Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Prisoner Abuse News, Commentary & Discussion
Common Ground Common Sense > Online Café > Prisoner Abuse and Torture Topics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
NiteOwl
QUOTE
Guantánamo prisoners win transfer reprieve

The Guardian | March 14, 2005
By Suzanne Goldenberg

The Bush administration ran into its first roadblock in its plans to sharply reduce the prison population at Guantánamo Bay at the weekend, when a US judge forbade the transfer of 13 inmates to Yemen for fear they would be tortured.

Saturday's ruling by a US federal judge in New York marks an early victory for human rights organisations in their efforts to bar the administration from carrying out plans to bring down the prison population at Guantánamo by transferring inmates to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen.

It bans the transfer of the Yemenis until a hearing can be held on their lawyers' request for 30 days' notice before any transfer.

"We're relieved," Marc Falkoff, a lawyer for the Yemenis, told the New York Times.

Human rights organisations say such transfers place the detainees at grave risk of torture, and lawyers have prepared a series of legal challenges to such moves.

The Pentagon, however, appears equally determined to carry out the transfers, and halve the prison population at Guantánamo. At the weekend, it rendered three inmates to Afghanistan, Maldives and Pakistan.

In recent months, the detention facility has become an increasing burden for the Bush administration. Since June last year, a series of court decisions have overturned the administration's legal vision of the war on terror, rejecting its contention that "enemy combatants" in the war on terror can be held indefinitely.


Meanwhile, a steady stream of charges from freed inmates about torture at the naval facility have made Guantánamo Bay a public relations nightmare for the Pentagon.

In the latest such revelation, Newsweek magazine reports today that US military investigators have confirmed allegations that female military interrogators sexually humiliated prisoners at the base. Preliminary steps have been taken in preparation for the possible start of court martial proceedings against about four female interrogators.

The alleged abuse, which took place in 2002 after the secretary of state, Donald Rumsfeld expressed frustration at the lack of useful intelligence emerging from Guantánamo, saw female interrogators rubbing up against inmates in an attempt to humiliate devout Muslims.

There may also be photographs of such sessions, the magazine reported, raising the prospect of a re-enactment of last year's Abu Ghraib scandal.

The Pentagon appears determined to wind down Guantánamo. No new inmates have arrived at the base since last September, and the Pentagon says it intends to release or transfer custody of half of the 540 detainees now at Guantánamo.
Snuffysmith
Judge Stops Guantanamo Detainees From Being Shipped Overseas:

A federal judge has blocked the government from transferring 13 Yemenis from the U.S. detention center for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, until a hearing is held on concerns the detainees may be mistreated in another country.
http://www.nbc4.com/news/4280485/detail.html
Snuffysmith
Torture: Bush's Nominee May Be 'DOA':

NEWSWEEK has learned that an investigation by the U.S. Southern Command in Miami has confirmed some of the allegations in recently disclosed e-mails by FBI agents, reporting that military interrogators sexually humiliated prisoners at Gitmo.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7169452/site/newsweek/
Snuffysmith
Greenberg on the Legal War on Terror at Home:

"Defense lawyers for detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, say the military has been working to undermine the inmates' trust in them."
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2256
tazvil04
It is so clear that the evidence points at a minimum to Rumsfeld - the spineless nature of the Senate Armed Services Committee is disgusting.

We had a problem - there are reports and accusations that that problem was a result of leadership issues within the Bush Administration - but the Senate refuses to hold them accountable... mad.gif
tazvil04
Guess what - double standards don't work in the inernational arena. You have to have credibility and the US has no credibility on human rights issues.

Abu Ghraib has everything to do with this, but it is not the fact that Abu Ghraib happened that is the problem. The fact that the Bush Administration has failed to have a complete and thorough investigation of the issue which has destroyed our credibility.

The world sees such hypocrisy as Business as usual for the US.

And the fact that the US's closest ally in the region has engaged in similar practices - but before the US can attack these actions it has to clean house itself which means political fallout - whoops - this is the no accountability administration - looks like we'll try it a different way...

Where we say and mean two different things - where we try and make actions say less than words...

Its time for integrity and an accounting - and I don;t think the US is going to like how the numbers add up...

Analysis: Israel’s use of torture must be exposed
Posted on Monday, June 14 @ 11:04:10 EST

http://www.ramallahonline.com/modules.php?...rticle&sid=1939
Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi

The pictures of American soldiers torturing prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq have shocked the world. To the Palestinian people however, these photographs of hooded or naked figures come as no surprise. For the tens of thousands of Palestinians who have served time in Israeli prisons, the pictures only bring back memories of their own torture.

In many cases, the treatment of the Iraqis in Abu Ghraib bear striking similarities to Israeli methods of torture. Accusations are now circling in the world’s press that Israeli security officers have actually assisted in training private US security contractors being sent to Iraq.

Regardless of whether there is any truth to these allegations, the world must recognize that torture is commonplace in Israel. It is not enough to condemn the actions of these American soldiers while ignoring the systematic human rights abuses imposed on the Palestinian people.

Like the United States, Israel lays claim to the highest moral standards, yet it is apparent that there are elements within the Israeli armed forces and indeed government for whom torture is a necessary and acceptable weapon. The two nations’ refusal to accept the terms of to the International Criminal Court can only enhance the worldwide suspicion that these two countries wish to legitimize the torture of prisoners without ever being held to account by those they abuse.

An Israeli High Court ruling on 6 September 1999 prohibited a number of torture techniques. However, these methods were not completely outlawed. Instead the Court’s ruling still allows the Knesset to enact laws that would give intelligence officers the authority to use such methods. The Court deemed the security difficulties faced by Israel to be grave enough to merit granting intelligence services the power to torture.

This “ticking bomb” excuse now gives the Israeli security forces carte blanche to abuse any prisoners in their care, including children. Human rights groups maintain that the use of torture in Israeli prisons has increased and become more systematic since March 2002. Violations of the Convention Against Torture are now commonplace as the military grip on the Occupied Territories has been tightened.

The Israeli army and police also receive the unconditional backing of the country’s legal system, perpetuating the culture of impunity in Israeli prisons. The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel [PCATI] has found that the Israeli Attorney General has approved every case of torture as a necessary security measure. The High Court has rejected every single one of 124 petitions submitted by PCATI, against prisoners being denied access to legal support.

The thousands of statements given by former Palestinian prisoners bear witness to the relish with which their Israeli tormentors went about their task. Just as in Iraq, any humiliation or abuse is permissible if it goes under the spurious banner of security. The casual disregard for human dignity and international law within the Israeli army and police is as breathtaking as it is despicable.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, including the death or maiming of numerous Palestinian prisoners, Israel continues to deny that torture is used in its prisons. Over 7,000 Palestinian prisoners currently remain in Israeli prisons, many of them held without charge or trial. Most will have suffered some degree of torture before their release. It is shocking to recognize that around 650,000 Palestinians have spent time in Israeli custody since 1967, most of them adult males. This means that almost every second Palestinian adult male has been imprisoned.

The torture in Abu Ghraib prison, has shaken the Bush administration to its very core. Photographic evidence is all that is lacking to finally expose and condemn Israel’s barbaric treatment of its Palestinian prisoners. This is the only difference between the two cases, yet the weight of evidence against Israel, in the testimonies of former prisoners and investigations by human rights organizations, is overwhelming. It is not enough to condemn the actions of American soldiers in Iraqi jails while thousands of Palestinians continue to suffer. Israel’s use of torture must also be exposed.
tazvil04
And now Bush seeks to use the right of the executive - the secrets privilege to go against those innocents who file lawsuits against the Bush Administration...

It looks like our nation with be paying for Bush's sins long after he leaves office...

Not just in the deficit - but the contributionsd to it by lawsuits as well...

#1052, Tuesday, March 15, 2005


OPINION
http://www.times.spb.ru/archive/times/1052...ion/o_15125.htm

The Rendering

By Chris Floyd


In the heady months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the chickenhawks of the Bush Regime were eager to flash their tough-guy cojones to the world. Led by the former prep-school cheerleader in the Oval Office, swaggering Bushists openly bragged of "kicking ass" with macho tactics like torture and "extraordinary rendition."

"We don't kick the [expletive] out of them," one top Bush official told The Washington Post on Dec. 26, 2002. "We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them." In the same article, other Bush honchos boasted about withholding medical treatment from wounded prisoners; knowingly sending prisoners to be tortured in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco and Jordan ("I do it with my eyes open," said one top agent); and breaking international law as a routine part of interrogations by U.S. operatives. "If you're not violating someone's human rights," said an interrogation supervisor, "you're probably not doing your job." These freely admitted violations included beatings, hooding, exposure, sexual humiliation and the medieval barbarism of strappado: chaining a prisoner with his arms twisted behind his back and suspending him from the ceiling, where the weight of his own body tears at his sockets and sinews.

The invasion of Iraq, itself a war crime of staggering dimensions, simply extended this long-established and officially sanctioned system of brutality to a new arena. And to thousands of new victims, the overwhelming majority of whom were innocent of any crime, as the Red Cross reported. While the investigative work of Seymour Hersh and others in exposing the horrors of Abu Ghraib is indeed laudable, it should not have come as any surprise. The atrocities detailed in the revelations were identical to those the Bush Regime had openly acknowledged as standard practice just months before.

The only difference, of course, was the fact that pictures of the Abu Ghraib atrocities were also published and broadcast. Public sensibilities - untroubled by previous verbal admissions buried deep in slabs of newsprint - were suddenly shocked by the lurid visuals. A Republican-led Senate investigation declared that it had uncovered "even worse" pictures of torture: stomach-curdling photos and videos of bloody abuse that could stain America's name for generations. The Bush Regime braced for an election-year firestorm of scandal. Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld offered the president his resignation.

Then - nothing happened. The outraged Republican senators never released their damning pictures. Rumsfeld kept his job. A "few bad apples" in the lower ranks were put on trial; the top figures involved in the torture system were promoted. And even though Pentagon and CIA investigators continue to document hundreds - hundreds - of cases of torture, abuse and outright murder in Bush's gulag, the storm has passed. Indeed, Bushists like John Yoo, one of the primary authors of the "torture memos" undergirding the gulag, see the 2004 election as a public affirmation of blood and brutality. The vote is "proof that the debate is over," Yoo told The New Yorker. "The issue is dying out."

Yet the Regime was shaken a bit by the brief tempest. Instead of macho swagger about "kicking ass" and "taking off the gloves," there are now prim assurances of legality. PR fig leaves are being artfully draped over once-bulging displays of butchness. This week, The New York Times was chosen for a high-profile leak, "revealing" that while Bush himself gave the order to "render" U.S. captives to nations that practice torture - supposedly as a cost-saving measure - the CIA is scrupulously ensuring that no prisoners are ever actually tortured by foreign torturers in the torture chambers where Bush has consigned them. Such prissy hand-wringing is a far cry from the old braggadocio ("I did it with my eyes open") and cynical shoulder-shrugging of December 2002, when one rendition op dismissed the very notion of CIA supervision of its foreign torture partners: "If we're not there in the room with them," he smirked, "who is to say" what goes on in the outsourced interrogations?

