would retaliate by blocking every piece of legislation they tried to move (which, of course, they’ve done anyhow).
Afterwards I told him that CIA friends confirmed that Obama would have been in danger, but I added that he bent over backwards to protect the criminals, and gave as an example the DOJ’s defense (state secrets) of Jeppesen (the rendition arm of Boeing) a few days after his inauguration.
He shrugged and said they will never be prosecuted, and that sometimes politics trumps rule of law....
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2011/09/obama-advisors-feared-coup-if.html
</blockquote>
<hr noshade Color="#333333" size="6"></hr>
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbKrqoYgvj_OIChO-1RpSyXAQ9WiKXi3AscAUqWOLLQsP1AbDZ&t=1
Cheney & Rumsfeld have been at the center of tilting America perhaps irrevocably toward what Cheney in his own words calls “The Dark Side”. Anyone who is literate, and wants to know the truth can easily read the blood soaked 35 year history of these two psychopaths. In the 1970’s they advised President Nixon & then President Ford to use nuclear weapons to “win”?? – the Vietnam war. Both presidents had enough of a moral compass intact to reject the barbaric advice.
But these two psychopaths would return to high US government posts.
Their joint opportunity came with The bloodless coup d’état of 2000 where 5 members of the Supreme Court outlawed one-man one-vote, stopping the vote counting in Florida because in Justice Scalia words ” the purpose of the court's action was to prevent Bush from falling behind (Gore) in the vote tally”
With Bush the declared victor by ONE Supreme Court vote , completely nullifying the millions of voters who voted for Gore, and in particular not allowing the recounting of the State of Florida’s votes because {SCALIA again} it would be injurious to Mr. Bush ; Cheney & Rumsfeld were now jointly back in the game with an ignorant President that they could easily puppeteer.
http://i.min.us/ijkltu.jpg
http://i.min.us/ilvZvg.jpghttp://i.min.us/il0yhC.jpg
http://i.min.us/ilwhRC.jpg
MAY 2009
The Daily Beast has confirmed that the photographs of abuses at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, which President Obama, in a reversal, decided not to release, depict sexually explicit acts, including a uniformed soldier receiving oral sex from a female prisoner, a government contractor engaged in an act of sodomy with a male prisoner and scenes of forced masturbation, forced exhibition, and penetration involving phosphorous sticks and brooms.
Naomi Wolf, in her “Sex Crimes in the White House” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/sex-crimes-in-the-white-h_b_111221.html) article last year, documents the Bush White House’s involvement in committing sex crimes against detainees.
We now know that the torture of prisoners was the result of a policy set in the White House by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Rice — who actually chaired the torture meetings.
The Pentagon has also acknowledged that it had authorized sexualized abuse of detainees as part of interrogation practices to be performed by female operatives. And documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union have Rumsfeld, in his own words, checking in on the sexualized humiliation of prisoners.
The sexualization of torture from the top basically turned Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay into an organized sex-crime ring in which the trafficked sex slaves were US-held prisoners. Looking at the classic S and M nature of some of this torture, it is hard not to speculate that someone setting policy was aroused by all of this.
And Phillipe Sands’ impeccably documented Torture Team: Rumsfeld’s Memo and the Betrayal of American Values, (http://www.amazon.com/Torture-Team-Rumsfelds-Betrayal-American/dp/0230603904) now proves that sex crime was authorized and, at least one source reports, eroticized: Diane Beaver, the Staff Judge Advocate at Guantanamo who signed off on many torture techniques, told Sands about brainstorming sessions that included the use of “sexual tension,” which was “culturally taboo, disrespectful, humiliating and potentially unexpected.”
http://media.us.macmillan.com/jackets/500H/9780230614437.jpg
It’s no wonder our government doesn’t want certain photos released. It’s not because doing so would be “too dangerous”; it’s because, as Naomi Wolf notes, the bodies depicted are crime scenes.
But what is far scarier about these images Obama refuses to release and that the Pentagon is likely to be lying about now is that it is not the evidence of lower-level soldiers being corrupted by power –
it is proof of the fact that the most senior leadership – Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney, with Rice’s collusion – were running a global sex crime trafficking ring with Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Baghram as the holding sites.
