It is interesting enough but what those this thread here in the envionmental thread???

C-span read an article today that reports the UK is considering secret trials for the suspected terrorists that were caught.

Sounds like Bush-like tactics.

Ooops!

Once again, we have to look to Canadian newspapers to find news about what's going on in our own country. They are covering it because a Canadian citizen involved.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...d=1123626307512

Good question Rox!

Maher Arar Fights to Keep Torture Suit Against U.S. Government Alive
Wednesday, August 10th, 2005

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/10/1346251
Canadian torture victim Maher Arar is the first person to mount a civil suit challenging the U.S. government policy of extraordinary rendition. Now his attorneys are fighting the Justice Department's motion to dismiss the case. We speak with David Cole, the lead lawyer for Maher Arar. [includes rush transcript]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Syrian-born Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, made their first public appearance in a Brooklyn Federal Court yesterday in Arar's closely watched civil lawsuit against several U.S. officials. Among them: former Attorney General John Ashcroft and former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. In his lawsuit, Arar accuses the U.S. government of violating the Torture Victim Protection Act and his Fifth Amendment right to due process. His attorneys appeared in court yesterday to argue against the Justice Department's motion to dismiss Arar's case.
In October 2002, Arar was detained at JFK airport by US officials while on a stopover in New York. He was then jailed and secretly deported to Syria. He was held for almost a year without charge in an underground cell not much larger than a grave, where he was tortured. The Center for Constitutional Rights launched Arar's lawsuit last January alleging that Ashcroft, Ridge and other officials in the Bush administration knew Arar would be tortured when he was deported. Arar alleges he was a victim of the US government's "extraordinary rendition" policy of sending people to countries that routinely use torture, instead of holding them in the US where they have certain rights under the constitution.

The US government is attempting to have Arar's lawsuit dismissed. Invoking the rarely used "state secrets privilege" the Justice Department claims that any release of information on Arar could jeopardize "intelligence, foreign policy and national security interests of the United States." Last year, Time Magazine in Canada named him the country's newsmaker of the year.


David Cole, attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. He is the lead lawyer in for Maher Arar.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: We're joined on the phone now by the lead lawyer on the case, David Cole, of the Center for Constitutional Rights. David Cole is a professor at Georgetown Law School and attorney with CCR. Welcome to Democracy Now!

DAVID COLE: Thanks for having me, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, can you talk about why you were in the Brooklyn court yesterday and the significance of this hearing?

DAVID COLE: Well, this was, as you suggested, the first hearing on the defendant's attempts to try to get the case thrown out altogether. It was on a motion to dismiss, so, essentially, the government is arguing even assuming that everything that we alleged is true, namely that the government conspired with Syria to have him arbitrarily detained for about a year without charge and conspired to have him tortured and provided the Syrians with a dossier of questions that they wanted the Syrians to ask him and retrieve the information back from the Syrians, even if all that is true, the government is arguing, there is no remedy. The United States is free to do this without any judicial remedy whatsoever for Mr. Arar. So that was really the argument in its sort of baldest form that the government was making yesterday.

AMY GOODMAN: Your response?

DAVID COLE: Well, I -- what I said in court is that that position, the notion that government officials can engage in that kind of action without any legal recourse, is flatly inconsistent with the relevant statutes, it’s inconsistent with the case law, but most importantly, inconsistent with our nation's commitment to the rule of law, one that some members of this administration don't seem to have a great commitment to, but our history and our tradition and our laws are built upon.

AMY GOODMAN: Where does the case go from here? What comes out of yesterday's hearing?

DAVID COLE: Well, we have to wait for the judge to issue his decision, and you know, my sense is that he's not likely to throw out the whole case, that some form of discovery will go forward, and then once that discovery goes forward, then we are going to have to confront this additional argument that the government has made, which is that even if there's a theoretical basis for getting some sort of a relief, damages or the like, from -- as a result of the conduct here, their claim is that the -- all of the evidence that they have concerning their treatment of him, or virtually all of it, is covered by something called the State Secrets Privilege and can’t be disclosed. And on that argument, they're claiming that because their communications with Syria and their communications with Canada, because he was a Canadian, because those are classified and privileged and can’t be disclosed, the entire case should be dismissed. And if they win on that argument, then no rendition will ever be subject to any sort of legal review, because every time the government takes a person from one country to another for purposes of interrogation or the like, it is going to require some sorts of negotiations between the United States and those countries, and if, in every such case, the government comes in and says, ‘Well, those communications are secret, and therefore, we can’t -- the case can’t go forward,’ then it will have a completely free hand. It will have created a law-free zone with respect to this practice of extraordinary renditions.

AMY GOODMAN: David Cole, the government argues that Maher Arar had access to due process and that he failed to appeal his deportation.