But Bush is facing something far more dangerous than the occasional hiccup of bad PR or toothless probes by his Senate bagmen. There are now several lawsuits afoot filed by innocent survivors of the "rendition" system set up at Bush's direct order. These cases could not only expose the ugly guts of his gulag, but also produce direct evidence of criminal culpability on the part of Bush and his minions under U.S. and international law.

The Regime has responded with draconian ruthlessness to this genuine threat. In the main rendition case - and in an unrelated lawsuit concerning officially confirmed evidence of terrorist infiltration at the FBI before 9/11 - Bush is invoking the rarely-used, extra-constitutional "state secrets privilege." This nebulous maneuver, unanchored in law or legislation, allows the government to suppress any evidence against it merely by asserting, without proof, that disclosure of the truth might "harm national security." Evidence "protected" in this way cannot even be heard by a judge in secret - a well-established practice used successfully in numerous other national security cases over the years. It is simply buried forever, and the case collapses.

It is almost certain that Bush's invocation of this "night-and-fog" measure will be upheld. So let us be clear about the consequences. It will mean that any crime committed by a government official - torture, rendition, murder, state terrorism, even treason - can be sealed in permanent darkness. The justice system itself will be "rendered" into a black hole. The victims of state crime - American citizens as well as foreign captives - will be left without rights, without redress, without a voice. Bush's kingdom of strappado will reign supreme.

Annotations
U.S. Decries Abuse But Defends Interrogations
Washington Post, Dec. 26, 2002

[Bush Order] Lets CIA Freely Send Suspects to Foreign Jails
New York Times, March 6, 2005

Bush Wielding Secrecy Privilege to End Lawsuits
Chicago Tribune, March 3, 2005

State Secrets Assertion: Maher Arar vs. John Ashcroft, et al
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Jan. 17, 2005

Rumsfeld Says He Twice Offered His Resignation
Seattle Times, Feb. 4, 2005

Review: Torture and Truth and The Torture Papers
The New Statesman, March 7, 2005

The Torture Papers: Full Faith and Credit of the U.S. Government
San Diego Union-Tribune, Feb. 27, 2005

Is the U.S. Losing Moral Authority on Human Rights?
Christian Science Monitor, March 7, 2005

New Interrogation Rules Set for Detainees in Iraq
New York Times, March 10, 2005

Pentagon Report Set Framework For Use of Torture
Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2004

Senators See Abu Ghraib Abuse Photos Held by Defense Department
Washington Post, May 12, 2004

GOP Leaders Oppose Release of More Abuse Photos
CNN.com, May 12, 2004

A Temporary Coup: Torture, War and the Corruption of Intelligence
Salon.com, June 14, 2004

President Authorized Interrogation
Washington Times, Dec. 20, 2004

Time for An Accounting
International Herald Tribune, Feb. 20, 2005

In Torture We Trust?
The Nation, March 31, 2003

Statement of FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds
U.S. House of Representatives, March 5, 2005
tazvil04
Here is some truth about Abu GHraib...truth that could have been divined by our elected representatives if they just read teh Taguba report...and the Schlessinger report -- truth that conflicts with the rosy scenario painted by the last report issued by the US government...

IRAQ
Abu Ghraib: much worse than a few 'bad apples'By WESLEY WARK

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...rtainment/Books

Saturday, March 12, 2005 Page D10

The Torture Papers:

The Road to Abu Ghraib

Edited by Karen J. Greenberg

and Joshua L. Dratel

Cambridge University Press,

1,249 pages, $67.95

Abu Ghraib:

The Politics of Torture

By Mark Danner

North Atlantic Books,

143 pages, $13.95

The shocking story of Abu Ghraib, and the spiralling tales of systematic torture by U.S. forces of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere will soon reach its first anniversary. That nearly a year has passed since the story first emerged seems in itself shocking. But this is a testament to one hard fact about the torture tales: They will leave a permanent mark on the reputation of the United States and on its conduct of the war on terror. Neither the passage of time, nor the trial of low-level military policemen will wash off that blood.

The Torture Papers, 1,249 pages detailing man's inhumanity to man and the emptying out of cherished provisions of international law, is a block of granite on the path of any forgetfulness. The book is a true public service, compiled by two U.S. lawyers, which brings the whole twisted story into the public domain, and let us hope into every library and many personal hands. It begins at the beginning, with the first whispers into President George W. Bush's ear by his claque of legal counsels, arguing that the United States could choose to ignore the Geneva conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war by declaring Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees to be exempt. It pauses to note the ultimately ineffectual protest by then secretary of state Colin Powell against such a move.

The Torture Papers then sweeps on, document by document, to take us on a journey that ends inside the hellish precincts of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, complete with descriptions of the physical and psychological abuse of prisoners that occurred there. This volume contains all the key official investigations, starting with the International Red Cross's report of February, 2004, which first opened up this can of filth. The Red Cross did not pull its punches, and was obviously shocked by what it found. The conclusions of its report state clearly that serious violations of international humanitarian law occurred at Abu Ghraib, compounded by a finding that U.S. authorities were failing to notify the families of detainees about their whereabouts, effectively resulting in their status as "disappeared" persons.

Following the Red Cross report, the U.S. military high command suddenly awoke to the problem. In March, 2004, Major-General Antonio Taguba investigated the activities of the 800th Military Police Brigade that operated the Abu Ghraib prison. Taguba confirmed what the Red Cross already knew. He found Abu Ghraib a virtually lawless environment, overcrowded, under-policed, with an MP force ill-trained for the tasks and literally abandoned by their senior officers, one of whom, General Janis Karpinski, had an emotional breakdown when interviewed by Taguba.

The Taguba report gave credence to the picture, officially sanctioned by Washington, of a renegade operation in which a handful of "bad apples" (or more colloquially, as one military source put it, "Appalachian hillbillies") betrayed American values and took matters into their own sadistic hands. The story is tempting, of course. It helps explains those unforgettable digital photographs, those war souvenirs snapped by the fun-loving guards of Abu Ghraib.

But the story doesn't hold. The Torture Papers lets the documents explain why, unvarnished by commentary. What went on in the so-called "hard site" at Abu Ghraib was an expression of an officially sanctioned policy that began in the fall of 2001 with the decision to throw away the Geneva conventions. It gathered force as the insurgency in Iraq inflicted mounting casualties and mounting dread on U.S. soldiers and their commanders in Iraq. U.S. commanders and their intelligence officers looked increasingly to the prison population of Abu Ghraib and other detention facilities as a source for intelligence, any intelligence, that might give them a handle on the Iraqi insurgency. Torture at Abu Ghraib was born of desperation, cloaked as necessity.

One year after the first public revelations about Abu Ghraib, we know what happened and how it happened, and the legal trail that led to the iron gates of the prison. Few of us will ever have a chance, or the stomach, to digest fully the official investigations into torture and prisoner abuse that fill the pages of The Torture Papers. But we have been lucky in some of our guides. The best of these, in my opinion, has been Mark Danner. His essays, which originally appeared in The New York Review of Books in May, 2004, have been reprinted in a mercifully small book, Abu Ghraib: The Politics of Torture.

Danner had the wit and the courage to see, early, what Abu Ghraib really amounted to. It wasn't a story about bad apples; it was rather a story of fateful political decisions and the bloody appetites that war generates and has always generated through the ages. Danner is thoroughly critical of the Bush administration's policies and fearful that American society will not be sufficiently aroused by the story to demand change. On both accounts, I find him right.

But even Danner misses some of the terrible irony of Abu Ghraib -- and some of the underlying context. The United States cast its military net over Iraq as part of its proclaimed war on terror. It did so based on rotten intelligence, which fitted hand-in-glove with political preconceptions about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

If rotten intelligence smoothed the path to Baghdad, rotten intelligence also paved the road to Abu Ghraib. Only an occupying power blind to the symbolic landscape of Iraq would have let one of Saddam Hussein's leading torture chambers be turned into a military detention facility in the first place. It should have been razed to the ground (a post-scandal promise by the Bush administration now conveniently forgotten). Only an occupying power blind to the lessons of history would have assumed that torture was a useful instrument in counter-insurgency. Only a occupying power clueless about the real roots of the violence and insurgency preying on it would have turned to the hapless inmates of Abu Ghraib for what is euphemistically known as "actionable intelligence." The vast majority of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib, it now appears, were innocents caught up in the increasingly random and panicky sweeps by U.S. forces. They knew nothing.

The story of Abu Ghraib points toward many uncomfortable truths. The U.S. government has made a terrible mistake in forgoing the Geneva conventions, an error that it may never repair, even if it wished to. The U.S. army in Iraq is wrestling with an insurgency it knows too little about. Ignorance may eventually spell defeat, if it is not overcome, and it will never be overcome by the tactics of prisoner abuse. The United States is struggling in Iraq without the comforts of a "just war" tradition that has sustained quasi-civilized conduct in battle since St. Augustine put pen to paper.

It may even be that the United States, finding itself in an unexpectedly degraded Iraq, without flowers certainly, but also without basic services and any degree of security, is reaching that nadir in which the constraints of fundamental respect for an occupied population, and an enemy hidden within it, are lost. With that loss goes some part of the soul of the occupying power itself.

Wesley Wark teaches a graduate seminar at the University of Toronto on The New Security Environment: War, Terrorism, Intelligence.
savemefrombush
I'd like to see the results of the poll on Americans who actually support torture of this nature. I'm sure there will be quite a number who do (and some secretly). The same thing is happening in Iraq/Afghan that happened in Germany in the 30s - it's OK to torture and murder them or they will get us first?
tazvil04
QUOTE(savemefrombush @ Mar 15 2005, 10:07 AM)
I'd like to see the results of the poll on Americans who actually support torture of this nature. I'm sure there will be quite a number who do (and some secretly). The same thing is happening in Iraq/Afghan that happened in Germany in the 30s - it's OK to torture and murder them or they will get us first?
*


That is the sad thing. Bush - as a child - reacts as a child would. He did not just want us to retaliate against Al Qaeda - he wanted bin Laden to be punished. In doing so, the US lost the moral high ground - perhaps forever, but at least until Bush leaves office.

As a result of losing that high ground, we will have a great difficulty in trying to impose our point of view on the Arab world.

The Islamic peoples are a proud group not afraid of America's military might. They have been fighting each other for centuries - so the threat of a fight with our military does not scare them.

This is part of the insanity of Bush's inavasion of Iraq - just like in Vietnam - we lost because the North Vietnamese were fighting for what they believe in - their communist state and their countryman in the person of Ho Chi Minh. The South Vietnamese did not have such nationalistic attitudes because their government was basically a US puppet.

So now we are greeted with Arabs who have been fighting against each other for centuries based upon their religious beliefs - their faith tells them that no matter the strength of the scourge - the infidel US - that they will be rewarded.