The sexual nature of the torture also gives the lie to Cheney’s and others’ defense of torture as somehow functional: the sexual perversity mandated from the top reveals that it was just plain old sick sadism gratified by a very sick form of pleasure. I also pointed out in `Sex Crimes in the White House’ that the escalation of the sexual abuse showed the same classic pattern shown by sex criminals everywhere – you start with stripping the victim, keeping him or her completely in your power, and then you engage in greater and more violent excesses with more and more self-justification.
<HR NOSHADE COLOR="#333333" SIZE="4"></HR>
Obama and GOPers Worked Together to Kill Bush Torture Probe
http://i.min.us/ijkuga.gif
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/12/wikileaks-cable-obama-quashed-torture-investigation
muckraker10021
03-12-2013, 03:38 AM
Explicit exposition from guardian.uk including a must see 51 minute video which step-by-step reveals truths that the U.S. “corporate media” deliberately keeps hidden from the American sheeple. The rest of the worlds print media & television throughout the BuShit years revealed to their audiences the fact that the entire BuShit camarilla — bush, condi, cheney, rumsfeld, cia chief tenet, general petraeus, etc. — were covered in blood and death extracted by torture, up to their eyeballs— even after the revelation of Abu Ghraib. (http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444) They are all war criminals and to-this-day must avoid traveling to certain countries to avoid the possibility of being detained under international law. Watch the videos, read the articles……….and understand why there will be no defamation of character lawsuits against the guardian from any of the scoundrels exposed; — they can’t sue because it’s all true. We find out that cheney and others in the white house actually watched video of the torture of “combatants”; petraeus & other U.S. military saw the torture live, all in violation of U.S. laws and International Laws that were on the books. Does any of this matter 10 years later? That should be up to the American people but most Americans will never even contemplate these issues. It all goes down the ’memory hole’. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole) Corporate media television giant Viacom (CBS) has recently hired Condi ‘mushroom cloud’ Rice to work in their ‘CBS News’ division; imagine that — who’s next, will Donald Rumsfeld get the “Meet The Press” show or maybe BuShit himself will get ABC’s Sunday News Chat program. War criminal roundtable.
<!-- Start of guardian embedded video -->
<!-- To autoplay video, set 'a=true' in the following line of code-->
<iframe src="http://embedded-video.guardianapps.co.uk/?a=false&u=/world/video/2013/mar/06/us-petraeus-torture-iraq-video" frameborder="0" width="460" height="397"></iframe>
<!-- End of guardian embedded video -->
<img src="http://www.itmb.co.uk/ITMB/Community%20New/the-guardian-logo.jpg" width="700">
US Special Forces Veteran Links General Petraeus To Torture In Iraq
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/mar/06/us-petraeus-torture-iraq-video
Revealed: Pentagon's link to Iraqi torture centres
Exclusive: General David Petraeus and 'dirty wars' veteran behind commando units implicated in detainee abuse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/pentagon-iraqi-torture-centres-link
March 6, 2013
The Pentagon sent a US veteran of the "dirty wars" in Central America to oversee sectarian police commando units in Iraq that set up secret detention and torture centres to get information from insurgents. These units conducted some of the worst acts of torture during the US occupation and accelerated the country's descent into full-scale civil war.
Colonel James Steele was a 58-year-old retired special forces veteran when he was nominated by Donald Rumsfeld to help organise the paramilitaries in an attempt to quell a Sunni insurgency, an investigation by the Guardian and BBC Arabic shows.
After the Pentagon lifted a ban on Shia militias joining the security forces, the special police commando (SPC) membership was increasingly drawn from violent Shia groups such as the Badr brigades.
A second special adviser, retired Colonel James H Coffman, worked alongside Steele in detention centres that were set up with millions of dollars of US funding.
Coffman reported directly to General David Petraeus, sent to Iraq in June 2004 to organise and train the new Iraqi security forces. Steele, who was in Iraq from 2003 to 2005, and returned to the country in 2006, reported directly to Rumsfeld.
