General Sanchez calls for Truth Commission

Following the recent comments from Gen Taguba, the author of the Abu Ghraib report, that "the Bush Administration perpetrated War Crimes", and an admission from Gen David Petreaus that "Geneva was violated" in Iraq, former Multinational Forces Commander Lt. Gen Ricardo Sanchez has called for a Truth Commission to reveal what did and didn't happen at Abu Ghraib and in Iraq.



From Huffpo

The General described the failures at all levels of civilian and military command that led to the abuses in Iraq, "and that is why I support the formation of a truth commission."

The General went on to say that, "during my time in Iraq there was not one instance of actionable intelligence that came out of these interrogation techniques."

I interviewed General Sanchez after the event and asked him to elaborate on why he felt the US needed such a commission. "For the American people to really know what happened, " he replied, "...this was an institutional failure, a personal failure on the part of many...."

"If we do not find out what happened," continued the General, "then we are doomed to repeat it."

Vyan

These are NOT the pictures you're looking for...

In the last day quite a bit of hubbub and hullaballo has surfaced over a Telegraph UK report that alleges the reason that Obama did not release the latest set of Abu Ghraib pictures is because they depicted the Rape of Children.

I myself have helped share links to this story, but last night I read something which contradicted and to some extent corrected that story from, oddly enough, Jason Leopold.

Jumping more than a bit ahead of the gun a dog's age ago, Leopold has once claimed that Karl Rove was about to be arrested on Fitzmas. He wasn't, but Jason may have learned a lesson or two about verifying sources.

All that is now just another liter of blood under the bridge...

In this case he is addressing detailed descriptions of the pictures requested by the ACLU via FOIA which Obama recently denied. (BTW, Obama's isn't the last word on that subject - it could still go to SCOTUS)

U.S. Army soldiers in Afghanistan took dozens of pictures of their colleagues pointing assault rifles and pistols at the heads and backs of hooded and bound detainees and another photograph showed two male soldiers and one female soldier pointing a broom to one detainee “as if I was sticking the end of a broom stick into [his] rectum,” according to the female soldier’s account as told to an Army criminal investigator.

I found the documents that describes many of the photographs that were set for release at the end of the month on the website of the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU has been trying to gain access to the photographs for nearly six years. The ACLU obtained the files describing the pictures in 2005 as part of the organization’s wide-ranging Freedom of information Act lawsuit against the Bush administration seeking documents related to the treatment of “war on terror” prisoners in U.S. custody.
...

About 31 digital photographs contained on a compact disc discovered in June 2004 during an office clean-up at Bagram Airfield also depicted the corpse of “local national” who died from “apparent gunshot wounds” and uniformed U.S. soldiers from the Second Platoon of the 22nd Infantry Battalion stationed at Fire Base Tycze and Dae Rah Wod (DRW) kicking and punching prisoners whose heads were covered with “sand bags” and blindfolds and hands were “zipped-tied,” according to a U.S. Army criminal investigation. The documents related to that investigation can be found in these five separate files: [Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3] [Part 4] [Part 5].

The female soldier with the broom handle is further addressed in the report as merely posing with the handle in a suggestive position, not actually attacking a detainee with it.

After reading this I tweeted with Jason to ask him about it.

Vyan1 @JasonLeopold These Docs don't seem to describe the same pics referenced in the UK Taguba interview #DNJ

JasonLeopold @Vyan1 that's because the telegraph report is wrong. The photos being withheld are specifically related to a lawsuit involving 43 photos.

JasonLeopold @Vyan1 there is no question that these photos exist but these were not the photos at the center of the lawsuit between Bushies and the ACLU.

You don't even have to trust me or Jason, the documents - linked above - speak for themselves.

Obama didn't suppress pictures of children being raped (Not that I personally would actually blame him if he did since if you truly want to see a Unrelenting Firestorm of resentment in the Arab would - THAT would do it!)

This may be why - and here I'm admittedly speculating the way the Telegraph did - both Gibb's and the Pentagon felt so free to simply attack the Telegraph's reporting and completely avoid addressing the issue of the Rape pictures themselves. (Then again, without the pictures and documents in hand speculation is inevitable...)




Simply put: IMO These are NOT the pictures we're looking for...

But this doesn't mean that the Telegraph UK is completely wrong, in all likelihood those horrid rape picture *do* exist as they've been backed up by other sources such as Sy Hersch, the Physicians for Human Rights Report and General Taguba.

Gen. Taguba: there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current (Bush) administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.

Vyan

Children were Raped by U.S. Soldiers, General calls them War Crimes

Allegations of children being raped to force their parent to give information have long been alleged by award winning journalist Sy Hersch (Video) but now a report via the Telegraph UK reveals that this allegation is true, and that their were even pictures.

Abu Ghraib abuse photos 'show rape'
Photographs of alleged prisoner abuse which Barack Obama is attempting to censor include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse, it has emerged.

At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.

Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

Another apparently shows a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.

Detail of the content emerged from Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq

Instead of coming from some radical Human Rights organization, this information is coming from a former U.S. Army General, the man who headed the investigation into the Abu Ghraib scandal - and was prohibited from looking at the involvement of higher-ups in these crimes.

Is it rather interesting that John Yoo publicly and specifically argued that *THIS WAS LEGAL*.

John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.

This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.



Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty.

Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

Geneva doesn't prevent that although it says there will be NO AFFRONTS TO PERSONAL DIGNITY or threats against the family of a detainee? The UN Convention Against Torture doesn't prevent that? 18 USC 2340 (The Torture Statute) and the 18 USC 2441 (The War Crimes Statues) don't outlaw this?

If so, then nothing is outlawed.

The Memo in question is Here (pdf), in it Yoo argues essentially that the Torture Statute only applies if you intent is to "cause severe physical harm" - but if you have some other reason/excuse, the law doesn't apply.

The infliction of pain must be the defendants precise objective.

Although the Torture Convention specifically argued that purposes of "pain inflicted for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person a confession of information... is prohibited" - Yoo tries to argue this away with the argument that words "specifically intended" are included within the ratification documentation of the treaty as approved by Congress.

He argued that since the intent was to gain information or cooperation from the subject, or even a third party as opposed to the simplistic sadistic goal of causing pain for it's own sake, it's legal.

Rob bank and keep the money = Illegal. Rob a bank and give the money to charity = Legal. Rape a child for shits and giggles = Illegal. Rape a child to get their parents to infiltrate the insurgency and report back to you = Legal.

Get it?

And since Yoo put this view into a memo and it was stamped as valid by the Justice Deptartment, it's pretty hard to argue complete ignorance when exactly what he wrote - is what happened in Iraq.

Maj Gen Taguba’s internal inquiry into the abuse at Abu Ghraib, included sworn statements by 13 detainees, which, he said in the report, he found “credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses.”

Among the graphic statements, which were later released under US freedom of information laws, is that of Kasim Mehaddi Hilas in which he says: “I saw [name of a translator] ******* a kid, his age would be about 15 to 18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn’t covered and I saw [name] who was wearing the military uniform, putting his **** in the little kid’s ***…. and the female soldier was taking pictures.”

Let me point out again, that various prior memos by Yoo claiming that Geneva didn't apply to the Taliban or al Qaeda were never written or amended to include civilians detained in Iraq who very clearly would be covered by Geneva and any actions such as these would clearly be - a War Crime!

General Taguba agrees:

Maj. Gen Taguba saw the horrors first hand during his Abu Ghraib investigation and he believes the Bush administration is guilty of war crimes.

In a preface to a report by Physicians for Human Rights on prisoner abuse and torture in U.S. military prisons Taguba wrote: "There is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes. The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held to account."

Vyan

For the Last Time ALL OF IT was Torture!

It's well past time we put a final punctuation mark on this entire "Enhanced Interrogations are not Torture" nonsense - Once and For All.

It doesn't matter what the Polling Data says (Karl), what matters is what the Law Says. The simple fact is that the is No Such Thing as Torture Lite ™?

It's not a question of whether Waterboarding is or isn't Torture, and therefore illegal, the simple fact is that Every Coercive Method Authorized by Yoo, Bybee, Bradbury and Bush all meet the U.S. and International definitions of torture.

All of Them.