The reward - or its prospect - is much greater than the status quo for Muslims worldwide who live in ghettos throughout Europe and the entire world. Youndg Muslim's who join al Qaeda are seen as instantly achieving purpose in their lives. This will not change until Bush sees the necessity of a cultural component to his actions - but he is not a big enough person to do such a thing.

The ironic thing is that while he states that he is a man of faith - and is guided by that faith - he ignores such fervent belief systems in Muslims who would - much sooner die for their beliefs than Mr. Bush would.

Mr. Bush will kill for his beliefs - but not himself.

Of course, this is more of the neocon chickenhawkishness...
no retreat, no surrender
March 16, 2005
U.S. Military Says 26 Inmate Deaths May Be Homicide
By DOUGLAS JEHL and ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, March 15 - At least 26 prisoners have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 in what Army and Navy investigators have concluded or suspect were acts of criminal homicide, according to military officials.

The number of confirmed or suspected cases is much higher than any accounting the military has previously reported. A Pentagon report sent to Congress last week cited only six prisoner deaths caused by abuse, but that partial tally was limited to what the author, Vice Adm. Albert T. Church III of the Navy, called "closed, substantiated abuse cases" as of last September.

The new figure of 26 was provided by the Army and Navy this week after repeated inquiries. In 18 cases reviewed by the Army and Navy, investigators have now closed their inquiries and have recommended them for prosecution or referred them to other agencies for action, Army and Navy officials said. Eight cases are still under investigation but are listed by the Army as confirmed or suspected criminal homicides, the officials said.

Only one of the deaths occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, officials said, 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.

Among the cases are at least four involving Central Intelligence Agency employees that are being reviewed by the Justice Department for possible prosecution. They include a killing in Afghanistan in June 2003 for which David Passaro, a contract worker for the C.I.A., is now facing trial in federal court in North Carolina.

Human rights groups expressed dismay at the number of criminal homicides and renewed their call for a Sept. 11-style inquiry into detention operations and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. "This number to me is quite astounding," said James D. Ross, senior legal adviser for Human Rights Watch in New York. "This just reflects an overall failure to take seriously the abuses that have occurred."

Pentagon and Army officials rebutted that accusation. Lawrence Di Rita, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said that he was not aware that the Defense Department had previously accounted publicly for criminal homicides among the detainee deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq, but insisted that military authorities were vigorously pursuing each case.

"I have not seen the numbers collected in the way you described them, but obviously one criminal homicide is one too many," said Mr. Di Rita, who noted that American forces had held more than 50,000 detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past three years.

Army officials said the killings took place both inside and outside detention areas, including at the point of capture in often violent battlefield conditions. "The Army will investigate every detainee death both inside and outside detention facilities," said Col. Joseph Curtin, a senior Army spokesman. "Simply put, detainee abuse is not tolerated, and the Army will hold soldiers accountable. We are taking action to prosecute those suspected of abuse while taking steps now to train soldiers how to avoid such situations in the future."

In his report last week, Admiral Church concluded that the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan had been the result primarily of a breakdown of discipline, not flawed policies or misguided direction from commanders or Pentagon officials. But he cautioned that his conclusions were "based primarily on the information available to us as of Sept. 30, 2004," and added, "Should additional information become available, our conclusions would have to be considered in light of that information."

In addition to the criminal homicides, 11 cases involving prisoner deaths at the hands of American troops are now listed as justifiable homicides that should not be prosecuted, Army officials said. Those cases included killings caused by soldiers in suppressing prisoner riots in Iraq, they said. Other prisoners have died in captivity of natural causes, the military has found.

An accounting by The New York Times in May 2004, based on reports from military officials and a review of Army documents, identified 16 cases of confirmed or suspected homicide involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. At that time, however, just five were listed as confirmed homicides, with 11 of the cases still under investigation.

The Army defines a homicide as "a death that results from the intentional (explicit or implied) or grossly reckless behavior of another person or persons."

"Homicide is not synonymous with murder (a legal determination) and includes both criminal actions and excusable incidents (i.e., self-defense, law enforcement, combat)," according to an Army statement.

The new total of 26 cases involving prisoner deaths confirmed or suspected of being criminal homicides includes 24 cases investigated by the Army and two by the Navy, spokesmen for those services said. Two of the Army cases have since been referred to the Navy, and one to the Justice Department. The Navy said each case included a single prisoner death, but the Army said it was possible that at least some of the cases investigated by the service involved the death of more than one prisoner.

The Marine Corps said that nine Iraqi detainees had died in Marine custody, but that none of the deaths were homicides. It is unclear if this number includes the death of an Iraqi captive shot by a marine in a mosque in Falluja last November, an incident filmed by a television crew.

Neither the Army nor the Navy would provide a precise accounting of all of the cases now regarded as confirmed or suspected homicide.

At least eight Army soldiers have now been convicted of crimes in the deaths of prisoners in American custody, including a lieutenant who pleaded guilty at Fort Hood, Tex., this month to charges that included aggravated assault and battery, obstruction of justice and dereliction of duty. A charge of involuntary manslaughter in that case was dropped.

An additional 13 Army soldiers are now being tried, according to Army officials. They include Pfc. Willie V. Brand, who is facing a hearing at Fort Bliss, Tex., next week on charges of manslaughter and maiming in the deaths of two prisoners at Bagram Control Point in Afghanistan in December 2002.

But in some of the cases, including the death of an Iraqi, Manadel al-Jamadi, in Abu Ghraib in November 2003, most of those initially charged with crimes by the military have ended up receiving only nonjudicial punishments, and neither their names nor the details of those punishments have been disclosed.

Altogether, Army criminal investigators had conducted 68 detainee death investigations with 79 possible victims as of February 2005, said Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman. Of those investigations, 53 have been closed and 15 cases remain pending, Colonel Hart said.

In addition to the 24 Army cases listed as criminal homicides and the 11 cases listed as justifiable homicides, 28 cases are listed as confirmed or suspected deaths from accidents or natural causes. An additional five are cases in which the cause of death has not been determined, Colonel Hart said.

Over all, the Army's criminal investigators have examined 308 cases involving allegations of mistreating detainees. They include the 68 death investigations and 240 other allegations of potential misconduct, like allegations of assaults, sexual assaults and thefts, Colonel Hart said. Of the 308 cases, 201 cases are closed and 107 cases were pending as of mid-February 2005.

In addition to the number of detainee deaths, other conclusions in the Church report have drawn scrutiny. The report, for instance, also asserts that psychiatrists and psychologists advising interrogators did not have access to detainees' medical files. That is in sharp contrast to reports from the Red Cross and interrogators interviewed by The Times.

The International Committee of the Red Cross said in a confidential report last July that the detainees' medical files were open to all. The report said that was unethical and that it diminished the medical care given the detainees, because it discouraged them from seeking medical attention as they knew the information would be shared with interrogators.

One interrogator said in interviews that the files were initially open to all and that it was a regular practice for interrogators simply to go into the detainee hospital and review the records. The interrogator said that when the hospital staff became more reluctant to share the files, the interrogators found that they could ask the psychologists and psychiatrists to obtain them.


Neil A. Lewis contributed reporting for this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/politics...artner=homepage
Snuffysmith
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...isoner_deaths_2

Report: Many Died in US Custody in War
no retreat, no surrender
CIA Challenged About Suspects' Torture Overseas

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 17, 2005; Page A01


The system the CIA relies on to ensure that the suspected terrorists it transfers to other countries will not be tortured has been ineffective and virtually impossible to monitor, according to current and former intelligence officers and lawyers, as well as counterterrorism officials who have participated in or reviewed the practice.

To comply with anti-torture laws that bar sending people to countries where they are likely to be tortured, the CIA's office of general counsel requires a verbal assurance from each nation that detainees will be treated humanely, according to several recently retired CIA officials familiar with such transfers, known as renditions.

But the effectiveness of the assurances and the legality of the rendition practice are increasingly being questioned by rights groups and others, as freed detainees have alleged that they were mistreated by interrogators after the CIA secretly delivered them to countries with well-documented records of abuse.

President Bush weighed in on the matter for the first time yesterday, defending renditions as vital to the nation's defense.

In "the post-9/11 world, the United States must make sure we protect our people and our friends from attack," he said at a news conference. "And one way to do so is to arrest people and send them back to their country of origin with the promise that they won't be tortured. That's the promise we receive. This country does not believe in torture. We do believe in protecting ourselves." One CIA officer involved with renditions, however, called the assurances from other countries "a farce."

Another U.S. government official who visited several foreign prisons where suspects were rendered by the CIA after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, said: "It's beyond that. It's widely understood that interrogation practices that would be illegal in the U.S. are being used."

The CIA inspector general recently launched a review of the rendition system, and some members of Congress are demanding a thorough probe. Canada, Sweden, Germany and Italy have started investigations into the participation of their security services in CIA renditions.

The House voted 420 to 2 yesterday to prohibit the use of supplemental appropriations to support actions that contravene anti-torture statutes. The measure's co-author, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), singled out renditions, saying "diplomatic assurances not to torture are not credible, and the administration knows it."

Rendition, a form of covert action that is supposed to be shrouded in the deepest secrecy, was first authorized by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 and was used by the Clinton administration to transfer drug lords and terrorists to the United States or other countries for military or criminal trials.

After the 2001 attacks, Bush broadened the CIA's authority and, as a result, the agency has rendered more than 100 people from one country to another without legal proceedings and without providing access to the International Committee of the Red Cross, a right afforded all prisoners held by the U.S. military.

The CIA general counsel's office requires the station chief in a given country to obtain a verbal assurance from that country's security service. The assurance must be cabled back to CIA headquarters before a rendition takes place.

CIA Director Porter J. Goss told Congress a month ago that the CIA has "an accountability program" to monitor rendered prisoners. But he acknowledged that "of course, once they're out of our control, there's only so much we can do."

Asked to explain Goss's statement, an intelligence official said: "There are accountability procedures in place. For example, in some cases, the U.S. government is allowed access and can verify treatment of detainees." The official declined to elaborate.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said in an interview last week that, once a transfer occurs, "we can't fully control what that country might do. We obviously expect a country to whom we have rendered a detainee to comply with their representations to us. If you're asking me 'Does a country always comply?,' I don't have an answer to that."

In practice, though, the CIA has little control over prisoners once they leave CIA custody, said three recently retired CIA officials and other intelligence officials who have dealt with foreign intelligence services on detainee matters.

"These are sovereign countries," said Michael Scheuer, a recently retired CIA officer who favors the use of renditions to disrupt terrorist networks. "They are not going to let you into their prisons."

"Once they are in the jurisdiction of another country, we have no rights to follow up," said Edward S. Walker Jr., a former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs and now president of the Middle East Institute.

The U.S. official who visited foreign detention sites said the issue "goes far beyond" the assurance: "They say they are not abusing them, and that satisfies the legal requirement, but we all know they do."