The allegations, made by US and Iraqi witnesses in the Guardian/BBC documentary, implicate US advisers for the first time in the human rights abuses committed by the commandos. It is also the first time that Petraeus – who last November was forced to resign as director of the CIA after a sex scandal – has been linked through an adviser to this abuse.
Coffman reported to Petraeus and described himself in an interview with the US military newspaper Stars and Stripes as Petraeus's "eyes and ears out on the ground" in Iraq.
"They worked hand in hand," said General Muntadher al-Samari, who worked with Steele and Coffman for a year while the commandos were being set up. "I never saw them apart in the 40 or 50 times I saw them inside the detention centres. They knew everything that was going on there ... the torture, the most horrible kinds of torture."
Additional Guardian reporting has confirmed more details of how the interrogation system worked. "Every single detention centre would have its own interrogation committee," claimed Samari, talking for the first time in detail about the US role in the interrogation units.
"Each one was made up of an intelligence officer and eight interrogators. This committee will use all means of torture to make the detainee confess like using electricity or hanging him upside down, pulling out their nails, and beating them on sensitive parts."
There is no evidence that Steele or Coffman tortured prisoners themselves, only that they were sometimes present in the detention centres where torture took place and were involved in the processing of thousands of detainees.
The Guardian/BBC Arabic investigation was sparked by the release of classified US military logs on WikiLeaks that detailed hundreds of incidents where US soldiers came across tortured detainees in a network of detention centres run by the police commandos across Iraq. Private Bradley Manning, 25, is facing a prison sentence of up to 20 years after he pleaded guilty to leaking the documents.
Samari claimed that torture was routine in the SPC-controlled detention centres. "I remember a 14-year-old who was tied to one of the library's columns. And he was tied up, with his legs above his head. Tied up. His whole body was blue because of the impact of the cables with which he had been beaten."
Gilles Peress, a photographer, came across Steele when he was on assignment for the New York Times, visiting one of the commando centres in the same library, in Samarra. "We were in a room in the library interviewing Steele and I'm looking around I see blood everywhere."
The reporter Peter Maass was also there, working on the story with Peress. "And while this interview was going on with a Saudi jihadi with Jim Steele also in the room, there were these terrible screams, somebody shouting: 'Allah, Allah, Allah!' But it wasn't kind of religious ecstasy or something like that, these were screams of pain and terror."
The pattern in Iraq provides an eerie parallel to the well-documented human rights abuses committed by US-advised and funded paramilitary squads in Central America in the 1980s. Steele was head of a US team of special military advisers that trained units of El Salvador's security forces in counterinsurgency. Petraeus visited El Salvador in 1986 while Steele was there and became a major advocate of counterinsurgency methods.
Steele has not responded to any questions from the Guardian and BBC Arabic about his role in El Salvador or Iraq. He has in the past denied any involvement in torture and said publicly he is "opposed to human rights abuses." Coffman declined to comment.
An official speaking for Petraeus said: "During the course of his years in Iraq, General Petraeus did learn of allegations of Iraqi forces torturing detainees. In each incident, he shared information immediately with the US military chain of command, the US ambassador in Baghdad ... and the relevant Iraqi leaders."
The Guardian has learned that the SPC units' involvement with torture entered the popular consciousness in Iraq when some of their victims were paraded in front of a TV audience on a programme called "Terrorism In The Hands of Justice."
SPC detention centers bought video cameras, funded by the US military, which they used to film detainees for the show. When the show began to outrage the Iraqi public, Samari remembers being in the home of General Adnan Thabit – head of the special commandos – when a call came from Petraeus's office demanding that they stop showing tortured men on TV.
"General Petraeus's special translator, Sadi Othman, rang up to pass on a message from General Petraeus telling us not to show the prisoners on TV after they had been tortured," said Samari. "Then 20 minutes later we got a call from the Iraqi ministry of interior telling us the same thing, that General Petraeus didn't want the torture victims shown on TV."
Othman, who now lives in New York, confirmed that he made the phone call on behalf of Petraeus to the head of the SPC to ask him to stop showing the tortured prisoners. "But General Petraeus does not agree with torture," he added. "To suggest he does support torture is horseshit."