Contrary to many arguments this isn't simply a matter of unenforceable International Law. The US signed and ratified the UN Convention Against Torture over a dozen years ago and implemented empowering legislation under 18 USC 2340 - The Torture Statute. It similarly made it a criminal offense to commit a grave Breach of Geneva under 18 USC 2441 - The War Crimes Act.

In his original August 2002 Memo (pdf) Jay Bybee argued that ten techniques, which had been culled from the Special Forces S.E.R.E. program were not torture because they did not induce "permanent or severe physical or psychological" damage as outlined under 18 USC 2340.

Those techniques were..

attention grasp, wailing, facial hold, facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivations, insects place in a confinement box and the waterboard

Bybee repeatedly argued that the pain and suffering would be "mild", and unlikely to induce long-term psychological stress because only a few of these kinds of signs had ever been recorded by S.E.R.E. students - but besides the fact that the S.E.R.E. program is voluntary, whereas being held against your will is decidedly NOT voluntary, there is also the issue of duration and repetition. The S.E.R.E. course lasts less than a week, and at any point a student can use a code-word to signify they have overextended their reach. Under the program outlined by Bybee, none of this was possible, and neither was there a definate end to the process...

Amnesty International Describes Torture according to the UN Convention Against Torture this way:

It defines torture as any act by which:

severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; is intentionally inflicted on a person; for such purposes as:

* obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession
* punishing him/her for an act s/he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed
* intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person
* or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind;

when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.*

ANY ACT - which causes severe physical or mental pain and suffering for the purpose of extracting information. ANY ACT.

Slapping, Grasping, Wall Standing, Cramped Confinement, Waterboarding - it doesn't matter. ANY ACT.

Both the Geneva and the UN Convention Against Torture do not include a Laundry List of prohibited actions simply because one you do that, it increases the likelihood that someone might try to invent a technique which isn't included on the list and try to claim that it Isn't Torture on a technicality.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits ''violence to life and person,'' in particular ''mutilation, cruel treatment and torture'' and also prohibits ''outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment''. These terms include ''other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment." The drafters of common Article 3 avoided a detailed list of prohibited acts in order to ensure that it had the broadest possible reach, leaving no loophole. As the official commentary by the International Committee of the Red Cross explained:

''It is always dangerous to go into too much detail -- especially in this domain. However great the care taken in drawing up a list of all the various forms of infliction, it would never be possible to catch up with the imagination of future torturers who wished to satisfy their bestial instincts; the more specific and complete a list tries to be, the more restrictive it becomes. The form of wording adopted is flexible, and, at the same time, precise.''

The Army Field Manual, which is crafted to abie by Geneva, does include a list of prohibited actions, and that list doesn't leave any wiggle room for coercive interrogations.

5-75. If used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations,
prohibited actions include, but are not limited to—
• Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a
sexual manner.
• Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape
over the eyes.
• Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical
pain.
• “Waterboarding.”
• Using military working dogs.
• Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
• Conducting mock executions.
• Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care.
5-76. While using legitimate interrogation techniques, certain applications of
approaches and techniques may approach the line between permissible
actions and prohibited actions.

Performing any of these actions, could clearly meet the legal definition of torture and a War Crime. As could hiding detainees from the legally authorized monitoring agencies such as the International Red Cross.

Two primary defenses/excuses were proffered by Bybee (and have been parotted by many others) - 1) The Pain and Suffering Wasn't THAT Severe!

Pain is a highly subjective issue. What might cause minor pain for one person could be intensely painful for another. But then again, even minor inconveniences can become monumentally discomforting over the coarse of time. Some can even become deadly.

Repeated Face Slapping, like any form of assault, can led to bruising, hemoraging and even a subdural hematoma which can trigger traumatic brain injury. I'm not talking about 2 quick slaps, but hundreds of slaps - over the course of days, and weeks and months. The longer the duration the higher likelihood of permanent damage, and even death.

Stress Positions, Wall Standing and Cramped Confinement are all classic forms of torture. They are used to induce muscle fatigue, which one might associate with body building - but the static nature of the muscles producers a very different result than increasing Lat or Deltoid size. When combined with sleep deprivation, extended periods of acute muscle fatigue can cause the subjects kidneys to shutdown. Generally speaking a lack of functioning kidneys tends to lead to a lack of Life!

Even the psychologist whom some OLC memos cited to argue that the suggested methods were harmless, in fact says exactly the opposite.

"As soon as you add in any other stress, any other psychological stress, then the sleep deprivation feeds on that, and the two compound each other to make things far worse. I made that very, very clear," he said. "And there's been a lot of research by others since then to show that this is the case."

As for whether such stress could be considered "harmful," Horne was unequivocal. "I thought it was totally inappropriate to cite my book as being evidence that you can do this and there's not much harm. With additional stress, these people are suffering. It's obviously traumatic," he said. "I just find it absurd."

It's is even more difficult to quantify psychological pain and suffering than it can be for physical pain, but it can't seriously be argued that deliberate attempts at inducing fear and shamefully humiliation (such as the use of nudity, dogs and insects) had No Effect At All! Further we have amples examples of the impact of physical and emotional abuse, particularly in domestic situations when women are the most common targets.

Women who live in violent households experience intense feelings of fear, panic, and anxiety (Jones 87). Many experience feelings of depression and shame, because they feel guilty about staying in their current situation (Jones 87). Women who are victims of abuse over a prolonged period of time will develop feelings of learned helplessness, or in other words, they will feel powerless to do anything to ameliorate their situation. This feeling of learned helplessness will further contribute to a depressed state. Women who are physically abused are also often verbally abused. This verbal abuse includes name-calling, making one feel worthless, playing mind games, and isolation from one’s family and friends. Verbal abuse can be more damaging to a woman’s psychological well-being than physical abuse. Which physical abuse the wounds heal, but psychological abuse is more difficult to overcome.

Clearly we are usually discussing men rather than women when talk about detainee abuse, but the simple fact is that most women in domestic violence situations CAN LEAVE and end the abuse - a detainee doesn't have that option, and hence has the potential to feel even more helpless and become even more psychologically damaged. Putting aside the obviously problematic argument of "which is worse", it it clear that both the law and society consider this kind of abusive treatment to be unacceptable - so how then can we consider similar treatment to be permissible under the color of authority regardless of the circumstances?

The simple truth is we can't.

The second argument offered is 2) We we're doing it to Save American Lives

Besides the fact that the CIA Inspector Generals Report, and the FBI Director both dispute claims that "Enhance Interrogation" has succeeding in producing "Good Actionable Intelligence" that saved lives, there is one very simple response to this, the UN Convention Against Torture, which the U.S. has signed and ratified, states...

Article 2(2) of the Convention states that: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

In short, there are NO ABUSIVE ACTIONS, either physical or psychological, which are permitted under Geneva for extracting information and under the UN Conventions there are NO EXCUSES.

Many people tend to look at the purely as a "waterboarding" issue, but the fact is long before you reach that particular technique, you've already long passed the threshold into torture and war crimes. But even with that in mind, few people even realize what waterboarding truly is. Even Wikipedia knows better than Jay Bybee.

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die. It is considered a form of torture by legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges,and human rights organizations. As early as the Spanish Inquisition it was used for interrogation purposes, to punish and intimidate, and to force confessions.

In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates a gag reflex almost immediately. The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, ultimately, death. Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.

Certain forms of waterboarding do not allow water to enter the mouth and lungs by using a non-permiable or cellophane sheet to cover the nose and mouth (although the Method used under S.E.R.E. isn't one of these), but far from being "safe" this version of waterboarding it can enduce the phenomenon of Dry Drowning.

In normal breathing, the diaphragm contracts, causing the lungs to expand (lungs are above the diaphragm). This expansion draws air into the lungs by generating a negative pressure or vacuum. Air first travels through the rigid larynx and upper airways before filling the inflatable alveoli in the lungs.

When water or other foreign bodies are inhaled, laryngospasm occurs and the person's larynx spasms shut. As a result, the vacuum created by the diaphragm cannot be filled by the inrush of air into the lungs, and the vacuum persists. In an attempt to force air in through the spasmed larynx, the person may breathe deeper and with more effort, but this only increases the vacuum's force inside the chest. The obstruction to the inflow of oxygen causes hypoxia, and the obstruction to the outflow of carbon dioxide causes acidosis, both resulting in death.