For a country offering assurances, following up could imply the United States does not trust its leaders.

"We wouldn't accept the premise that we would make a promise and violate it," said the Egyptian ambassador to the United States, Nabil Fahmy, whose country has accepted rendered terrorism suspects. He denied that Egyptian officers employ torture in interrogations. "I don't accept the premise that if you want to torture someone, you send them to Jordan or Egypt. That would be the exception to the rule." Egypt, he added, "is becoming more and more rigorous" in prosecuting officers who use excessive force.

But Mamdouh Habib, an Australian citizen, has alleged he was tortured in Egypt for six months after U.S. officials sent him there. Habib had been detained in Pakistan in October 2001 as a suspected al Qaeda trainer. In Egypt, he alleges, he was hung by his arms from hooks, shocked, nearly drowned and brutally beaten. He was then sent to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and was released in February.

Another Arab diplomat, whose country is actively engaged in counterterrorism operations and shares intelligence with the CIA, said it is unrealistic to believe the CIA really wants to follow up on the assurances. "It would be stupid to keep track of them because then you would know what's going on," he said. "It's really more like 'Don't ask, don't tell.' "

Questions about assurances have stalled the release of prisoners from Guantanamo.

Guarantees of humane treatment by Yemen notwithstanding, a federal court in the District of Columbia prohibited on Saturday the transfer of 13 Yemeni prisoners from Guantanamo to Yemen until a hearing is held on their attorneys' assertion that they could be tortured if returned there.

And despite assurances by China, State Department officials have been unwilling to send 22 Chinese Muslims from Guantanamo to China for fear they would be tortured.

Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Mar16.html
Snuffysmith
'Abusive techniques' at Gitmo had Navy brass talking pullout :

The previously undisclosed events were revealed at a hearing of the Senate Armed Forces Committee Tuesday. The disclosures shed new light on the military services' objections to the Bush administration's policies on how to interrogate prisoners from the Afghanistan war.
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/news/65865.php
no retreat, no surrender
March 17, 2005
House Votes to Reaffirm Ban on Torture
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 1:50 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House voted Wednesday to ban the use of federal money to transfer terror suspects to countries that are believed to torture prisoners, a practice that has drawn fierce criticism of the Bush administration.

The largely symbolic amendment reaffirms a 1994 treaty barring torture of detainees in American custody, whether in the United States or in countries known for human rights violations. The measure was approved 420-2 as part of an $81.4 billion emergency spending package for combat and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Voting against the amendment were Republican Reps. Robin Hayes of North Carolina and Mark Souder of Indiana.

The amendment, authored by Democratic Reps. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, comes in the wake of media accounts alleging that the U.S. government has secretly sent detainees to foreign countries where they have been tortured for information.

At a news conference Wednesday, President Bush shrugged off a question about detainees being sent to their home countries where they could be subject to torture.

``The United States must make sure we protect our people and our friends from attack. One way to do so is arrest people and send them back'' to their home countries, he said. ``This country does not believe in torture. We do believe in protecting ourselves.''

Blumenauer and Markey said it would be naive to assume that detainees sent for interrogation to countries such as Egypt or Syria would not be tortured.

``Today, we moved one step closer to ending the U.S. practice of outsourcing torture. The passage of this amendment reaffirms our commitment to upholding the Convention Against Torture,'' Markey said.

Blumenauer said he was ``appalled by continued revelations in the media regarding the torture of detainees in American custody.''

He called the use of overseas torture ``morally reprehensible,'' adding that it puts American troops at risk by degrading the moral and legal leverage the United States needs to prevent torture of U.S. military personnel.

Blumenauer, a member of the House International Relations Committee, has called for Congress to investigate a Portland, Ore., company that owns a sleek executive jet that has reportedly been used by the CIA to ferry alleged terrorists to countries believed to torture prisoners.

Since November, Bayard Foreign Marketing LLC has been the registered owner of a Gulfstream V that's been spotted at airports around the world being boarded by hooded and handcuffed prisoners.

FAA records show the jet was owned by Premier Executive Transport Services in Dedham, Mass., from 1999 to 2004.

Human rights groups claim the plane is a key piece of what they say is the U.S. government's ``torture by proxy'' program

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/A...ng-Torture.html
Snuffysmith
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/news/66068.php

Abu Ghraib records retroactively classified
no retreat, no surrender
Goss Defends U.S. Interrogation Tactics

1 hour, 50 minutes ago White House - AP Cabinet & State


By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - CIA (news - web sites) Director Porter Goss on Thursday defended U.S. interrogation practices amid ongoing criticism that Americans' treatment of prisoners amounts to torture.



Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites), Goss said that professional interrogation has been a "useful and necessary way to obtain information that saves innocent lives and protects combat forces."


"The U.S. government does not engage in or condone torture," Goss said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a.../us_prisoners_1


Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., a former POW in Vietnam, said he was concerned about what he sees as a lack of policy on prisoners.


Goss said he believes there is a policy in the intelligence community and where there is any uncertainty officials err on the side of caution.


"We don't do torture," Goss said.


Adm. Lowell Jacoby, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said he is seeing fewer attacks in Iraq (news - web sites) since the Jan. 30 elections.


"There may in fact be a change in the insurgency and the attack planning," he said, adding that it's too early to know if its a trend.


Attacks, Jacoby said, have recently been confined to four provinces in Sunni dominated areas. He estimated there are 12,000 to 20,000 insurgents, with a single-digit percentage that is made up of non-Iraqis.


Goss said he's optimistic, but realizes that the United State must be patient as Iraqis establish their government.


"There is no misjudging that there is still willful intimidation," directed by terrorists toward innocent people, Goss said.
no retreat, no surrender
Questions Left by C.I.A. Chief on Torture Use
By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: March 18, 2005


WASHINGTON, March 17 - Porter J. Goss, the director of central intelligence, said Thursday that he could not assure Congress that the Central Intelligence Agency's methods of interrogating terrorism suspects since Sept. 11, 2001, had been permissible under federal laws prohibiting torture.

Advertisement
Have our Top 20 Newsletter
delivered to your Inbox each week!
The Most "WOW!" Travel Deals on the
Internet - here's a sampling: Released
MAR 16, 2005


Major Airlines $39-$79 Florida from over 20 Cities, into June

Orlando Discount Rooms $39 Orlando Hotel near Universal Studios, 50% OFF

United Airlines $69-$89 Fly Cross-Country on United, over 30 Cities

Travelocity $294-$394 Japan, Roundtrip (!) from Across the U.S.

The Bishop's Lodge Resort & Spa $99 Top-Rated Santa Fe Resort (reg. $259)

SmartCruiser.com $274 4-Night Royal Caribbean Cruise to Mexico from L.A.

Click on any deal and check them out today!
*Fares listed may not include all taxes, charges and government fees. More information. © 2005 Travelzoo Inc.



Under sharp questioning at a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Goss sought to reassure lawmakers that all interrogations "at this time" are legal and that no methods now in use constituted torture. But he declined, when asked, to make the same broad assertions about practices used over the last few years.

"At this time, there are no 'techniques,' if I could say, that are being employed that are in any way against the law or would meet - would be considered torture or anything like that," Mr. Goss said in response to one question.

When he was asked several minutes later whether he could say the same about techniques employed by the agency since the campaign against Al Qaeda expanded in the aftermath of the 2001 attacks in the United States, he said, "I am not able to tell you that."

He added that he might be able to elaborate after the committee went into closed session to take classified testimony.

Mr. Goss's comments came closer than previous statements from the agency to an admission that at least some of its practices may have crossed the legal limits, and had the effect of raising new questions about the C.I.A.'s conduct in detaining and questioning terror suspects, and in transferring them to foreign governments, in what remains one of the most secretive areas of the government's efforts to combat terrorism.

Asked to clarify his remarks, the agency issued two statements, but no official would agree to be named because of the highly classified subject matter.

"The agency complies with the laws of the United States, and the director's testimony consistently stated that," said a C.I.A. spokeswoman. "None of his comments were intended to convey anything otherwise."

Asked about the legality of practices in the past, a government official said, "The C.I.A. has always complied with the legal guidelines it received from the Department of Justice in regard to interrogation."

At the hearing, Mr. Goss acknowledged that there had been "some uncertainty" in the past among C.I.A. officers about what interrogation techniques were specifically permitted and prohibited. A legal memorandum relaxing the limits on interrogation was issued in 2002 but repudiated by the administration in 2004.

Mr. Goss said he believed that the uncertainty had been resolved, and that C.I.A. employees recently were "erring on the side of caution" in choosing what techniques to use.

Unlike the Pentagon, which has completed several broad inquiries in the last year into alleged abuses involving detention and interrogation, the C.I.A. has not completed any of what intelligence officials say are about a half-dozen internal reviews into the conduct of its employees in a number of incidents, some involving the deaths of four prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Goss said he did not know when the C.I.A.'s inspector general would complete several reviews now underway into suspected misconduct by C.I.A. officers and contract employees. Among the activities under scrutiny by the inspector general and by Congress is the agency's role in the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects in Iraq, as well as the transfer of 100 to 150 people suspected of being terrorists to the custody of foreign governments since the Sept. 11 attacks.

In addition, an estimated three dozen people suspected of being terrorist leaders, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is suspected of being the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, remain in C.I.A. custody in secret sites around the world. Intelligence officials have acknowledged that the C.I.A. has used coercive techniques against those suspects, drawing from a list of practices approved within the Bush administration, including some not authorized for use by the military.

In the session, Mr. Goss was challenged by Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican who spent years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. When Mr. McCain asked Mr. Goss about the C.I.A.'s previously reported use of a technique known as waterboarding, in which a prisoner is made to believe that he will drown, Mr. Goss replied only that the approach fell into "an area of what I will call professional interrogation techniques."

He vigorously defended "professional interrogation" as an important tool in efforts against terrorism, saying that it had resulted in "documented successes" in averting attacks and capturing important suspects. Mr. Goss said that Congress had been kept fully informed of the techniques used by the C.I.A., and that those currently being used did not constitute torture, which is prohibited by law.

"As I said publicly before, and I know for a fact, that torture is not - it's not productive," Mr. Goss said. "That's not professional interrogation. We don't do torture."

At times in his appearance, Mr. Goss described some of the approaches now used by the C.I.A., including the transfer of terrorism suspects to the custody of foreign governments, as not much more than a continuation of techniques used by the agency before the Sept. 11 attacks. But other intelligence officials have acknowledged that the C.I.A.'s use of detention, interrogation and rendition, which refers to the transfers, represents a major expansion in its authorities, and Mr. Goss seemed to acknowledge that point.