Thabit is dismissive of the idea that the Americans he dealt with were unaware of what the commandos were doing. "Until I left, the Americans knew about everything I did; they knew what was going on in the interrogations and they knew the detainees. Even some of the intelligence about the detainees came to us from them – they are lying."
Just before Petraeus and Steele left Iraq in September 2005, Jabr al-Solagh was appointed as the new minister of the interior. Under Solagh, who was closely associated with the violent Badr Brigades militia, allegations of torture and brutality by the commandos soared. It was also widely believed that the units had evolved into death squads.
The Guardian has learned that high-ranking Iraqis who worked with the US after the invasion warned Petraeus of the consequences of appointing Solagh but their pleas were ignored.
The long-term impact of funding and arming this paramilitary force was to unleash a deadly sectarian militia that terrorized the Sunni community and helped germinate a civil war that claimed tens of thousands of lives. At the height of that sectarian conflict, 3,000 bodies a month were strewn on the streets of Iraq.
<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="8"></hr>
muckraker10021
03-27-2013, 02:07 AM
<div id="kadoo_video_container_23911423-c43"><object height="336" width="596" id="video_detector_23911423-c43"><param value="http://divshare.com/flash/video_flash_detector.php?data=YTo2OntzOjU6ImFwaUlk IjtzOjE6IjQiO3M6NjoiZmlsZUlkIjtpOjIzOTExNDIzO3M6ND oiY29kZSI7czoxMjoiMjM5MTE0MjMtYzQzIjtzOjY6InVzZXJJ ZCI7czo3OiIxMzE0NjMzIjtzOjQ6InRpbWUiO2k6MTM2NDM2Mz MzNTtzOjEyOiJleHRlcm5hbENhbGwiO2k6MTt9&autoplay=default&id=23911423-c43" name="movie"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><param name="wmode" value="opaque"></param><embed wmode="opaque" height="336" width="596" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" src="http://divshare.com/flash/video_flash_detector.php?data=YTo2OntzOjU6ImFwaUlk IjtzOjE6IjQiO3M6NjoiZmlsZUlkIjtpOjIzOTExNDIzO3M6ND oiY29kZSI7czoxMjoiMjM5MTE0MjMtYzQzIjtzOjY6InVzZXJJ ZCI7czo3OiIxMzE0NjMzIjtzOjQ6InRpbWUiO2k6MTM2NDM2Mz MzNTtzOjEyOiJleHRlcm5hbENhbGwiO2k6MTt9&autoplay=default&autoplay=default&id=23911423-c43"></embed></object></div>
Condi "Mushroom Cloud" Rice Deliberately Lying On CNN
The BuShit camarilla led by Cheney –Rumsfeld engaged in a maniacal pursuit to circumvent the constitution of the United States; bypassing congress and the federal judiciary, — green lighting the use of ‘torture’ ( http://warisacrime.org/node/32701 ) — and violating with impunity settled law domestic & international, in a craven pursuit to fulfill their neo-con wet dream of full spectrum dominance ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17194.htm) of the planet earth.
In the videos below — Former Supreme NATO Commander and four star general Wesley Clark discusses hearing about the neo-cons plans from Wolfowitz as early as 1991 when he met him at the Pentagon. Ten days after 9/11, Clark again visiting the Pentagon heard about Rumsfeld’s plan to militarily invade Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Lebanon, & Sudan in what he calls a “policy coup d’état” — a total repudiation of U.S. ‘rule-of-law’ — usurping the will of the congress and the American people. Under the international laws the United States and other western allies set up after World War 2 at Nuremberg — Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, bush and others are all war criminals.
NTnX0EGeCZY
h4F52p5fWa8
http://i.min.us/ijkltu.jpg
owlWNyL0nSs
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/25082/large/TMW2013-03-27color.png?1364222468
http://www.bartcop.com/bush-war-toast-10th.gifhttp://www.bartcop.com/bush-feet-soldier.jpg
muckraker10021
04-05-2013, 01:15 AM
Sometime later this year (2013) the world will witness the unveiling and opening of the BuShit presidential library in Texas. Smiling individuals representing the crème de la crème of American empire will all be present.
Current and former presidents of the U.S., members of the BuShit camarilla, and others, will all cluster around a memorial library which honors the administration of international war criminals.