In addition, a multifactorial form of pulmonary edema is produced. The heart continues to beat normally during this time, and blood continues to circulate, though pulmonary oxygen and carbon dioxide gas exchange is markedly reduced. The volume of blood in the pulmonary circulation increases, by pulling in more blood from the abdomen, head, arms and legs - abnormally large volumes of this blood enter the pulmonary circulation via the superior and inferior vena cavae (great veins) in response to the persistent partial vacuum. From the vena cavae, the increased blood volume flows through the right atrium and into the right ventricle. The blood volume is great enough to stretch out the ventricle, similar to water entering a balloon.

POP! You're dead.

This is what Jay Bybee Wrote about severe suffering and Waterboarding.

Any pain associated with muscle fatigue is not of the intensity sufficient to amount to "sever physical pain or suffering" under the statute, nor, despite it's discomfort, can it be said to be difficult to endure. As we understand it, when the waterboard is used, the subject's body responds as if the subject were drowning--even though the subject is well aware that he is in fact not drowning.

As a simple point of fact, if you're "body is responding as if you're drowning" -- You. Are. Drowning! All of the negative impacts, from lung damage, acidosis and edema are likely and possible depending on the duration and frequency of the treatment.

Abu Zubaydah who was waterboarded 83 times (in additional to sleep deprivation, endless loud music and stress positions) is a long way from free from "Sufferring":

First, they beat him. As authorized by the Justice Department and confirmed by the Red Cross, they wrapped a collar around his neck and smashed him over and over against a wall. They forced his body into a tiny, pitch-dark box and left him for hours. They stripped him naked and suspended him from hooks in the ceiling. They kept him awake for days.

Today, he suffers blinding headaches and has permanent brain damage. He has an excruciating sensitivity to sounds, hearing what others do not. The slightest noise drives him nearly insane. In the last two years alone, he has experienced about 200 seizures.

But physical pain is a passing thing. The enduring torment is the taunting reminder that darkness encroaches. Already, he cannot picture his mother's face or recall his father's name. Gradually, his past, like his future, eludes him.

The last point is that even if these techniques all managed to successfully slalom through the minefield of U.S. and International Law, there is considerable evidence that CIA and Military Personnel in the field - went far beyond the guidelines provided by the OLC and not just at Abu Ghrab or Gitmo.

A 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood. The exact cause of death was ""undetermined"" although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death. Notes say he ""struggled/ interrogated/ died sleeping.""

An Iraqi detainee (also described as a white male) died on January 9, 2004, in Al Asad, Iraq, while being interrogated by ""OGA."" He was standing, shackled to the top of a door frame with a gag in his mouth at the time he died. The cause of death was asphyxia and blunt force injuries.

A detainee was smothered to death during an interrogation by Military Intelligence on November 26, 2003, in Al Qaim, Iraq. A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of General Mowhoush, lists ""asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression"" as the cause of death and cites bruises from the impact with a blunt object.

A detainee at Abu Ghraib Prison, captured by Navy Seal Team number seven, died on November 4, 2003, during an interrogation by Navy Seals and ""OGA."" A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of Manadel Al Jamadi, shows that the cause of his death was ""blunt force injury complicated by compromised respiration.""

A 52-year-old male Iraqi was strangled to death at the Whitehorse detainment facility on June 6, 2003, in Nasiriyah, Iraq. His autopsy also revealed bone and rib fractures, and multiple bruises on his body.

If Death By Interrogation isn't enough to prove torture - then nothing is torture. Nothing at all.

And this is precisely the point, those that support this policy would attempt to redefine reality right out of existence. If our only protection against Torture is whether someone makes you stand on one leg for 4 hours instead of 8 Hours or 12 hours, then we have No protection at ALL.

That is why a Hard Bright Line needs to be maintained, that is why Disbarment is Too Good For "Em, the entire lot of the War Criminal Gang needs to be fully investigated and prosecuted. Anything less is a disgrace.

Vyan

Abu Ghraib was no Boating Accident (More Liz Cheney Lies)

Toward the end of this second portion from her interview with Nora O'Donnell this week, Liz Cheney proclaimed that there was "No Connection" between the policies endorsed by her Father for "Enhanced Interrogation" Torture and the tragic events at Abu Ghraib Prison.



This claim is false. (Taken from an update to my Rec'd Diary from Yesterday)

False Claim: That the events at Abu Ghraib were in no way connected to changes made in Bush Policy.

As shown by the ACLU's Torture Timeline.

Following Bush's determination that "Geneva Doesn't Apply" and various memos from Gonzales, Yoo and Bybee authorizing and justifying the use of a variety of harsh interrogation methods which were first tested on Zubaydah in Thailand, were exported in response to requests from the commanders at GTMO. Following that request in Dec of 2002 SECDEF Rumsfeld authorized new techniques such as hooding, stress positions, nudity, the use of phobias, dogs, sensory deprivation, environmental controls (hypothermia), sexual humiliation as a way to "soften up" detainees.

On that memo Rumsfeld handwrote... "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?" Rumsfeld used a "standing desk" for doing his work, the problem with his argument is that he has freedom to move and shift positions, but in a standing stress position the subjects movements are limited which can over the coarse of time induce renal failure and death. That's why the 4-hour limit.

In January of 2003 the commander at Bagram AFB, Afghanistan officially implemented the new Rumsfeld's techniques going far beyond the Army Field Manual, which is written to be consistent with Geneva. This ultimately results in the death of several detainees (A clear violation of even the "Bybee Standard").

In August of 2003 on recommendations from Lt. Gen Sanchez, Rumsfeld sent the commander of Guantanamo (Gen. Miller) to Abu Ghraib to Gitmo-ize it. The new commander removed the authority of the standard base commander Gen. Kaprinski over the "Hard Site" and positions the MP's handling prisoners there under the command of Military Intelligence, then proceeded to implement The same tactics Rumsfeld had previously approved for GITMO and Bagram

The pictures that we all saw at Abu Ghraib, the hooding, the nudity, and stress positions were all authorized by Rumsfeld and exported to the Hard Site on his orders. The argument has long been that this wasn't an "Intelligence Mission" because those who were mistreated clearly were not high-value members of al Qaeda, but using his sources journalist Sy Hersh (who first broke the Abu Ghraib story) has found the explanation for all this. In his book "Chain of Command" he argues that this treatment was intended to be used a s blackmail (hence all the pictures and photos) against low-value targets who would them be released and coerced into becoming spies against the insurgency.

The original idea behind the sexually humiliating photos taken at Abu Ghraib, Hersh said he had heard, was to use them as blackmail so that the newly released prisoners - many of whom were ordinary Iraqi thieves or even civilian bystanders rounded up in dragnets - would act as informants. "We operate on guilt, [Muslims] operate on shame," Hersh explained. "The idea of photographing an Arab man naked and having him simulate homosexual activity, and having an American GI woman in the photographs, is the end of society in their eyes."

Abu Ghraib was no boating accident, it was a Covert Op.

This is why even in while putting together the Taguba Report, investigators into Abu Ghraib were prohibited from looking at the actions and motivations of higher-ups, and instead told to focus on scapegoats like Grainer and England who were for the most part only doing what Un-ranked Military Intelligence Officers had instructed them to do.

Olbermann on Taguba and Abu Ghraib

Olbermann on The Taguba Report, and Interview with PJ Crawley

The Abu Ghraib Cover-Up

Seymour Hersh appeared on CNN's Late Edition to discuss his article in The New Yorker which reveals that Former SecDef Rumsfeld lied to Congress when he claimed that the first time he heard about the abuse at Abu Ghraib was when the photos hit the press.



The article reveals how Maj General Taguba, who had been put in charge of the Abu Ghraib investigation was threatened by top Pentagon brass.

A few weeks after his report became public, Taguba, who was still in Kuwait, was in the back seat of a Mercedes sedan with Abizaid. … Abizaid turned to Taguba and issued a quiet warning: “You and your report will be investigated.”

“I wasn’t angry about what he said but disappointed that he would say that to me,” Taguba said. “I’d been in the Army thirty-two years by then, and it was the first time that I thought I was in the Mafia.“

Pressure also applied to Senator Warner, then head of armed services to "back off".