"We have changed some of the ways we gather secrets," he said, referring to the period since the Sept. 11 attacks. Despite the sharp Congressional questioning, he added, "I'd much rather explain why we did something than why we did nothing, and I'm asking your support in that endeavor."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/18/politics...artner=homepage
Salute_Liberty
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/stor...1440836,00.html

'One huge US jail'

Afghanistan is the hub of a global network of detention centres, the frontline in America's 'war on terror', where arrest can be random and allegations of torture commonplace. Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark investigate on the ground and talk to former prisoners

Saturday March 19, 2005
The Guardian

Kabul was a grim, monastic place in the days of the Taliban; today it's a chaotic gathering point for every kind of prospector and carpetbagger. Foreign bidders vying for billions of dollars of telecoms, irrigation and construction contracts have sparked a property boom that has forced up rental prices in the Afghan capital to match those in London, Tokyo and Manhattan. Four years ago, the Ministry of Vice and Virtue in Kabul was a tool of the Taliban inquisition, a drab office building where heretics were locked up for such crimes as humming a popular love song. Now it's owned by an American entrepreneur who hopes its bitter associations won't scare away his new friends.
Outside Kabul, Afghanistan is bleaker, its provinces more inaccessible and lawless, than it was under the Taliban. If anyone leaves town, they do so in convoys. Afghanistan is a place where it is easy for people to disappear and perilous for anyone to investigate their fate. Even a seasoned aid agency such as Médécins Sans Frontières was forced to quit after five staff members were murdered last June. Only the 17,000-strong US forces, with their all-terrain Humvees and Apache attack helicopters, have the run of the land, and they have used the haze of fear and uncertainty that has engulfed the country to advance a draconian phase in the war against terror. Afghanistan has become the new Guantánamo Bay.

Washington likes to hold up Afghanistan as an exemplar of how a rogue regime can be replaced by democracy. Meanwhile, human-rights activists and Afghan politicians have accused the US military of placing Afghanistan at the hub of a global system of detention centres where prisoners are held incommunicado and allegedly subjected to torture. The secrecy surrounding them prevents any real independent investigation of the allegations. "The detention system in Afghanistan exists entirely outside international norms, but it is only part of a far larger and more sinister jail network that we are only now beginning to understand," Michael Posner, director of the US legal watchdog Human Rights First, told us.

When we landed in Kabul, Afghanistan was blue with a bruising cold. We were heading for the former al-Qaida strongholds in the south-east that were rumoured to be the focus of the new US network. How should we prepare, we asked local UN staff. "Don't go," they said. None the less, we were able to find a driver, a Pashtun translator and a boxful of clementines, and set off on a five-and-a-half-hour trip south through the snow to Gardez, a market town dominated by two rapidly expanding US military bases.

There we met Dr Rafiullah Bidar, regional director of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, established in 2003 with funding from the US Congress to investigate abuses committed by local warlords and to ensure that women's and children's rights were protected. He was delighted to see foreigners in town. At his office in central Gardez, Bidar showed us a wall of files. "All I do nowadays is chart complaints against the US military," he said. "Many thousands of people have been rounded up and detained by them. Those who have been freed say that they were held alongside foreign detainees who've been brought to this country to be processed. No one is charged. No one is identified. No international monitors are allowed into the US jails." He pulled out a handful of files: "People who have been arrested say they've been brutalised - the tactics used are beyond belief." The jails are closed to outside observers, making it impossible to test the truth of the claims.

Last November, a man from Gardez died of hypothermia in a US military jail. When his family were called to collect the body, they were given a $100 note for the taxi ride and no explanation. In scores more cases, people have simply disappeared.

Prisoner transports crisscross the country between a proliferating network of detention facilities. In addition to the camps in Gardez, there are thought to be US holding facilities in the cities of Khost, Asadabad and Jalalabad, as well as an official US detention centre in Kandahar, where the tough regime has been nicknamed "Camp Slappy" by former prisoners. There are 20 more facilities in outlying US compounds and fire bases that complement a major "collection centre" at Bagram air force base. The CIA has one facility at Bagram and another, known as the "Salt Pit", in an abandoned brick factory north of Kabul. More than 1,500 prisoners from Afghanistan and many other countries are thought to be held in such jails, although no one knows for sure because the US military declines to comment.

Anyone who has got in the way of the prison transports has been met with brutal force. Bidar directed us to a small Shia neighbourhood on the edge of town where a multiple killing was still under investigation. Inside a frozen courtyard, a former policeman, Said Sardar, 25, was sat beside his crutches. On May 1 2004, he was manning a checkpoint when a car careened through. "Inside were men dressed like Arabs, but they were western men," he said. "They had prisoners in the car." Sardar fired a warning shot for the car to stop. "The western men returned fire and within minutes two US attack helicopters hovered above us. They fired three rockets at the police station. One screamed past me. I saw its fiery tail and blacked out."

He was taken to Bagram, where US military doctors had to amputate his leg. Afterwards, he said, "an American woman appeared. She said the US was sorry. It was a mistake. The men in the car were Special Forces or CIA on a mission. She gave me $500." Sardar showed us into another room in his compound where a circle of children stared glumly at us; their fathers, all policemen, were killed in the same incident. "Five dead. Four in hospital. To protect covert US prisoner transports," he says. Later, US helicopters were deployed in two similar incidents that left nine dead.

In his builders' merchant's shop, Mohammed Timouri describes how he lost his son. "Ismail was a part-time taxi driver, waiting to go to college," he says, handing us a photograph of a beardless, short-haired 19-year-old held aloft in a coffin at his funeral last March. "A convoy delivering prisoners from a facility in Jalalabad to one in Kabul became snarled up in traffic. A US soldier jumped down and lifted a woman out of the way. She screamed. Ismail stepped forward to explain she was a conservative person, wearing a burka. The soldier dropped the woman and shot Ismail in front of a crowd of 20 people."

Mohammed received a letter from the Afghan police: "We apologise to you," the police chief wrote. "An innocent was killed by Americans." The US army declined to comment on Ismail's death or on a second fatal shooting by another prison transport at the same crossroads later that month. It also refused to comment on an incident outside Kabul when a prison patrol reportedly cleared a crowd of children by throwing a grenade into their midst. However, we have since heard that the CIA's inspector general is investigating at least eight serious incidents, including two deaths in custody, following complaints by agents about the activities of their military colleagues.

There are insurgents active in the Gardez area, as there are throughout the south of Afghanistan, remnants of the old order and the newly disaffected. Every morning it takes Afghan police several hours to pick along the highway unearthing explosives concealed overnight. And so it was mid-morning before we were able to leave town, crawling over the Gardez-Khost pass, some 10,000ft high. No one saw us slipping on to the fertile Khost plain, where Osama bin Laden once had his training camps - the camps were destroyed by US cruise missiles in August 1998. Today a shrine to Taliban loyalists still greets travellers to the city, although no one here would say they preferred the old life.

US Camp Salerno, the largest base outside Kabul, dominates the area around Khost. Inside the city, Kamal Sadat, a local stringer for BBC World Service, told how he was detained last September and found himself locked up in a prison filled with suspects from many countries. "Even though I showed my press accreditation, I was hooded, driven to Salerno and then flown to another US base. I had no idea where I was or why I had been detained." He was held in a small wooden cell, and soldiers combed through his notebooks, copying down names and phone numbers. "Every time I was moved within the base, I was hooded again. Every prisoner has to maintain absolute silence. I could hear helicopters whirring above me. Prisoners were arriving and leaving all the time. There were also cells beneath me, under the ground." After three days, Sadat was flown back to Khost and freed without explanation. "It was only later I learned that I had been held in Bagram. If the BBC had not intervened, I fear I would not have got out." After his release, the US military said it had all been a misunderstanding, and apologised.

Camp Salerno, which houses the 1,200 troops of US Combined Taskforce Thunder, was being expanded when we arrived. Army tents were being replaced with concrete dormitories. The detention facility, concealed behind a perimeter of opaque green webbing, was being modernised and enlarged. Ensconced in a Soviet-era staff building was the camp's commanding officer, Colonel Gary Cheeks. He listened calmly as we asked about the allegations of torture, deaths and disappearances at US detention facilities including Salerno. We read to him from a complaint made by a UN official in Kabul that accused the US military of using "cowboy-like excessive force". He eased forward in his chair: "There have been some tragic accidents for which we have apologised. Some people have been paid compensation."

We put to him the specific case of Mohammed Khan, from a village near the Pakistan border, who died in custody at Camp Salerno: his relatives say his body showed signs of torture. "You could go on for ages with a 'he said, she said'. You have to take my word for it," said Cheeks. He remembered Khan's death: "He was bitten by a snake and died in his cell." He added, "We are building new holding cells here to make life better for detainees. We are systematising our prison programme across the country."

For what reason? "So all guards and interrogators behave by the same code of behaviour," the colonel said. Is it not the case that an ever-increasing number of prisoners have vanished, while others are being shuttled between jails to keep their families in the dark? Cheeks moved towards his office door: "There are many things that are distorted. No one has vanished here ... Look, the war against the Taliban is one small part. I want the Afghan people with us. They are the key to ending conflict. If they fear us or we do wrong by them, then we have lost."

However, many Afghans who celebrated the fall of the Taliban have long lost faith in the US military. In Kabul, Nader Nadery, of the Human Rights Commission, told us, "Afghanistan is being transformed into an enormous US jail. What we have here is a military strategy that has spawned serious human rights abuses, a system of which Afghanistan is but one part." In the past 18 months, the commission has logged more than 800 allegations of human rights abuses committed by US troops.

The Afghan government privately shares Nadery's fears. One minister, who asked not to be named, said, "Washington holds Afghanistan up to the world as a nascent democracy and yet the US military has deliberately kept us down, using our country to host a prison system that seems to be administered arbitrarily, indiscriminately and without accountability."

What has been glimpsed in Afghanistan is a radical plan to replace Guantánamo Bay. When that detention centre was set up in January 2002, it was essentially an offshore gulag - beyond the reach of the US constitution and even the Geneva conventions. That all changed in July 2004. The US supreme court ruled that the federal court in Washington had jurisdiction to hear a case that would decide if the Cuban detentions were in violation of the US constitution, its laws or treaties. The military commissions, which had been intended to dispense justice to the prisoners, were in disarray, too. No prosecution cases had been prepared and no defence cases would be readily offered as the US National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers had described the commissions as unethical, a decision backed by a federal judge who ruled in January that they were "illegal". Guantánamo was suddenly bogged down in domestic lawsuits. It had lost its practicality. So a global prison network built up over the previous three years, beyond the reach of American and European judicial process, immediately began to pick up the slack. The process became explicit last week when the Pentagon announced that half of the 540 or so inmates at Guantánamo are to be transferred to prisons in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

Since September 11 2001, one of the US's chief strategies in its "war on terror" has been to imprison anyone considered a suspect on whatever grounds. To that end it commandeered foreign jails, built cellblocks at US military bases and established covert CIA facilities that can be located almost anywhere, from an apartment block to a shipping container. The network has no visible infrastructure - no prison rolls, visitor rosters, staff lists or complaints procedures. Terror suspects are being processed in Afghanistan and in dozens of facilities in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Egypt, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the British island of Diego Garcia in the southern Indian Ocean. Those detained are held incommunicado, without charge or trial, and frequently shuttled between jails in covert air transports, giving rise to the recently coined US military expression "ghost detainees".