The guardian.co.uk continuing its ten year anniversary Iraq war expose, reveals more BuShit administration authorized torture & barbarity.
<hr noshade color="#333333" size="4"></hr>
<img src="http://www.itmb.co.uk/ITMB/Community%20New/the-guardian-logo.jpg" width="700">
Camp Nama:
British Personnel Reveal Horrors Of Secret US Base In Baghdad
Detainees captured by SAS and SBS squads subjected to human-rights abuses
at detention centre, say British witnesses
http://www.peteykins.com/sparklepics3/Condi040107.jpg
by Ian Cobain | April 4, 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/01/camp-nama-iraq-human-rights-abuses/print
British soldiers and airmen who helped to operate a secretive US detention facility in Baghdad that was at the centre of some of the most serious human rights (http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/human-rights) abuses to occur in Iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iraq) after the invasion have, for the first time, spoken about abuses they witnessed there.
Personnel from two RAF squadrons and one Army Air Corps squadron were given guard and transport duties at the secret prison, the Guardian has established.
And many of the detainees were brought to the facility by snatch squads formed from Special Air Service and Special Boat Service squadrons.
Codenamed Task Force 121, the joint US-UK special forces unit was at first deployed to detain individuals thought to have information about Saddam Hussein (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/saddam-hussein)'s weapons of mass destruction. Once it was realised that Saddam's regime had long since abandoned its WMD programme, TF 121 was re-tasked with tracking down people who might know where the deposed dictator and his loyalists might be, and then with catching al-Qaida leaders who sprang up in the country after the regime collapsed.
Suspects were brought to the secret prison at Baghdad International airport, known as Camp Nama, for questioning by
US military (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-military) and civilian interrogators. But the methods used were so brutal that they drew condemnation not only from a US human rights body but from a special investigator reporting to the Pentagon.
A British serviceman who served at Nama recalled: "I saw one man having his prosthetic leg being pulled off him, and being beaten about the head with it before he was thrown on to the truck."
On the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, a number of former members of TF 121 and its successor unit TF6-26 have come forward to describe the abuses they witnessed, and to state that they complained about the mistreatment of detainees.
The abuses they say they saw include:
• Iraqi prisoners being held for prolonged periods in cells the size of large dog kennels.
• Prisoners being subjected to electric shocks.
• Prisoners being routinely hooded.
• Inmates being taken into a sound-proofed shipping container for interrogation, and emerging in a state of physical distress.
It is unclear how many of their complaints were registered or passed up the chain of command. A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said a search of its records did not turn up "anything specific" about complaints from British personnel at Camp Nama, or anything that substantiated such complaints.
Nevertheless, the emergence of evidence of British involvement in the running of such a notorious detention facility appears to raise fresh questions about ministerial approval of operations that resulted in serious human rights abuses.
Geoff Hoon (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/geoffhoon), defence secretary at the time, insisted he had no knowledge of Camp Nama. When it was pointed out to him that the British military had provided transport services and a guard force, and had helped to detain Nama's inmates, he replied: "I've never heard of the place."
The MoD, on the other hand, repeatedly failed to address questions about ministerial approval of British operations at Camp Nama. Nor would the department say whether ministers had been made aware of concerns about human rights abuses there.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/26/1364317334312/crispin-blunt-nama-008.jpg
Former army officer Crispin Blunt accused defence secretary John Hutton in 2009 of sweeping under the carpet the evidence of direct British service involvement.
However, one peculiarity of the way in which UK forces operated when bringing prisoners to Camp Nama suggests that ministers and senior MoD officials may have had reason to know those detainees were at risk of mistreatment. British soldiers were almost always accompanied by a lone American soldier, who was then recorded as having captured the prisoner. Members of the SAS and SBS were repeatedly briefed on the importance of this measure.
It was an arrangement that enabled the British government to side-step a Geneva convention clause (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590016?OpenDocument) that would have obliged it to demand the return of any prisoner transferred to the US once it became apparent that they were not being treated in accordance with the convention. And it consigned the prisoners to what some lawyers have described as a legal black hole.