A former high-level Defense Department official said that, when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, Senator John Warner, then the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, was warned “to back off” on the investigation, because “it would spill over to more important things.” A spokesman for Warner acknowledged that there had been pressure on the Senator, but said that Warner had stood up to it — insisting on putting Rumsfeld under oath for his May 7th testimony, for example, to the Secretary’s great displeasure.

That Lt. General Sanchez clearly knew what was already going on.

Taguba came to believe that Lieutenant General Sanchez, the Army commander in Iraq, and some of the generals assigned to the military headquarters in Baghdad had extensive knowledge of the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib even before Joseph Darby came forward with the CD. Taguba was aware that in the fall of 2003 — when much of the abuse took place — Sanchez routinely visited the prison, and witnessed at least one interrogation. According to Taguba, “Sanchez knew exactly what was going on.”

Yes, of course he did. Sanchez is the one who oversaw and installed Gen Geoffrey Miller as commander of Tier 1A/1B immediately after he arrived from instituting "Alternative Interrogation Techniques" authorized by SecDef Rumsfeld at Gitmo.

Contrary to claims that these were merely "frat-boy pranks", Taguba reported to Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz that this was far more than just simple "abuse".

In the meeting, the officials professed ignorance about Abu Ghraib. “Could you tell us what happened?” Wolfowitz asked. Someone else asked, “Is it abuse or torture?” At that point, Taguba recalled, “I described a naked detainee lying on the wet floor, handcuffed, with an interrogator shoving things up his rectum, and said, ‘That’s not abuse. That’s torture.’ There was quiet.”

And there was more which Taguba revealed to Hersh.

I learned from Taguba that the first wave of materials included descriptions of the sexual humiliation of a father with his son, who were both detainees. Several of these images, including one of an Iraqi woman detainee baring her breasts, have since surfaced; others have not. (Taguba’s report noted that photographs and videos were being held by the C.I.D. because of ongoing criminal investigations and their “extremely sensitive nature.”) Taguba said that he saw “a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee.” The video was not made public in any of the subsequent court proceedings, nor has there been any public government mention of it. Such images would have added an even more inflammatory element to the outcry over Abu Ghraib. “It’s bad enough that there were photographs of Arab men wearing women’s panties,” Taguba said.

Rather than wanting to discover the truth, the brass at the Pentagon did everything they could to stay at arms length from the facts and the pictures.

When Taguba urged one lieutenant general to look at the photographs, he rebuffed him, saying, “I don’t want to get involved by looking, because what do you do with that information, once you know what they show?”

After watching Rumsfled's performance before the Senate, Taguba was appalled.

“The whole idea that Rumsfeld projects—‘We’re here to protect the nation from terrorism’—is an oxymoron,” Taguba said. “He and his aides have abused their offices and have no idea of the values and high standards that are expected of them. And they’ve dragged a lot of officers with them.”

It was also clear to Taguba that there were others in the chain of command above Lindy England and Sgt Graner, as well as Military Intelligence were involved in all this.

“From what I knew, troops just don’t take it upon themselves to initiate what they did without any form of knowledge of the higher-ups,” Taguba told me. His orders were clear, however: he was to investigate only the military police at Abu Ghraib, and not those above them in the chain of command. “These M.P. troops were not that creative,” he said. “Somebody was giving them guidance, but I was legally prevented from further investigation into higher authority. I was limited to a box.”

...

Taguba’s assignment was limited to investigating the 800th M.P.s, but he quickly found signs of the involvement of military intelligence—both the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, commanded by Colonel Thomas Pappas, which worked closely with the M.P.s, and what were called “other government agencies,” or O.G.A.s, a euphemism for the C.I.A. and special-operations units operating undercover in Iraq. Some of the earliest evidence involved Lieutenant Colonel Steven L. Jordan, whose name was mentioned in interviews with several M.P.s. For the first three weeks of the investigation, Jordan was nowhere to be found, despite repeated requests. When the investigators finally located him, he asked whether he needed to shave his beard before being interviewed—Taguba suspected that he had been dressing as a civilian. “When I asked him about his assignment, he says, ‘I’m a liaison officer for intelligence from Army headquarters in Iraq.’ ” But in the course of three or four interviews with Jordan, Taguba said, he began to suspect that the lieutenant colonel had been more intimately involved in the interrogation process—some of it brutal—for “high value” detainees.

Jordan was eventually charged but his attorneys have vigorously defended him claiming that he wasn't properly advised of his rights prior to his interrogation by Taguba. Now isn't that ironic?

During his investigation Taguba discovered that there were likely only one or two possible al-Qeada members in all of abu Ghriab. Most prisons were either guilty of petty crimes or completely innocent. But that didn't seem to sway the Pentgon brass to be as cautious with their rights as they were with Jordan's.

The former senior intelligence official said that when the images of Abu Ghraib were published, there were some in the Pentagon and the White House who “didn’t think the photographs were that bad”—in that they put the focus on enlisted soldiers, rather than on secret task-force operations. Referring to the task-force members, he said, “Guys on the inside ask me, ‘What’s the difference between shooting a guy on the street, or in his bed, or in a prison?’ ” A Pentagon consultant on the war on terror also said that the “basic strategy was ‘prosecute the kids in the photographs but protect the big picture.’ ”

After the investigation Taguba was demoted and eventually fired.

Taguba had been scheduled to rotate to the Third Army’s headquarters, at Fort McPherson, Georgia, in June of 2004. He was instead ordered back to the Pentagon, to work in the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. “It was a lateral assignment,” Taguba said, with a smile and a shrug. … A retired four-star Army general later told Taguba that he had been sent to the job in the Pentagon so that he could “be watched.” Taguba realized that his career was at a dead end. …

In January of 2006, Taguba received a telephone call from General Richard Cody, the Army’s Vice-Chief of Staff. “This is your Vice,” he told Taguba. “I need you to retire by January of 2007.” No pleasantries were exchanged, although the two generals had known each other for years, and, Taguba said, “He offered no reason.”

So with a wimper rather than a bang, ended the 35 year career of a fine officer who withstood open bigotry to rise to the rank of General and still managed kept his integrity and values intact.

Vyan

This Failed Presidency

Sometimes I'm completely dumbstruck at what this President has so nonchalantly wrought, how he has destroyed American credibility, broken our military and destroyed Iraq while time and time again letting those who attacked us off Scott Free and criminally neglecting the needs of nation at home.

The full depth of Bush's bullshit is truly staggering if you even try to recount it all, or even the half of it that we know about.

It's a bit like the old adage about the frog and the boiling water. Put him directly in a hot pot and he'll simply leap out, but place him in while the water is still cold then slowly raise the temperate and he'll sit there quietly until his skin peels off and he cooks alive.

That's what has happened to America.

This week we learned that Bush's former White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales and his Chief of Staff Andrew Card with the direct support and intervention of President Bush ambushed Attorney General John Ashcroft on his sickbed, in order to override his deputy James Comey into implementing an illegal domestic spying program that would shatter the privacy of millions of Americans and that when they refused - Bush and the White House went ahead and did it without them anyway!

What's even more staggering is that ABC and CBS haven't even bothered to report this story.

Imagine if we'd learned of such a thing in the year 2000? Think back to how the press howled at the allegations that the Clinton's had prematurely removed members of the White House Travel Office merely because - they were about to be indicted, and strove to replace them with "someone they could trust."

Y'know, like people who weren't potential felons.

All the White House Press Office does is arrange for the travel by the White House Press Corp to accompany the President and his staff - period. They - unlike the fracking Justice Department - don't have any real power to influence or implement policy.

We also had the "scandal" of some people in the Clinton White House having access to the FBI records of members of the previous administration due to an outdated access list provided by the Secret Service.

"They must have wanted those records for political dirty tricks."

Yeah, sure - the Secret Service does that all the time.

Flip that scenario on it's head in terms of relative political targets and multiply by about 1.2 Million and you have the Bush's Domestic Spying program in a nutshell, albiet a rather l.a.r.g.e nutshell.

Now we have Senate Confirmed U.S. Attorney's being fired for no reason, some reason, mutiple-reasons - all smoke screens to hide the real reason - none of which new Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was aware of or can seem to remember. At one point Gonzales wished that his deputy Paul McNaulty knew more and was more involved, and then he later claimed that McNulty knew everything all along.