Most of the countries hosting these invisible prisons are already partners in the US coalition. Others, notably Syria, are pragmatic associates, which work privately alongside the CIA and US Special Forces, despite bellicose public statements from President Bush (he has condemned Syria for harbouring terrorism, for aiding the remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime, and most recently has demanded that Syrian troops quit Lebanon).

All the host countries are renowned for their poor human rights records, enabling interrogators (US soldiers, contractors and their local partners) to operate. We have obtained prisoner letters, declassified FBI files, legal depositions, witness statements and testimony from US and UK officials, which document the alleged methods deployed in Afghanistan - shackles, hoods, electrocution, whips, mock executions, sexual humiliation and starvation - and suggest they are practised across the network. Sir Nigel Rodley, a former UN special rapporteur on torture, said, "The more hidden detention practices there are, the more likely that all legal and moral constraints on official behaviour will be removed."

The only "ghost detainees" to have been identified by Washington are a handful of high-profile al-Qaida operatives such as Abu Zubayda, Bin Laden's lieutenant, who vanished after being picked up by Pakistani authorities in Faisalabad in March 2002. In June of that year, US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Zubayda was "under US control". He did not say where, although sources in the Pakistani government said Zubayda was being held at a CIA facility in their country.

In May 2003, Bush clarified the fate of Waleed Muhammad bin Attash, an alleged conspirator in the USS Cole bombing, who disappeared after being arrested by police in Pakistan in April 2003. Bush described Attash as "a killer ... one less person that people who love freedom have to worry about"; he is also one more person who has never appeared on a US prison roll.

In June 2004, a senior counterterrorism official in Britain confirmed that Hambali (a nom de guerre) - accused of organising the October 2002 Bali bombings and unseen since Thai police seized him in August 2003 - was "singing like a bird", apparently at the US base on Diego Garcia.

Evidence we have collected, however, shows that many more of those swept up in the network have few provable connections to any outlawed organisation; experts in the field describe their value in the war against terror as "negligible". Former prisoners claim they were released only after naming names, coerced into making false confessions that led to the arrests of more people unconnected to terrorism, in a system of justice that owes more to Stanley Milgram's Six Degrees Of Separation - where anyone can be linked to everyone else in the world in as many stages - than to analytical jurisprudence.

The floating population of "ghost detainees", according to US and UK military officials, now exceeds 10,000.

The roots of the prison network can be traced to the legal wrangles that began as soon as the first terror suspects were rounded up just weeks after the September 11 attacks. As CIA agents and US forces began to capture suspected al-Qaida fighters in the war in Afghanistan, Alberto Gonzales, White House counsel, looked for ways to "dispense justice swiftly, close to where our forces may be fighting, without years of pre-trial proceedings or post-trial appeals".

On November 13 2001, George Bush signed an order to establish military commissions to try "enemy belligerents" who commit war crimes. At such a commission, a foreign war criminal would have no choice over his defence counsel, no right to know the evidence against him, no way of obtaining any evidence in his favour and no right of attorney-client confidentiality. Defending the commissions, Gonzales (now promoted to US attorney general) insisted, "The suggestion that [they] will afford only sham justice like that dispensed in dictatorial nations is an insult to our military justice system."

When the first prisoners arrived at Guantánamo Bay in January 2002, Donald Rumsfeld announced that they were all Taliban or al-Qaida fighters, and as such were designated "unlawful combatants". The US administration argued that al-Qaida and the Taliban were not the official army of Afghanistan, but a criminal force that did not wear uniforms, could not be distinguished from civilians and practised war crimes; on this basis, the administration claimed, it was entitled to sidestep the Geneva conventions and normal legal constraints.

From there, it was only a small moral step for the Bush administration to overlook the use of torture by regimes previously condemned by the US state department, so long as they, too, signed up to the war against terror. "Egypt, Jordan, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and even Syria were all asked to make their detention facilities and expert interrogators available to the US," one former counterterrorism agent told us.

In the UK, a similar process began unfolding. In December 2001, the then home secretary David Blunkett withdrew Britain from its obligation under the European human rights treaty not to detain anyone without trial; on December 18, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act was passed, extending the government's powers of arrest and detention. Within 24 hours, 10 men were seized in dawn raids on their homes and taken to Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons (some of them will have been among those released in the past week).

Subsequently the Foreign Office subtly modified internal guidance to diplomats, enabling them to use intelligence obtained through torture. A letter from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office directorate sent to Sir Michael Jay, head of the diplomatic service, and Mathew Kidd of Whitehall liaison, a euphemism for MI6, suggested in March 2003 that although such intelligence was inadmissible as evidence in a UK court, it could still be received and acted upon by the British government. The government's attitude was spelt out to the Intelligence and Security Committee of MPs and peers by foreign secretary Jack Straw who, while acknowledging that torture was "completely unacceptable" and that information obtained under torture is more likely to be embellished, concluded, "you cannot ignore it if the price of ignoring it is 3,000 people dead" [a reference to the September 11 attacks].

One former ambassador told us, "This was new ground for the FCO. As long as we didn't do it, we're OK. But by taking advantage of this intelligence, we're encouraging the use of torture and, in my opinion, are in contravention of the UN Convention Against Torture. What worried me most was that information obtained under torture, given credence by some gung-ho Whitehall warrior, could be used to keep another poor soul locked up without trial or charge."

Although the true extent of the US extra-legal network is only now becoming apparent, people began to disappear as early as 2001 when the US asked its allies in Europe and the Middle East to examine their refugee communities in search of possible terror cells, such as that run by Mohammed Atta in Hamburg which had planned and executed the September 11 attacks. Among the first to vanish was Ahmed Agiza, an Egyptian asylum seeker who had been living in Sweden with his wife and children for three years. Hanan, Agiza's wife, told us how on December 18 2001 her husband failed to return home from his language class.

"The phone rang at 5pm. It was Ahmed. He said he'd been arrested and then the line went dead. The next day our lawyer told me that Ahmed was being sent back to Egypt. It would be better if he was dead." Agiza and his family had fled Egypt in 1991, after years of persecution, and in absentia he had been sentenced to life imprisonment by a military court. Hanan said, "I called my mother-in-law in Egypt. Finally, in April, she was allowed to see Ahmed in Mazrah Torah prison, in Cairo, when he revealed what had happened."

On December 18 2001, Agiza and a second Egyptian refugee, Mohammed Al-Zery, had been arrested by Swedish intelligence acting upon a request from the US. They were driven, shackled and blindfolded, to Stockholm's Bromma airport, where they were cuffed and cut from their clothes. Suppositories were inserted into both men's anuses, they were wrapped in plastic nappies, dressed in jumpsuits and handed over to an American aircrew who flew them out of Sweden on a private executive jet.

Agiza and Al-Zery landed in Cairo at 3am the next morning and were taken to the state security investigation office, where they were held in solitary confinement in underground cells. Mohammed Zarai, former director of the Cairo-based Human Rights Centre for the Assistance of Prisoners, told us that Agiza was repeatedly electrocuted, hung upside down, whipped with an electrical flex and hospitalised after being made to lick his cell floor clean. Hanan, who was granted asylum in Sweden in 2004, said, "I can't sleep at night without expecting someone to knock on the door and send us away on a plane to a place that scares me more than anything else. What can Ahmed do?" Her husband is still incarcerated in Cairo, while Al-Zery is under house arrest there. There have been calls for an international independent investigation into the roles of the Swedish, US and Egyptian authorities.

We were able to chart the toing and froing of the private executive jet used at Bromma partly through the observations of plane-spotters posted on the web and partly through a senior source in the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). It was a Gulfstream V Turbo, tailfin number N379P; its flight plans always began at an airstrip in Smithfield, North Carolina, and ended in some of the world's hot spots. It was owned by Premier Executive Transport Services, incorporated in Delaware, a brass plaque company with nonexistent directors, hired by American agents to revive an old CIA tactic from the 1970s, when agency men had kidnapped South American criminals and flown them back to their own countries to face trial so that justice could be rendered. Now "rendering" was being used by the Bush administration to evade justice.

Robert Baer, a CIA case officer in the Middle East until 1997, told us how it works. "We pick up a suspect or we arrange for one of our partner countries to do it. Then the suspect is placed on civilian transport to a third country where, let's make no bones about it, they use torture. If you want a good interrogation, you send someone to Jordan. If you want them to be killed, you send them to Egypt or Syria. Either way, the US cannot be blamed as it is not doing the heavy work."

The Agiza and Al-Zery cases were not the first in which the Gulfstream was used. On October 23 2001, at 2.40am at Karachi airport, it picked up Jamil Qasim Saeed Mohammed, a Yemeni microbiologist who had been arrested by Pakistan's ISI and was wanted in connection with the USS Cole attack. On January 10 2002, the jet was used again, taking off from Halim airport in Jakarta with a hooded and shackled Mohammed Saeed Iqbal Madni on board, an Egyptian accused of being an accomplice of British shoe bomber Richard Reid. Madni was flown to Cairo where, according to the Human Rights Centre for the Assistance of Prisoners, he died during interrogation.

Since then, the jet has been used at least 72 times, including a flight in June 2002 when it landed in Morocco to pick up German national Mohammed Zamar, who was "rendered" to Syria, his country of origin, before disappearing.

It was in December 2001 that the US began to commandeer foreign jails so that its own interrogators could work on prisoners within them. Among the first were Haripur and Kohat, no-frills prisons in the lawless North West Frontier Province of Pakistan which now hold nearly as many detainees as Guantánamo. In January, we attempted to visit Kohat jail, but as we drove towards the security perimeter our vehicle was turned back by ISI agents and we were escorted back to the nearby city of Peshawar. We eventually located several former detainees, including Mohammed, a university student who described how he was arrested and then initially interrogated in one of many covert ISI holding centres that are being jointly run with the CIA. Mohammed said, "I was questioned for four weeks in a windowless room by plain-clothed US agents. I didn't know if it was day or night. They said they could make me disappear." One day he was bundled into a vehicle. "I arrived in Kohat jail. There were 100 prisoners from all over the Middle East. Later I was moved to Haripur where there were even more."

Adil, another detainee who was held for three years in Haripur after illegally crossing into Pakistan from Afghanistan, where he had escaped from the Taliban, says, "US interrogators came and went as they pleased." Both Mohammed and Adil said they were often taken from the hot cell and doused with ice-cold water. Adil says, "American women ordered us to get undressed. They'd touch us and taunt us. They made us lie naked on top of each other and simulate acts."

Mohammed and Adil were released without charge in November 2004 but, according to legal depositions, there are still 400 prisoners detained in the jails at the request of the US. Among them are many who it is extremely unlikely took part in the Afghan war: they are too young or too old to have been combatants. Some have taken legal action against the Pakistani authorities for breach of human rights.