Surrounded by row after row of wire fencing, guarded by either US Rangers or RAF personnel, and with an Abrams tank parked permanently at its main gate, to the outside observer Camp Nama seemed identical to scores of military bases that sprang up after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Once inside, however, it was clear that Nama was different.
Not that many people did enter the special forces prison. It was off limits to most members of the US and UK military, with even the officer commanding the US detention facility at Guantánamo being refused entry at one point. Inspectors from the International Committee of the Red Cross were never admitted through its gates.
One person who has been widely reported to have been seen there frequently (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/5335846/Gen-Stanley-MacChrystal-Americas-new-army-chief-in-Afghanistan-under-fire-over-rough-tactics-and-prisoner-abuse.html) was General Stanley McChrystal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/stanley-mcchrystal), then commander of US Joint Special Operations forces in Iraq.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/26/1364321121722/general-Stanley-McChrysta-008.jpg
General Stanley McChrystal, then commander of US Joint Special Operations forces in Iraq, was said to have visited Nama.
While Abu Ghraib prison, just a few miles to the west, would achieve global notoriety after photographs emerged depicting abuses committed there, Camp Nama escaped attention for a simple reason: photography was banned. The only people who attempted to take pictures – a pair of US Navy Seals – were promptly arrested. All discussion of what happened there was forbidden.
Before establishing its prison at Nama, TF 121 had been known as Task Force 20, and had run a detention and interrogation facility at a remote location known as H1, in Iraq's western desert. At least one prisoner had died en route to H1,
allegedly kicked to death aboard an RAF Chinook (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/07/iraq-death-secret-detention-camp).
The British were always junior partners in TF 121. Their contingent was known as Task Force Black. US Delta Force troops made up Task Force Green and US Army Rangers Task Force Red. One half of Task Force Black comprised SAS and SBS troopers, based a short distance away at the government compound known as the Green Zone. They detained so-called high-value detainees, who were brought to Camp Nama. The other half were the air and ground crews of 7 Squadron and 47 Squadron of the RAF, and 657 Squadron of the Army Air Corps, who lived on the camp itself, operating helicopters used in detention operations and a Hercules transport aircraft.
"The Americans went out to bring in prisoners every night, and British special forces would go out once or twice a week, almost always with one American accompanying them," one British serviceman who served at Nama recalled earlier this month.
''The prisoners would be brought in by helicopter, usually one at a time, although I once saw five being led off a Chinook. They were taken into a large hangar to be bagged and tagged, a bag put over their heads and their hands plasticuffed behind their backs. Then they would be lifted or thrown on to the back of a pick-up truck and driven to the Joint Operations Centre."
The Joint Operations Centre, or JOC, was a single storey building a few hundred yards from the airport's main runway. Some of those who served at Nama believed it had formerly been used by Saddam's intelligence agencies.
The US and UK forces worked together so closely that they began to wear items of each others' uniforms. But while British personnel were permitted into the front of the JOC, few were allowed into the rear, where interrogations took place. This was the preserve of US military interrogators and CIA officers based at Camp Nama. "They included a number of women," said one British airman. "One had a ponytail and always wore two pistols, so we had to nickname her Lara Croft."
There were four interrogation cells at the rear of the JOC, known as the blue, red, black and soft rooms, as well as a medical screening area. The soft room contained sofas and rugs, and was a place where detainees could be shown some kindness. Harsh interrogations took place in the red and blue rooms, while the black room – described as windowless, with hooks in the ceiling, and where every surface was painted black – is said to be the cell where the worse abuses were perpetrated.
According to an investigation by Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/07/22/no-blood-no-foul-0), the New York-based NGO, detainees were subject to "beatings, exposure to extreme cold, threats of death, humiliation and various forms of psychological abuse or torture (http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/torture)" at the JOC. The New York Times has reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/international/middleeast/19abuse.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) that prisoners were beaten with rifle butts and had paintball guns fired at them for target practice.
Signs posted around Nama are said to have proclaimed the warning "No Blood, No Foul": if interrogators did not make a prisoner bleed, they would not face disciplinary action.
There was also an overspill interrogation room cell behind the JOC: a shipping container lined with padding. "You could see people being taken in there, and they were in pretty poor shape when they were taken out," said one British witness. He adds: "Everyone's seen the Abu Ghraib pictures. But I've seen it with my own eyes."