Uh huh. And somehow Gonzales still retains the "full confidence" of this President.

This President, who claims to "Support the Troops", yet never fails to use them as props and shields while letting our wounded languish in rat infested squalor, has opposed legislation to have our flags lowered to half-mast in honor of fallen soldiers in the same way that we honored those slaughtered at Virginia Tech. He has oppossed and threatened to Veto raising their pay and death benefits while the price tag for his failed war sky-rockets above $500 Billion.

Despite all the blood and treasure we've spent, not to mention the millions of Iraqis impacted by our sad misguided attempt at "regime change" - Iraq is still on the verge of become a failed state.

The Iraqi's didn't want the Surge, but we surged anyway.

So far, that Surge - like so many Bush initiatives - has failed. And doesn't look like thing will get any better "when September comes", so we can certainly expect Bush's response to be to call for a Super-Surge even though recruitment has become so dismal the Army has been coaching new recruits on how to beat the drug tests.

Addicts with heavy firepower. Great.

That's likely to just hand us more and more Haditha's.

The U.S. Army private accused of raping and murdering a 14-year-old Iraq girl "was a high school dropout with three misdemeanors and was accepted into the Army just as the military, desperate for recruits, began issuing more ‘moral waivers.’"

It's gotten so bad even Republicans are starting to say "if the Iraqi government wants to leave - we should"

Here's a newsflash, 83 members of the Iraqi Parliament (about 1/3rd) asked for a timetable for our troops to withdraw - almost two years ago. And just this month, that 1/3 has grown to a Majority of the members of Iraqi Parliament who've now signed a petition ASKING US TO LEAVE.

You think we're gonna leave? Not with this President.

This President, who went golfing and campaiging while an American City Drowned in a toxic stew of piss, raw sewage, gasoline and decaying bodies.

This President and White House, who when Governor Sebelius correctly pointed out that the equipment Kansas needed after a devastating tornado attack has been sent to Iraq, much like the lack of response to Katrina, Blatantly LIED and claims she never asked for any equipment.

What? Did she forget to say "Simon Says?"

This President, who despite all his tough He-man talk about "fighting them over there" (so our soldiers can die much more conveniently) Completely. Totally. Dropped. The. Ball. On. 9-11 when it Counted.

MR. RUSSERT (Speaking to George Tenet): Then in June, a briefer of the CIA named Rich B gave a conclusion saying, based on all the reporting we've seen, that "bin Laden is going to launch a significant terrorist attack against U.S." Israeli "interest in the coming weeks." July 10 you got another briefing so alarming that you picked up the phone, said to Condoleezza Rice, "I want to come see you now," jumped in the car with some of your key advisers, went to see her. Rich B, he gave her a briefing package. Opening line, "There will be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months!" And then you--and later July, Rich B sitting at the CIA, said, "They're coming here."

This President failed to recognize that Iraq was already disarmed despite being told exactly that by Foreign Minister Sabri, the UN mandated Full Declaration by Saddam and the Weapons Inspectors on the ground.

This President, who shoved a revokation of The Great Writ through a compliant supine Republican Congress simply to cover his own ass and hide his own not entirely secret campaign of terror and torture - to the delight of his ghoulish supporters and the horror of his commanding generals.

This President, who through his VP aided and abetted Treason by allowing the identity of a Covert CIA Operative to be revealed simply to support a lie and a forgery that would have undermined his justifications for an unneccesary war.

This President, who has established a shiny new set of American Concentration Camps for muslim immigrants and their children.

This President, has a VP who busted a cap in some old dudes face and is still hanging around.

This President's "No Child Left Behind" Initiative - has failed.

This President's "Abstinence Only" Initiative - has failed.

This President's "Faith-Based Initiatives" - have failed.

At every level, and in almost every way imaginable the policies and practices of this president have failed the American People.

We - the proverbial frog - have already been well and truly deep fry fucked. It's long past time we hopped out of the pot and began far more than just talk about, and drafting of resolutions for the Impeachments of Rice, Gonzales, Cheney and yes, even Bush himself. It's time to start implementing the tools of oversight of this goverment. Frankly, just impeaching Bush or one of the others is NO LONGER ENOUGH. All of them have to go because at this point I'm afraid that the damage already done just might be nearly permanent.

Iraq and it's people will never be the same again.

How do we get back the trust of the world's nations when we say we need to defend ourselves from this threat, or that threat after we FUBAR'd Iraq this badly?

The Gulf Coast, particularly New Orleans, and the survivors of Katrina will never be the same.

How do we as American people begin to trust our own government when it alternately spies on us, then neglects us when our local resources are overtaxed by flood, fire, hurricanes and tornados? Not after New Orleans and Kansas we can't. How do we trust that they'll ever be able to handle another attempted 9-11 attack?

How do we prevent future Presidents from amasing the same near unlimited power onto themselves via the fiat of quasi-constitutional signing statements, and then completely mismanaging that power as badly as Bush has?

This Presidency has Failed.

We can not afford to let this legacy stand. We can not afford to let this President or his criminal cronies escape their crimes quietly in 2009, they must be held accountable - or else we will see another future President commit them again. If possible, it might even be worse next time.

We have to get out of the pot. It may not be right now, but it has to be soon. The timer is almost about to go off.

And still, even if we do get out, American will never be the same.

Vyan

HBO's Ghosts of Abu Ghraib

"There is no such thing as a little bit of torture." -- Alfred W. McCoy, author "A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror"

Last night, literally by accident, I watched the new HBO Documentary Ghosts of Abu Ghraib. Although I've followed this issue and story for years now, I was still stunned at how this film completely deconstructs the Administration's talking points on what occured on their watch at the Abu Ghraib Prison.

Taking the issue step by step they show how rather than being a few bad apples playing "Animal House" on the Night Shift the events of the Summer of 2003 were part of a concerted effort to marginalize the Geneva Conventions and redefine torture which began in the White House, went through the Pentagon and Gitmo and eventually led to the pictures that have left a permanent scar on our nation's honor and credibility.

"These photographs from Abu Ghraib have come to define the United States," says Scott Horton, chairman, Committee on International Law, NYC Bar Association. "The U.S., which was viewed as certainly one of the principal advocates of human rights and...the dignity of human beings in the world, suddenly is viewed as a principle expositor of torture."

The film begins with scenes from the 50's documentary "Obedience" which depicts a test of just how far people will are willing to mistreat someone as long as an authority figure is present prodding them on to go further and further. In this test the subjects where asked to question a unseen - but heard - man behind a screen, who in fact was an actor. When the actor answered the question incorrectly the subjects were directed to give him electric shocks of ever increasing intensity.

Even though the unseen man would cry out and eventually scream in pain the vast majority of subjects would follow the direction of authority and eventually administer shocks which would have been lethal.

This is the context by which this film frame the events of Abu Ghraib, but first let me layout the legal issues, which I have frequently discussed on this topic.

Under the Geneva Conventions all forms of "torture and outrages upon human dignity" have been prohibited by it's signatories since 1949. The U.S. is a Geneva signatory. The film interviews former DOJ attorney John Yoo who attempts to explain how during the early days of the WOT™ a debate raged as to whether or not the Geneva applied to non-soldiers unaffiliated to any nation state such as al-Qaeda. (They also argued that the Taliban were similarly unaligned with any nation although at that point in time the Taliban were the current government of Afghanistan. Since the Taliban were formed far more recently than 1949 - it is fair to point out that they are not signatories of Geneva)

Still this belies the fact that Geneva applies to the conduct of it's signatory members, not the conduct of non-signatories. In other words it applies to the U.S. and our conduct regardless of who we might encounter during a conflict.

Geneva Article 2

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.

It doesn't matter that al-Qaeda doesn't follow the "rules of war" - we're still supposed to.

Under U.S Law (18 USC 2441 aka The War Crimes Act) any grave breaches of Geneva by civilian personnel are considered War Crimes, punishable by 5 years in prison and even the death penalty.

Similar penalties are included for 18 USC 2340, the prohibition against torture under U.S. Law.

Geneva states that.