A military intelligence official in Washington told us that no one in the US administration seemed concerned about the impact of the coercive tactics practised by the growing global network on the quality of intelligence obtained, although there was plenty of evidence it was unreliable. On September 26 2002, Maher Arar, a 34-year-old Canadian computer scientist, was arrested at New York's JFK airport as a result of a paper-thin evidential chain. Syrian-born Arar told us, "I was pulled aside by US immigration at 2pm. I told them I had a connecting flight to Montreal where I had a job interview." However, Arar was "rendered" in a private jet, via Washington, Portland and Rome, landing in Amman, Jordan, where he was held at what a Jordanian source described as a US-run interrogation centre. From there, he was handed over to Syria, the country he had left as a 17-year-old boy. He says he spent the next 12 months being tortured and in solitary confinement, unaware that someone he barely knew had named him as a terrorist.

The chain of events that led to Arar's arrest, or kidnapping, began in November 2001, when another Canadian, Ahmad Abou El-Maati, from Montreal, was arrested at Damascus airport. He was accused of being a terrorist and asked to identify his al-Qaida connections. By the time he'd endured two years of torture, El-Maati had reeled off the names of everyone he knew in Montreal, including Abdullah Almalki, an electrical engineer. Almalki was arrested as he flew into Damascus airport to join his parents on holiday in May 2002, and would spend the next two years being tortured in a Syrian detention facility.

Almalki knew Arward Al-Bousha, also from Ottawa, who in July 2002, upon arriving in Damascus to visit his dying father, was also arrested. El-Maati, Almalki and Al-Bousha all knew Maher Arar by sight through Muslim community events in Ottawa. After his release from jail in Syria, uncharged, in January 2004, El-Maati admitted that he had erroneously named Maher Arar as a terrorist to "stop the vicious torture". Arar, who was eventually released in October 2003 after a Syrian court threw out a coerced confession in which he said he had been trained by al-Qaida, told us, "I am not a terrorist. I don't know anyone who is. But the tolerant Muslim community I come from here in Canada has become vitriolic and demoralised." Arar's case is now the subject of a judicial inquiry in Canada, but since his release and that of Al-Bousha and Almalki, another five men from Ottawa have been detained in Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Five days after the US supreme court ruled in July 2004 that federal courts had jurisdiction over Guantánamo, Naeem Noor Khan, a 25-year-old computer programmer from Karachi, disappeared during a business trip to Lahore. He was not taken to Guantánamo. His father Hayat told us that he learned of his son's fate after a neighbour called on August 2 to say that US newspapers were running a story about "the capture of a figure from al-Qaida in Pakistan" who had led "the CIA to a rich lode of information". An unnamed US intelligence official claimed Naeem Noor Khan operated websites and email addresses for al-Qaida. The following day Pakistan's information minister trumpeted the ISI's seizure of Naeem Noor Khan on behalf of the US on July 13. The prisoner had "confessed to receiving 25 days of military training from an al-Qaida camp in June 1998". No corroborative evidence was offered.

Babar Awan, one of Pakistan's leading advocates, representing the family, said he had learned from a contact in the Pakistani government that Naeem Noor Khan was wanted by the US, having been named by one of a group of Malaysian students who had been detained incommunicado and threatened with torture in Pakistan in September 2003. Awan said, "The student was subsequently freed uncharged and described how he was threatened until he offered the names of anyone he had met in Pakistan. There is no evidence against Naeem Noor Khan except for this coerced statement, and even worse he has now vanished and so there is no prison to petition for his release."

Khan had been swallowed up by a catch-all system that gathers up anyone connected by even a thread to terror. Unable to distinguish its friends from its enemies, the US suspects both.

Dawn broke on the festival of Eid and four US army vehicles gunned their engines in preparation for a "hearts and minds" operation in Khost city, Afghanistan. A roll call of marines, each with their blood group scrawled on their boots, was ticked off and we were added to the muster. The convoy hurtled towards the city. Men and boys began to run alongside. First a handful and then a dozen. The crowd was heading for a vast prayer ground, and soon there were thousands of devotees in brand newEid caps and starched shalwas marching out to pray. The US Humvees pulled over. The armoured personnel carriers, too. A dozen US marines stepped down, eyes obscured by goggles, faces by balaclavas.

They fell into formation and stomped into the crowd while a group of Afghan police looked on incredulously. "Keep tight. Keep tight. Keep looking all around us," a US marines captain shouted. More than 10,000 Pashtun men were now on their knees praying as a line of khaki pushed between them.

An egg flew. Then another. "One more, sir, and the guy who did it is going down," a young sergeant mumbled, as the disturbed crowd rose to its feet. Bearded men with Kalashnikovs emerged from behind a stone wall and edged towards us, cutting off our path. The line of khaki began to panic, and jostled the children. "Back away, back away now," shouted the sergeant. Suddenly an armoured personnel carrier roared to meet us. "Jump up, people," the captain shouted, and the convoy sped back to Camp Salerno.

And perhaps this event above all others - of a nervous phalanx of US marines forcing its way across a prayer ground on one of the holiest, most joyous days in the Islamic calendar, an itching trigger away from a Somalian-style dogfight of their own making - is the one that encapsulates everything that has gone wrong with the global war against terror. The US army came to Afghanistan as liberators and now are feared as governors, judges and jailers. How many US marines know what James Madison, an architect of the US constitution, wrote in 1788? Reflecting on the War of Independence in which Americans were arbitrarily arrested and detained without trial by British forces, Madison concluded that the "accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny"
clapton
Statue, U might want to summarize this one in order to catch lazy eyes like mine... hehehheeeeee
no retreat, no surrender
Justice Redacted Memo on Detainees
FBI Criticism Of Interrogations Was Deleted
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 22, 2005; Page A03


U.S. law enforcement agents working at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, concluded that controversial interrogation practices used there by the Defense Department produced intelligence information that was "suspect at best," an FBI agent told a superior in a memo in May last year.

But the Justice Department, which reviewed the memo for national security secrets before releasing it to a civil liberties group in December, redacted the FBI agent's conclusion.

The department, acting after the Defense Department expressed its own views on which portions of the letter should be redacted, also blacked out a separate assertion in the memo that military interrogation practices could undermine future military trials for terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay.

It also withheld a statement by the memo's author that Justice Department criminal division officials were so concerned about the military interrogation practices that they took their complaints to the office of the Pentagon's chief attorney, William J. Haynes II, whom President Bush has nominated to become a federal appellate judge.

The revelations in the memo, released yesterday by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) , generally amplify previously disclosed FBI concerns that military interrogators at the island prison were using coercive interrogation methods that could compromise any evidence of terrorist activities they obtained.

FBI agents and officials had complained about the shackling of detainees to the floor for periods exceeding 24 hours, without food and water; the draping of a detainee in an Israeli flag; and the use of growling dogs to scare detainees.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who as White House counsel participated in detailed discussions about the legality of aggressive military interrogation techniques, has twice publicly expressed skepticism about the reliability of these FBI accounts.

But the May 10, 2004, memo, written by an official whose name has not been disclosed, contains a highly detailed account of the efforts that FBI agents made to convince the Defense Department that its interrogation practices were wrongheaded.

They met, for example, with Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, who took over the prison in October 2002, and another Army general to "explain our position (Law Enforcement techniques) vs. DOD," the author wrote in a previously disclosed portion of the memo. "Both agreed the Bureau has their way of doing business and DOD has their marching orders from" Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"Although the two techniques differed drastically, both Generals believed they had a job to accomplish," the author wrote in the memo, which was initially released to the American Civil Liberties Union at the insistence of a federal judge.

Levin, who had pushed the Justice Department to release a version of the memo that included the new disclosures, yesterday sharply criticized the department's initial handling of it. "As I suspected, the previously withheld information had nothing to do with protecting intelligence sources and methods, and everything to do with protecting the DOD from embarrassment," Levin said.

Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra declined to address that assertion. But he said "DOD did review this" memo before its initial release last year. He said he could not comment on whether the Defense Department had requested the redactions or explain why he could not comment.

Spokesman Bryan Whitman said it is Pentagon policy to request redactions "based solely on national security and privacy." He also noted that the department has previously acknowledged modifying some interrogation tactics at Guantanamo Bay in January 2003 after protests were made inside the government.

Jeffrey Fogel, legal director for the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, an advocacy group that helped organize lawyers for 150 military detainees, said the newly disclosed passages could be used to persuade judges to "look behind" any military assertions during court trials that the suspects had confessed during questioning.

"An awful lot of cases have been built on information obtained through these kind of coercive interrogation techniques," Fogel said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Mar21.html
Snuffysmith
Reports of more interrogation tapes, restored sections of FBI memo, again raise questions about tactics.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0322/dailyUpdate.html
no retreat, no surrender
Transfer of Guantanamo Detainees on Hold
Federal Judge Considers Authority of Courts, Need to Notify Lawyers
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 23, 2005; Page A02


A federal judge expressed skepticism yesterday about the legality of possible Bush administration plans to transfer dozens of men from the U.S. military prison in Cuba to the custody of foreign countries, saying that would remove detainees from the reach of U.S. courts and eliminate their legal claims for freedom.

U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. extended for 10 days a temporary restraining order that bars the government from transferring detainees from the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He said he needs that time to decide whether the court has power over such transfer decisions and can order the government to provide detainees' lawyers with advance notice of a proposed transfer to a foreign government.

Kennedy's decision would mark the first time that a judge has ruled on whether U.S. courts can oversee the Bush administration's decisions about where to move Guantanamo Bay detainees. About 540 detainees remain at the prison, accused by the government of having ties to terrorist groups or the Taliban.

The United States has transferred 65 detainees to the control of other nations. But such transfers have become increasingly controversial as a growing number of Guantanamo Bay detainees say that U.S. interrogators have threatened them with torture and transfer to a foreign prison if they did not cooperate.

Families and lawyers of some detainees in foreign prisons contend that U.S. intelligence agencies have ordered or coordinated these imprisonments with foreign governments because the countries can use aggressive interrogation techniques prohibited in the United States.

The possibility of mass transfers comes at an important time in the legal battle over Guantanamo Bay detainees. A federal appeals court is weighing two conflicting decisions on whether the military violated detainees' rights and illegally concluded that they were "enemy combatants" without providing them adequate opportunity to rebut the charges.

"It is true beyond a reasonable doubt that [after a transfer], the court will not have jurisdiction to provide the relief sought by petitioners," Kennedy said.

Lawyers for some Guantanamo Bay detainees won the initial restraining order from another federal judge in the Washington federal court on March 12, after the New York Times reported March 11 that the Pentagon had plans to transfer as many as 90 detainees to foreign custody. Since then, the Department of Justice has said the government has no immediate plans to move a large number of detainees but has refused to agree to give the lawyers advance notice to challenge transfers.