A number of British soldiers who served with TF 121 said that some SAS officers were permitted to attend interrogations at the rear of the JOC. Human Rights Watch reports that one SAS officer took part in the beating of a prisoner thought to know the whereabouts of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq.
While not being interrogated, according to witnesses, prisoners were held in cells the size of large dog kennels. "They were made of wire mesh with sloping corrugated roofs," said a British ex-serviceman who served at Nama. "They were chest high, and two feet wide. There were about 100 of them, in three rows, and they always appeared to have at least one prisoner in each. They would be freezing at night, and really hot during the day.
"The prisoners were mostly men, although I did see two women being taken into the JOC for interrogation. I've no idea what became of them, or to any of the male prisoners after their interrogation was completed."
Some of the scenes at Nama were so disturbing that personnel serving there would literally look the other way, rather than witness the abuse. "I remember being on sentry duty at a post overlooking the dog kennels, and the guy I was with wouldn't even look at them," one British eyewitness recalls. "I was saying: 'Hey turn around and look at them.' And he wouldn't. He just wouldn't turn around, because he knew they were there."
Some complaints made at the time by British personnel were immediately suppressed. "I remember talking to one
British army (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/british-army) officer about what I had seen, and he replied: 'You didn't see that – do you understand?' There was a great deal of nervousness about the place. I had the impression that the British were scared we would be kicked off the operation if we made a fuss," the ex-serviceman said.
According to one US interrogator interviewed by Human Rights Watch, however, written authorisations were required for many of the abuses inflicted on prisoners at Nama, indicating that their use was approved up the chain of command.
"There was an authorisation template on a computer, a sheet that you would print out, or actually just type it in," the interrogator said. "It was a checklist. It was already typed out for you, environmental controls, hot and cold, you know, strobe lights, music, so forth. But you would just check what you want to use off, and if you planned on using a harsh interrogation you'd just get it signed off. It would be signed off by the commander."
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/26/1364320336735/iraq-detainees-008.jpg
According to one British serviceman who was at Nama, US soldiers would bring prisoners in every night.
Camp Nama was such a secret location that when General Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, was sent to Iraq in August 2003 to advise on interrogation regimes he was initially refused entry, according to Human Rights Watch.
At the end of 2003, the Pentagon sent a special investigator, Stuart Herrington, a retired military intelligence colonel, to discover more about the methods being employed at Nama. In December that year Herrington reported: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23372-2004Nov30.html) "Detainees captured by TF 121 have shown injuries that caused examining medical personnel to note that 'detainee shows signs of having been beaten'. It seems clear that TF 121 needs to be reined in with respect to its treatment of detainees."
More than 30 members of the task force were subsequently disciplined for abusing prisoners. Yet the beatings continued, according to British witnesses. The dog kennel cells remained in place, and UK special forces continued to be used to snatch suspects to be brought in for interrogation. "I can see now that we were supplying the meat for the American interrogators," says one.
In February 2004, senior British special forces and intelligence officers felt emboldened enough to mount a detention operation without an accompanying US soldier. Troopers surrounded a house in southern Baghdad that MI6 had identified as a safe house for foreign fighters. Two men were killed in the raid and two others of Pakistani origin were detained and handed over to the US authorities.
After questioning at Nama, the pair were flown to Bagram, north of the Afghan capital, Kabul, where they are thought to remain incarcerated,
despite efforts by lawyers to secure their release (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/14/bagram-jail-detainee-yunus-rahmatullah)by persuading the appeal court in London to order the issuing of a writ of habeas corpus.
Two months later, in April 2004, US news media published a series of shocking photographs showing the abuse of prisoners at a different prison, Abu Ghraib, where individuals detained by regular troops rather than special forces were being held. A few days later Task Force 121 was renamed Task Force 6-26. Shortly after this, two US Navy Seals – who had their own compound with Camp Nama – were seen taking photographs from the roof of their building. Both men were immediately arrested, British witnesses say and were not seen at Nama again.