Prisoners of war must be humanely treated at all times. Any unlawful act which causes death or seriously endangers the health of a prisoner of war is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. In particular, prisoners must not be subject to physical mutilation, biological experiments, violence, intimidation, insults, and public curiosity. (Convention III, Art. 13)

In addition military personnel are prohibited from cruelty and the Maltreatment of Prisoners under the Military Uniform Code of Justice.

Although this was not mentioned by the film, a memo written by Alberto Gonzales (PDF) is where the firewall between legal conduct and war crimes began to crumble.

In that memo Gonzales argued that...

"It is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441 [the War Crimes Act]," Gonzales wrote. The best way to guard against such "unwarranted charges," the White House lawyer concluded, would be for President Bush to stick to his decision--then being strongly challenged by Secretary of State Powell-- to exempt the treatment of captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from Geneva convention provisions.

"Your determination would create a reasonable basis in law that (the War Crimes Act) does not apply which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution," Gonzales wrote.

So contrary to the claims that al-Qaeda and the Taliban were declared to be not covered by Geneva because they were non-Contracting parties - even though this doesn't matter under Geneva - the truth is that they were excluded by president Bush to prevent members of his administration from being prosecuted for War Crimes!

Gonzales recommendation led to this declaration(Pdf) by President Bush which claimed that Geneva did not applied to a brand new category called "Enemy Combatants".

Gonzales later requested the Bybee Memo (Pdf) from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Council - which included John Yoo. This memo redefined what torture was (under 2340) into such as narrow state that literally any act of cruelty which didn't immediately result on death would not be covered by either Geneva or the War Crimes Act.

We conclude that for an act to constitute torture as defined in Section 2340, it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure. Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent to intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.

Issued on the same day as the Bybee Memo, DOJ attorney John Yoo wrote his own memo arguing that interrogation techniques used on al Qaeda detainees would not violate a 1984 international treaty prohibiting torture.

Once the Bybee and Yoo memos were written, the Pentagon began to follow suit on it's new definitions. In a December 2002 memo(Pdf) Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld authorized the use of "stress positions," hooding, 20-hour interrogations, removal of clothing, exploiting phobias to induce stress (e.g., fear of dogs), prolonged isolation, sensory deprivation, and forced grooming.

In the memo he added a hand-written note that argued..

"I stand for 8-10 hours a day, why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

Rumseld uses a "standing desk" in his office - so is indeed on his feet for 8-10 hours, however there is a major difference between standing freely where you can shift, stretch and move constantly and being held immobile in one position for hours. The fact beign held in such a position for hours while being deprived of sleep can lead to renal failure and death - similar to that which was shown in the autopsy report of a detainee held at Bagram AFB in Afghanistan in 2002.

A similar murder occured in 2003 at the hands of British Soldiers These soldiers were eventually charged with War Crimes violations, but not those at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib.

Rumsfeld later reconsidered some of these techniques after establishing a working group to analyze the situation.

April 16, 2003
Rumsfeld approves 24 of the recommended techniques for use at Guantanamo, including dietary and environmental manipulation, sleep adjustment, false flag and isolation.

Not long after these memos were written, Lt. Gen Geoffrey Miller was assigned to take over interrogations at Guantanemo Bay using the new guidelines from Rumsfeld. The JAG's complained. The FBI complained - but it didn't matter. These techniques had began to provide "results", which were sorely lacking and desperately needed in Iraq.

So Miller was then exported to Abu Ghraib in order to "Gitmo-ize" it. A month later Lt. Gen Ricardo Sanchez, the overall commander in the Iraq theater, implemented new Rumsfeldian guidelines for the handling of detainees.

From the ACLU.

September 2003
[Sanchez] authorizes the use of 29 interrogation techniques for use in Iraq, including the use of dogs, stress positions, sensory deprivation, loud music and light control, based on Rumsfeld’s April 16 techniques and suggestions from captain of military unit formerly in Afghanistan.

These techniques were later modified and limited in October of 2003 by Gen Sanchez.

The film depicts that most of the detainees held at Abu Ghraib were housed in tent cities. But a few, about 1000, were housed in what they called The Hard Site which included fairly standard looking cell blocks. The blocks were broken into various tiers. Tier 1A housed males who had been linked, or thought to have been linked to al-Qaeda and the Saddam regime. Tier 1B housed women and children - in some cases the threat of mistreating captured relatives were used to extort information from detainees.

Control of Tier 1A/1B was shifted from Brigadier General Janice Karpinski, who was in charge of all MPs in Iraq including those running the Abu Ghraib prison complex, to General Miller upon his arrival. As this shift occured the MPs at the Hard site were removed from their own standard command structure and placed under the command of Military Intelligence.

The Chain of Command had been deliberately broken.

Besides legal scholars and John Yoo, the film interviews most of the Military Police and Military Intelligence personnel who worked in Tier 1A/1B of the Hard Site, with the exception of the two most famous MPs - Lyndee England and her boyfriend Corporal Charles.

Still, even without those two persons, the picture painted by the others of how Abu Ghraib deteriorated after the arrival of Gen Miller is stark. Military Intelligence would advise the MP's when they were planning to interrogate a particular detainee and tell them...

This guy needs to have bad night tonight.

The intention was to ensure that they wouldn't be able to sleep using loudspeakers, noise and/or lights to keep them awake all night the day before an interogation session - where in many cases it appears they were severely beaten in a cedar building outside the Hard Site. What occured on Tier 1B/1B was just to "Soften them Up" prior to the real interroations.

Often MI personnel would walk through the Tier without any rank insignia. MPs would take commands from them not knowing if they were an officer or not - but in many cases MPs such as Charles Graner actually outranked the MI that they were taking orders from (This I discovered when Paula Zhan interviewed one of the Abu Ghraib MI's, shortly after the original story broke. One whom I'm pretty sure is also featured in the film. His first name is Israel.) The situation created perfect plausible deniability - "How could I command a superior to do anything?"

It was a firewall between the MPs who handled the "softening up" and higher ranking officers such as Miller who were actually in charge.

The MPs describe how the shifting directions from command left them in a "grey area" of uncertainty as to what was and was not allowed. All cards were on the table, and there were no practical limits.

As one of the Abu Ghraib MPs says in the film, "That place turned me into a monster." Another remarks, "It's easy to sit back in America or in different countries and say, 'Oh, I would have never done that,' but, until you've been there, let's be realistic: You don't know what you would have done."

The Detainees in Tier 1A were kept naked most of the time, this was done to keep them feeling vulnerable but also to humiliate them due to the prescense of female MPs who were sometimes asked by Military Intelligence to repeatedly shower a detainee while remaining within sight and ridicule them. Also much of their treatment was deliberately homoerotic, and considering the homophobia in the Islamic culture (the punishment for being gay in many Islamic states is summary beheading) this was effectively Tim Hardaway's Worse Nightmare

Geneva states.

Internees must be provided with adequate clothing, footwear, and underwear. (Convention IV, Art. 90)

Several of the MPs describe how Abu Ghraib is one of the most frequently attacked targets within all of Iraq. Mortars often landed within the tent city area, killing detainees.

Internees must not be housed in areas exposed to dangers of war. (Convention IV, Art. 83)

One female MP (I think he name is Sabrina - but I need to check) described how she would write on various detainees, for example they were told that one prisoner had been arrested for rape - so she wrote the word "Rapist" on his leg.

Identification by tattooing or imprinting signs or markings on the body is prohibited, and internees must not be subjected to prolonged standing and roll-calls, punishment drill, military drill and maneuvers, or reduction in food rations. (Convention IV, Art. 100)

The photos shown and video shown in the film of the abuse at Abu Ghraib are completely uncensored and extremely graphic (far moreso than the samples I've used here from the web) There is a sequence detailing how two detainees are caught raping a third - all three are dragged out into the hallway naked and handcuffed together by Cpl. Graner in a simulated sexual position. They're ordered to crawl back and forth from one end of the hallway to the other and stay low enough that their genitals drag on the floor.


The same female MP who had written "Rapist" on one detainees leg described how she was "always taking pictures" - it's just something she did. And she was usually smiling in them, regardless of what was happening. After being among naked groaning men for weeks and months, you grow numb to it all. It becomes "just a job". The suffering becomes background noise. "It's war" she said.