At yesterday's hearing, detainees' lawyers said they need to know in advance where their clients are scheduled to be sent so they can decide whether to object in court. "The government can't transfer people to defeat a case on appeal," lawyer David Remes said.

But Justice Department attorney Joseph Hunt said the court cannot second-guess President Bush's decision making about whom the military no longer wants to hold.

"The court would in essence be ordering people to continue to be detained when the government says it no longer has an interest in detaining them," Hunt said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Mar22.html
Snuffysmith
http://www.masnet.org/news.asp?id=2292

Declassified FBI Reports Question Guantanamo Interrogation Techniques
no retreat, no surrender
March 24, 2005
Guantánamo Detainees Make Their Case
By NEIL A. LEWIS

GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba, March 23 - A 30-year-old Sudanese prisoner listened with barely concealed anger on Tuesday and slouched deeper into his seat as an Air Force officer told a military panel why the man remained a threat to the United States and should not be released from the prison camp here.

The slight and scraggly bearded Sudanese, hands cuffed and feet shackled to the floor, is among more than 500 prisoners from the fighting in Afghanistan who remain here and whose cases are being reviewed under the latest military legal proceeding intended to reduce Guantánamo's prison population and meet the terms of a Supreme Court decision allowing them to challenge their detention.

The prisoner never heard some of the evidence against him because it was deemed classified and was given to the court in secret. He disputed some of the charges, such as that he had participated in a prison riot in Afghanistan, and argued that it was legal for him to have traveled there.

Other prisoners have been more recalcitrant; most of those called for hearings have refused to attend.

The new proceedings, known as administrative review boards, began in earnest this year. They consist of panels of three military officers conducting hearings at which detainees, none of whom are allowed to have lawyers present, can tell their stories and dispute accusations that they were part of the Taliban or allied with Al Qaeda. To be released, they must persuade the board that no matter their history, they are not a threat to the United States or its allies.

The Sudanese prisoner, whose name cannot be disclosed under ground rules set by the military, heard himself described as someone who eagerly joined the Taliban and fought on the northern front during the war in Afghanistan. An Air Force officer who acted as a kind of prosecutor also asserted that the man had been a "special friend" of a Taliban commander who worked under a senior Qaeda field officer. He had weapons training, the Air Force officer continued, and participated in a prison riot at Mazar-i-Sharif.

Like all the other military personnel in the hearing room, fashioned under a low ceiling in a double-wide trailer, the officer had his name tag covered with masking tape.

The Sudanese prisoner was at first sullen and responded tersely through his translator to questions about whether he understood the purpose of the proceeding. But when his turn came to rebut the accusations, he grew angry at the American military officers, at times lecturing the panel.

No, he said, he had never heard of the man described as his special friend. He was at Mazar-i-Sharif, he said, but could not have participated in the riot by captives at the ancient fortress there in 2002, as the Taliban collapsed, because he was handcuffed the entire time.

As to the accusation that he had weapons training, he said: "What is wrong with that? Is it forbidden by the United States for anyone in the world to train with a rifle?"

Asked whether he was a threat to the United States, he replied: "Never. I want to get married and live in my house."

All the detainees whose cases are being heard by these administrative review boards have already been through a similar process in which different military panels determined that they had been properly imprisoned at Guantánamo as unlawful enemy combatants. During that set of hearings, 33 out of 558 detainees were deemed to have been improperly labeled enemy combatants. And about 5 of those 33 have been released, military officials said, because of difficulties in making arrangements to have them transferred to their home countries.

The new proceedings "are just like a parole board" for those held after the earlier round of hearings, said Capt. Eric Kaniut of the Navy, the chief administrator of both sets of hearings. "The bottom line we look at is whether they are a threat to the U.S."

So far, 64 detainees have had hearings scheduled before administrative review boards, and 39 have declined to attend. Captain Kaniut said one reason was that many were skeptical about the fairness of the proceedings. Another reason, he said, may be that the cases against them are so strong that a hearing would be futile.

That is believed to be the reason in the case of a 28-year-old Saudi who was described as proud to be thought of as a terrorist. He told one guard that he would cut his throat and struck others, according to a report read by an Army officer. He did not attend his hearing, and his case was disposed in 15 minutes.

The new set of hearings is supposed to be completed for all detainees by the end of the year, said Navy Secretary Gordon R. England, who makes the final decision on each case after receiving a recommendation from the military panel.

The hearings are similar but not identical to the earlier process used to determine whether the detainees were properly classified as unlawful enemy combatants. One important similarity is that most of the evidence used to determine a detainee's fate comes from classified reports, and the detainees are not permitted to see it. After the Sudanese prisoner was led back to his cell, for example, the military panel reconvened to hear the classified evidence supporting the charges against him.

During the earlier hearings, detainees frequently questioned the sources of the charges that they denied, only to be told they were not permitted to know them. Civil liberties and bar groups strongly criticized those hearings as lacking in basic aspects of due process, notably the ability to confront one's accuser.

When the military chose the underused Guantánamo naval base to house prisoners, mostly from the Afghan war, the Bush administration thought that the detainees would be beyond the reach of United States and international law and could be held indefinitely, without challenge.

By declaring the prisoners unlawful combatants who did not fight in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, the administration denied them the protections provided prisoners of war under the international treaty. Officials said that because Guantánamo was part of Cuba, United States law did not extend to the prisoners there.

Last June, however, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Bush administration, ruling that the Guantánamo prisoners could challenge their detentions in federal courts.

Since then, more than 100 of the prisoners have been represented by American lawyers who have filed habeas corpus petitions before federal judges, asking the courts to order the government to justify the continued detentions. The government has argued that its obligations to justify the detentions have been satisfied by the two sets of administrative hearings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/national...artner=homepage
no retreat, no surrender
March 25, 2005
Army Probe Finds Abuse at Base Near Mosul
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 10:57 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- An Army investigation found systematic abuse and possible torture of Iraqi prisoners at a base near Mosul just as top military officials became aware of abuse allegations at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, documents released Friday showed.

Records previously released by the Army have detailed abuses at Abu Ghraib and other sites in Iraq as well as at sites in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The documents released Friday were the first to reveal abuses at the jail in Mosul and are among the few to allege torture directly.

An officer found that detainees ``were being systematically and intentionally mistreated'' at the holding facility near Mosul in December 2003. The 311th Military Intelligence Battalion of the Army's 101st Airborne Division ran the lockup.

``There is evidence that suggests the 311th MI personnel and/or translators engaged in physical torture of the detainees,'' a memo from the investigator said. The January 2004 report said the prisoners' rights under the Geneva Conventions were violated.

Top military officials first became aware of the Abu Ghraib abuses in January 2004, when pictures such as those showing soldiers piling naked prisoners in a pyramid were turned over to investigators. The resulting scandal after the pictures became public tarnished the military's image in Arab countries and worldwide and sparked investigations of detainee abuses.

The records about the Mosul jail were part of more than 1,200 pages of documents referring to allegations of prisoner abuse. The Army released the records to reporters and to the American Civil Liberties Union, which had filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

``They show the torture and abuse of detainees was routine and such treatment was considered an acceptable practice by U.S. forces,'' ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said.

Guards at the detention facility near Mosul came from at least three infantry units of the 101st Airborne, including an air-defense artillery unit. The investigating officer, whose name was blacked out of the documents, said the troops were poorly trained and encouraged to abuse prisoners.

According to the report, the abuse included:

-- Forcing detainees to perform exercises such as deep knee bends for hours on end, to the point of exhaustion.

-- Blowing cigarette smoke into the sandbags the prisoners were forced to wear as hoods.

-- Throwing cold water on the prisoners in a room that was between 40 degrees and 50 degrees.

-- Blasting the detainees with heavy-metal music, yelling at them and banging on doors and ammunition cans.

No one was punished for the abuses, however, because the investigating officer said there was not enough proof against any individual. The report did not say what actions might have amounted to torture or which individuals might have committed them.

The investigator ruled that troops were responsible for the broken jaw of a 20-year-old detainee who had been rounded up with his father, a suspected member of the Fedayeen Saddam guerrilla group.

The records released Friday also contained details of several other abuse investigations. In one case, soldiers admitted they had rounded up suspected looters near Baghdad in the summer of 2003, then stripped them naked and told them to walk home.

The staff sergeant in charge of that unit said he knew what he did was wrong but that he wanted to humiliate the looters so much they would never return. The sergeant said he was afraid another unit at their base had shot and killed a looter without being punished and would shoot others.

``I didn't want to kill him,'' the sergeant wrote of one looter, ``so I decided to teach him a lesson.''

The sergeant was given an ``other than honorable'' discharge and two other soldiers involved in the stripping incident were given letters of reprimand, said Army spokesman Col. Jeremy Martin.

``The command took aggressive action to hold individuals accountable,'' Martin said.

In another incident, soldiers from a Howitzer battery beat three detainees in September 2003. Martin said all four received nonjudicial punishment, which can include letters of reprimand, fines or reductions in rank.

The soldiers said they were angered by what the detainees had done. One prisoner had shot at U.S. soldiers while hiding behind a group of children, they claimed, while another was accused of forging passports for possible terrorists.

``I think any American and soldier would have acted as I did,'' a soldier wrote in a statement.

On the Net:

ACLU: http://www.aclu.org

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/internatio...Abuse-Iraq.html
no retreat, no surrender
March 25, 2005
U.S. Guards Find Tunnel in Iraq Prison
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 11:06 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. military guards discovered a 600-foot tunnel -- dug with makeshift tools -- leading out of the main prison facility for detainees in Iraq before anyone had the opportunity to escape, officials said Friday.

The tunnel at Camp Bucca was 12 to 15 feet deep and as wide as 3 feet and had reached beyond the compound fence, said Army Maj. Flora Lee, a spokeswoman at the Army's Combined Press Information Center in Iraq said by telephone. She did not know when guards discovered the tunnel.

Camp Bucca holds 6,049 detainees, nearly two-thirds of all those in Iraq, Lee said. Situated near the southern city of Umm Qasr, it is one of three detainee facilities in Iraq.

A bucket cut from a water container and a shovel made of tent material were used to dig the tunnel, Lee said. The opening was under a floorboard of the compound and was concealed with dirt.

Authorities in charge of the compound realized a tunnel was under way after they found dirt in latrines and other places, Lee said. It may have been the most extensive effort aimed at a mass escape, she said.

``I'm not aware of any other instances where this has happened,'' Lee said. ``There have been a few other attempts at digging a tunnel but nothing of this size.''

U.S. guards fired on prisoners during a riot at Camp Bucca on Jan. 31, killing four detainees and injuring six others.

The guard detachment at Camp Bucca includes military police of the 105th Military Police Battalion and Air Force security forces personnel with the 586th Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron, she said.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/internatio...raq-Tunnel.html
Snuffysmith
Pentagon Will Not Try 17 G.I.'s Implicated in Prisoners'
Deaths
By DOUGLAS JEHL
Investigators had recommended that all 17 soldiers be
charged in the deaths of three prisoners in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/26/po