Later that summer the secret prison was moved to Balad, a sprawling air base 50 miles north of Baghdad, where it became known as the Temporary Screening Facility (TSF). The Army Air Force and RAF troops continued their role there.
SAS troops continued to provide detainees for interrogation, operating from their base in one of a row of seven large villas inside the Green Zone. The villa next door was occupied by troops from Delta Force. Each of the homes had a swimming pool, and at the end of the long garden behind the SAS villa was a large hut occupied by a UK military intelligence unit, the Joint Forward Interrogation Team, or JFIT.
Individuals detained by the SAS – accompanied by their lone American escort – would be flown by helicopter to a landing pad behind the villas, and taken straight to the JFIT. According to former members of TF 6-26, after a brief interrogation by the British, they would be handed over to US forces, who would question them further before releasing them, or arrange for them to be flown north to Balad.
In late 2003, according to former taskforce members, two SAS members wandered next door to the Delta Force villa, where they were horrified to see two Iraqi prisoners being tortured. "They were being given electric shocks from cattle prods and their heads were being held under the water in the swimming pool. There were less visits next door after that."
While a complaint was made, it is not thought to have reported through the chain of command. And it certainly appears not to have reached Downing Street, as shortly afterwards Tony Blair, then prime minister, visited the SAS house to thank the troopers for their efforts.
By the end of 2004, according to the BBC journalist Mark Urban, MI6 officers who had visited the secret prison at Balad were expressing concern that the kennel cells had been reconstructed there, and the British government later warned the US authorities that it would hand over prisoners only if there was an undertaking that they would not be sent there.
Shortly afterwards, the RAF Hercules operated by the task force was shot down while flying from Nama to Balad (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/31/military.iraq), with the loss of all 10 men on board. It was the largest loss of life suffered by the RAF in a single incident since the second world war.
By now, a growing number of British members of the task force were deeply disillusioned about their role. When one, SAS trooper Ben Griffin,
decided he could not return to Iraq (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1512767/I-didnt-join-the-British-Army-to-conduct-American-foreign-policy.html), he expected to be face a court martial. Instead, he discovered that a number of his officers sympathised with him, and he was permitted to leave the army with a first-class testimonial.
When Griffin went public, making clear that British troops were handing over to the US military large numbers of prisoners who faced torture, the MoD came under pressure to explain itself. In February 2009 the then defence secretary, John Hutton, told the Commons that "review of records of detention resulting from security operations carried out by UK armed forces" had disclosed that two men who had been handed over had since been moved to Afghanistan. His statement made no mention of the joint task force, of H1, or of Camp Nama or Balad or how British airmen and soldiers were helping to operate the secret prisons.
Crispin Blunt, a Tory MP and former army officer,
accused Hutton (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090226/debtext/90226-0008.htm) of "simply sweeping under the carpet the apparent evidence of direct British service involvement with delivery to gross mistreatment amounting to torture involving hundreds if not thousands of people".
Today, 10 years after the invasion and the creation of the joint US-UK taskforce that detained and interrogated large numbers of Iraqis, the MoD responds to questions about their abuse by stating that it is aware only of "anecdotal accounts" of mistreatment, and that "any further evidence of human rights abuse should be passed to the appropriate authorities for investigation".
Griffin had done just that, asking the MoD itself to investigate the activities of the taskforce of which he had been a member. The MoD
obtained an injunction (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/29/military.law) to silence him, and warned he faced jail if he ever spoke out again.
Camp Nama: Baghdad's Secret Torture Facility
British soldiers and airmen served at a secretive US detention facility that was
the scene of some of the worst human rights abuses of the Iraq war
View Baghdad's secret torture facility (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/apr/01/camp-nama-baghdad-torture-facility-interactive)
<hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="8"></hr>
<img src="http://www.divshare.com/img/23994603-97b.jpg" width="900">
http://www.divshare.com/img/23994596-bbd.jpghttp://www.divshare.com/img/23994595-b8a.jpg
http://www.divshare.com/img/23994594-58f.jpg
<img src="http://www.whiterabbitdesigncompany.com/uploads/1/4/1/3/14130356/1042307_orig.jpg" width="900">
<img src="http://portland.indymedia.org/media/images/2005/05/318304.jpg" width="1000">
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.