In the midst of this abuse and after most of the photos had already been taken, Military Intelligence (who were at the very least witnesses to everything) recommended Graner as NCOIC of Tier 1A for a commendation - which was approved.

This entire series of events would have never seen the light of day if Spc. Joseph Darby (who wasn't stationed at Tier 1A and is interviewed in the flim) hadn't asked Graner for some pics to take back home. "Hey Graner, you're always taking pictures". Graner gave him two CDs, the first contained scenic shots from around Babylon and included the Tower of Babel and other historic landmarks, the second had shots of the abuse of detainees. Darby handed the disc over the Army investigators.

"If there were no photographs, there would be no Abu Ghraib," said Javal Davis, an MP stationed at Abu Ghraib, who was later court-martialed.

One former detainee from the tent city tearfully tells the story of how his father, after being beaten during an interrogation session begins to have shortness of breath. As his condition worsens he desperately begs the guards to let him see a doctor but is repeated told go "Go Away" and even warned that he'll be shot if he comes back.

After his father grows feverish, he does go back and is again rebuffed only to return to his father who not long afterwards "dropped his head, sighed, and died" in his arms.

Internees must have access to adequate medical care. (Convention IV, Art. 91)

Besides the cedar interrogation shack, there were times when interrogations and torture took place on Tier 1A. Blankets were used to cover up what was happening from view - but everyone on the Tier could hear it.

As one former detainee described it...

We listened to one man scream, and scream until we heard his soul crack. Later we learned that this was Manadel al-Jamadi

CIA claimed that al-Jamadi had died as the result of heart failure, but our favorite photo taking, smiling female MP (not Lyndee England) found the body (which had been packed in ice so they could sneak it out he next day with an IV hooked to it so he would look alive) and managed to get a shot. Corporal Graner took the picture.

She had no idea, according to her filmed interview, that al-Jamadi had been beated and murdered the previous day. In her pictures which can be better seen here - it's clear that al-Jamadi is bleeding from places that he shouldn't be - if he'd just suffered a "heart attack".

al-Jamadi was the only photo documented murder to take place in Abu Ghraib and was ruled a homocide - but instead of persuing the CIA and Navy Seals who had killed him, they went after the MPs who took the pictures.

Graner was sentenced to ten years for his role in the abuse. England three years. Most of the other MP received a few months. The Military Intelligence and CIA guys who ordered some of the abuse to "soften up" interrogation targets were not charged.

General Karpinski (who wasn't even in command of Tier 1A/1B) was demoted in rank and forced to retire as a Colonel.

General Geoffrey Miller received a medal in the Pentagon's Hall of Heroes.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was honored with a fanfare and a parade when he retired last year.

Jay Bybee is now a sitting judge.

Alberto Gonzales remains our Attorney General and George W. Bush remains President.

Their complicity in the murder of Manadel al-Jamadi, as well as at least 30 other detainees who have died in custody in Iraq, Gitmo and Afghanistan as a result of abusive interrogation and neglect - has not been resolved.

Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, as well as the Secret CIA Prison, the 109th Congress passed the Military Commissions Act which revoked Habeas Corpus for "Enemy Combatants" and effectively re-wrote the War Crimes Act (USC 2441) to comport with Bybee.

The DC Court of appeals has upheld the Constitutionality of the MCA.

Vyan

Torture Porn for the Arm-Chair Warrior

Yes, I've decided after reading this article on Firedoglake, to return to one of my favorite whipping posts.

The Fox Show "24".

This time we're discussing a New Yorker Article that describes how the Brigidier General Patrick Finnegan, the Dean of West Point, has become so concerned by the influence of the show on his students in regards to the laws of war that he flew to the set to tell them to "Knock it Off!"

In fact, Finnegan and the others had come to voice their concern that the show’s central political premise—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers. "I’d like them to stop," Finnegan said of the show’s producers. "They should do a show where torture backfires."

"24" Co-Creator Joel Surnow wasn't able to attend the meeting with the West Point Commanders - he was busy in a meeting with Roger Ailes to discuss a new "Right-Wing Daily Show" for the Fox News Channel.

For all its fictional liberties, "24" depicts the fight against Islamist extremism much as the Bush Administration has defined it: as an all-consuming struggle for America’s survival that demands the toughest of tactics. Not long after September 11th, Vice-President Dick Cheney alluded vaguely to the fact that America must begin working through the "dark side" in countering terrorism. On "24," the dark side is on full view. Surnow, who has jokingly called himself a "right-wing nut job," shares his show’s hard-line perspective. Speaking of torture, he said, "Isn’t it obvious that if there was a nuke in New York City that was about to blow—or any other city in this country—that, even if you were going to go to jail, it would be the right thing to do?"

Maybe it would be Joel, but you'd still be going to jail. Maybe you should do the right thing and save those lives, but then you should also pay the price for the consquences of your actions - something that never happens on "24".

Problem is, those people would probably still die since torture doesn't work - and you'd still be going to jail.

To be fair not everyone on the "24" Staff is a "right-wing nut-job" like Surnow, Howard Gordon who had previously worked as a producer on "The X-Files" is a so-called moderate Democrat. He just likes the torture, just as much as he liked the horror and paranoia on X-Files.

Gordon, who is a "moderate Democrat," said that it worries him when "critics say that we’ve enabled and reflected the public’s appetite for torture. Nobody wants to be the handmaid to a relaxed policy that accepts torture as a legitimate means of interrogation." He went on, "But the premise of ‘24’ is the ticking time bomb. It takes an unusual situation and turns it into the meat and potatoes of the show." He paused. "I think people can differentiate between a television show and reality."

Of course most rational people know that "24" is just a television show. Most of them don't think that it has anything what-so-ever to do with real life, or fact, or the law --- well, most people isn't everyone.

Before the meeting, Stuart Herrington, one of the three veteran interrogators, had prepared a list of seventeen effective techniques, none of which were abusive. He and the others described various tactics, such as giving suspects a postcard to send home, thereby learning the name and address of their next of kin. After Howard Gordon, the lead writer, listened to some of Herrington’s suggestions, he slammed his fist on the table and joked, "You’re hired!" He also excitedly asked the West Point delegation if they knew of any effective truth serums.

At other moments, the discussion was more strained. Finnegan told the producers that "24," by suggesting that the U.S. government perpetrates myriad forms of torture, hurts the country’s image internationally. Finnegan, who is a lawyer, has for a number of years taught a course on the laws of war to West Point seniors—cadets who would soon be commanders in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. He always tries, he said, to get his students to sort out not just what is legal but what is right. However, it had become increasingly hard to convince some cadets that America had to respect the rule of law and human rights, even when terrorists did not. One reason for the growing resistance, he suggested, was misperceptions spread by "24," which was exceptionally popular with his students. As he told me, "The kids see it, and say, ‘If torture is wrong, what about "24"?’ " He continued, "The disturbing thing is that although torture may cause Jack Bauer some angst, it is always the patriotic thing to do."

Now I've mentioned before that a great many voices and perspectives are displayed on "24". One of the current plot-lines includes President Wayne Palmer's rejection of the hardline internment policies of one of his main advisors in favor of a more "liberal" direction of negotiation and persuasian with moderate muslims - which has apparently led to a right-wing plot to assasinate him just as his brother was assasinated.

In the latest episodes we've actually had dueling torture going on - where we see Jack torture his brother Graeme, since throttling him last episode didn't completely work, now using a chemical designed to induce a heart attack, which resulted in causing his brother to admit to being part of the plot to release nuclear suitcase bombs to terrorists (as well as having ordered the assasination at the beginning of last season of President David Palmer).

Meanwhile the terrorists have captured CTU technician O'Brien and have used various techniques including a basball bat and powerdrill to convince him to arm their nukes - which he does.

Unfortunately there's always a twist. In this case it's the fact that Jack's brother was actually working on the orders of their father - who slips into the room where Graem is still strapped down and finishes him off while Jack is out of the room to keep him from talking any further.

Naturally the bad guys actions are always much worse because they feel no remorse. Jack on the other hand, will be wracked with guilt and blame himself from Graeme's death, that's the kind of noble guy he is - but the truth is that this is idle nobility. If they actually followed the law he'd be tried for Murder and War Crimes, even though he didn't actually kill his brother - he admits that he wanted to - and was grossly negligent to leave him alone with their father.

Either way, he's responsible. But will he pay for what he's done? Not a chance.

And it's not exactly like our future military commanders coming through West Point are getting the point.

Gary Solis, a retired law professor who designed and taught the Law of War for Commanders curriculum at West Point, told me that he had similar arguments with his students. He said that, under both U.S. and international law, "Jack Bauer is a criminal. In real life, he would be prosecuted." Yet the motto of many of his students was identical to Jack Bauer’s: "Whatever it takes." His students were particularly impressed by a scene in which Bauer barges into a room where a stubborn suspect is being held, shoots him in one leg, and threatens to shoot the other if he doesn’t talk. In less than ten seconds, the suspect reveals that his associates plan to assassinate the Secretary of Defense. Solis told me, "I tried to impress on them that this technique would open the wrong doors, but it was like trying to stomp out an anthill."

But the most effectively issue, which is actually reflected in the CIA Kubark manuals, is that fact that torture is generally ineffective.

At the meeting, Cochran demanded to know what the interrogators would do if they faced the imminent threat of a nuclear blast in New York City, and had custody of a suspect who knew how to stop it. One interrogator said that he would apply physical coercion only if he received a personal directive from the President. But Navarro, who estimates that he has conducted some twelve thousand interrogations, replied that torture was not an effective response. "These are very determined people, and they won’t turn just because you pull a fingernail out," he told me. And Finnegan argued that torturing fanatical Islamist terrorists is particularly pointless. "They almost welcome torture," he said. "They expect it. They want to be martyred." A ticking time bomb, he pointed out, would make a suspect only more unwilling to talk. "They know if they can simply hold out several hours, all the more glory—the ticking time bomb will go off!"

Kubark States that inflicting Pain is often ineffective:

Interrogates who are withholding but feel qualms of guilt and a secret desire to yeild are likely to become intractable if made to endure pain. The reason is that they can interpret the pain as punishment and hence expiation.

Intense pain is likely to produce false confessions, concocted as a means of escaping distress. A time-consuming delay results, while an investigation is conducted and the admissions are proven untrue.

And we already know that the facts are something that Neo-Cons in the Bush Administration simply have little time or patience for.

The notion that physical coercion in interrogations is unreliable, although widespread among military intelligence officers and F.B.I. agents, has been firmly rejected by the Bush Administration. Last September, President Bush defended the C.I.A.’s use of "an alternative set of procedures." In order to "save innocent lives," he said, the agency needed to be able to use "enhanced" measures to extract "vital information" from "dangerous" detainees who were aware of "terrorist plans we could not get anywhere else."

Besides the clear fact that these are War Crimes - the public finds these actions more and more acceptable, and "24" helps with that. Meanwhile, Life imitates Art in Iraq.

Although reports of abuses by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have angered much of the world, the response of Americans has been more tepid. Finnegan attributes the fact that "we are generally more comfortable and more accepting of this," in part, to the popularity of "24," which has a weekly audience of fifteen million viewers, and has reached millions more through DVD sales.

The third expert at the meeting was Tony Lagouranis, a former Army interrogator in the war in Iraq. He told the show’s staff that DVDs of shows such as "24" circulate widely among soldiers stationed in Iraq. Lagouranis said to me, "People watch the shows, and then walk into the interrogation booths and do the same things they’ve just seen." He recalled that some men he had worked with in Iraq watched a television program in which a suspect was forced to hear tortured screams from a neighboring cell; the men later tried to persuade their Iraqi translator to act the part of a torture "victim," in a similar intimidation ploy. Lagouranis intervened: such scenarios constitute psychological torture.

So now not only is "24" acting as justification for Bush brutal policies and helping to pacify public outcry, it's actually inspiring more crimes in the field.

And oh by the way - that shit doesn't work!

"In Iraq, I never saw pain produce intelligence," Lagouranis told me. "I worked with someone who used waterboarding"—an interrogation method involving the repeated near-drowning of a suspect. "I used severe hypothermia, dogs, and sleep deprivation. I saw suspects after soldiers had gone into their homes and broken their bones, or made them sit on a Humvee’s hot exhaust pipes until they got third-degree burns. Nothing happened." Some people, he said, "gave confessions. But they just told us what we already knew. It never opened up a stream of new information." If anything, he said, "physical pain can strengthen the resolve to clam up."

"24" isn't the first time that Surnow has used this type of theme. He was also a writer for the short-lived Police/Monter/Buffy-wannabe show "SU2 (Special Unit 2)" where brutal techniques and torture were regularly used against the Supernatural "(Missing) Links" that were the primary villians on the program. Anything goes when you're bad guys aren't human, eh?

On "24" not too much has changed - they just look human.

Fortunately it appears that Sutherland "gets it" - it's just too bad neither he nor anyone else as Fox is likely to upset the cash-cow cart.

"They were receptive. But they have a format that works. They have won a lot of awards. Why would they want to play with a No. 1 show?" Lagouranis said of the "24" team, "They were a bit prickly. They have this money-making machine, and we were telling them it’s immoral."

Afterward, Danzig and Finnegan had an on-set exchange with Kiefer Sutherland, who is reportedly paid ten million dollars a year to play Jack Bauer. Sutherland, the grandson of Tommy Douglas, a former socialist leader in Canada, has described his own political views as anti-torture, and "leaning toward the left." According to Danzig, Sutherland was "really upset, really intense" and stressed that he tries to tell people that the show "is just entertainment." But Sutherland, who claimed to be bored with playing torture scenes, admitted that he worried about the "unintended consequences of the show." Danzig proposed that Sutherland participate in a panel at West Point or appear in a training film in which he made clear that the show’s torture scenes are not to be emulated.

Good for Keifer. But what about Surnow?

(Surnow, when asked whether he would participate in the video, responded, "No way." Gordon, however, agreed to be filmed.)

Sutherland didn't speak to the New Yorker but he has previously spoken out about how he feels about torture.

...in a recent television interview with Charlie Rose, his ambivalence about his character’s methods was palpable. He condemned the abuse of U.S.-held detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, in Iraq, as "absolutely criminal," particularly for a country that tells others that "democracy and freedom" are the "way to go." He also said, "You can torture someone and they’ll basically tell you exactly what you want to hear. . . . Torture is not a way of procuring information." But things operate differently, he said, on television: "24," he said, is "a fantastical show. . . . Torture is a dramatic device."

Although there have been some "liberal friendly" plotlines in "24" including last years story involving President Logan's plot to allow terrorists access to nerve gas in order to justify a war (sound familiar?) that still doesn't change the over-arching political direction of the show coming from Joel Surnow.

Yet David Nevins, the former Fox Television network official who, in 2000, bought the pilot on the spot after hearing a pitch from Surnow and Cochran, and who maintains an executive role in "24," is candid about the show’s core message. "There’s definitely a political attitude of the show, which is that extreme measures are sometimes necessary for the greater good," he says. "The show doesn’t have much patience for the niceties of civil liberties or due process. It’s clearly coming from somewhere. Joel’s politics suffuse the whole show."

Surnow, for his part, revels in his minority status inside the left-leaning entertainment industry. "Conservatives are the new oppressed class," he joked in his office. "Isn’t it bizarre that in Hollywood it’s easier to come out as gay than as conservative?" His success with "24," he said, has protected him from the more righteous elements of the Hollywood establishment. "Right now, they have to be nice to me," he said. "But if the show tanks I’m sure they’ll kill me." He spoke of his new conservative comedy show as an even bigger risk than "24." "I’ll be front and center on the new show," he said, then joked, "I’m ruining my chances of ever working again in Hollywood."

We can only hope Joel, we can only hope.

Whether you like the show or not, whether you believe that that art should or shouldn't be held accountable for the impressions it leaves on those who are most vulnerable (or willing), the evidence is mounting that it is presenting a completely unbalanced view of Counter-terrorism -- a view that is clearly deliberate and intended via Mr. Surnow and other Conservatives -- and that it may take quite a bit of time and effort to undue this misperception not only among the public, but also among our future Military leaders which is a seriously dangerous situation for us internationally The "Whatever it takes" attitude expressed by "24" which is used to justify and excuse torture simply doesn't work and undermines our moral authority.

It can and has only made things worse - not better.

Vyan