DAVID COLE: Yeah, that's a remarkable argument for the government to be making, because if you see what the government did to him, I mean, they basically made it impossible for him to pursue any sort of legal appeal. He was initially picked up on September 26th, as he was changing planes at JFK. He was held incommunicado for five days, not even allowed to make a phone call outside, interrogated at length. He was finally given the right to make a phone call on October 1. His family found him a lawyer who was able to come see him on Saturday, October 5. On Sunday, October 6, the government interrogates Maher for a lengthy period of time, lies to him and tells him his lawyer doesn't want to be at the interrogation, notifies the lawyer about the interrogation by leaving a voicemail on her office phone on Sunday evening. When she comes in on Monday morning and retrieves the message, she calls the I.N.S., and they lie to her repeatedly about where Maher is, saying that he's being transferred from a New York facility to a New Jersey facility. Meanwhile, they are putting him on a plane and sending him to Syria. And only when he is on the plane that night on his way to Syria, do they hand him the final removal orders saying ‘You're deported from the United States.’ And then he sits in a Syrian cell for a year, so the notion that somehow he could have had any access to the courts is a complete fiction.

AMY GOODMAN: The government also says he is al Qaeda.

DAVID COLE: The government does say is he al Qaeda, but one of the things that's interesting, and that was the ground upon which they excluded him. They did not offer any evidence to support that claim. And the Syrians, after torturing him and interrogating him and holding him for a year, released him, saying that they found no evidence whatsoever to charge him with anything. He is living in Canada, a free man. Canada has said, ‘We have no basis to charge him with anything.’ And, you know, if the United States actually believed that he was a member of al Qaeda, he wouldn't be in Syria or in Canada, he would be at Guantanamo, and he is not. So, I think that, you know, yes, they have made that claim, but they certainly have not backed it up in their own actions, and the actions of two other governments contradict it.

AMY GOODMAN: We are talking to David Cole, who represents Maher Arar, was in a Brooklyn federal court on Tuesday. We want to go to just a clip of Maher Arar, who we have interviewed on Democracy Now!, describing what happened to him when he was held in Syria.

MAHER ARAR: Really, I mean, when I arrived there, I just couldn't believe it. I thought first it was a dream. I was crying all the time. I was disoriented. I wished I had something in my hand to kill myself, because I knew I was going to be tortured, and this was my preoccupation. That's all I was thinking about when I was on the plane. And I arrived there. I was crying all time. So, one of them started questioning me, and the others were taking notes. And the first day it was mainly routine questions, between 8 to 12.

And the second day, that's when the beatings started, because, you know, on the first day they did not find anything strange about what I told them, and they started beating me with a cable, electrical threaded cable, and they would beat me for three, four times. They would stop again, and they would ask questions again, and they always kept telling me, ‘You are a liar,’ and things like that. So, the beating continued for the first two weeks. The most -- the most intensive -- the intensive beating was really the first week, and then after that it was mostly slapping, punching on the face and kicking.

So, on the third day when they didn't find anything, so, of course, they -- in my view, they just wanted to please the Americans, and they had to find something on me. So, because I was accused of being an al Qaeda member, which is nowadays synonymous with Afghanistan, they told me, ‘You've been to a training camp in Afghanistan.’ And I said, “No.” And they started beating me. And I said -- well, I had no choice. I just wanted the beating to stop. I said, “Of course, I've been to Afghanistan.” I was ready to confess to anything just to stop the torture.

AMY GOODMAN: That is Maher Arar, speaking on Democracy Now! If you want to hear the whole interview, you can go to our website at DemocracyNow.org. As we wrap up with David Cole, his attorney. The significance of this case, David Cole, overall?

DAVID COLE: Well, I think the significance is that it is the first challenge, really, legal challenge, to this practice of extraordinary renditions, in which, as one government official said, ‘We don't kick the (expletive) out of them, we send them to other countries so they can kick the (expletive) out of them.’ And what we're saying in this lawsuit is that that's unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment. It is -- you can’t beat people, nor can you send people to other countries to be beaten, and it's something that warrants judicial intervention and requires judicial intervention, because, unfortunately, members of the current administration have ignored one of the most basic principles of human rights.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much for joining us, David Cole at Center for Constitutional Rights. His latest book is called Enemy Aliens.


www.democracynow.org

WTF? Where did the US get the right to send a Canadian citizen to Syria? That sounds like kidnapping to me! Where do they get off saying there was clear and convincing evidence he was a member of al qaeda (something the "Patriot Act" protects them from having to give any factual evidence on) after he was tortured and released?

I wonder if Blackman is going to use the Meese defense.

I wonder if Jannine Pirro --- Hillary's opponent is behind this --- but this is federal court so she'd have no involvement...

But the press...this is a huge case!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm wondering why the Canadian government isn't screaming about this, it seems to me they're failing in a basic duty by not demanding a policy change and not making their citizens aware of the dangers they might be exposed to if they visit our country.

BINGO -- WE HAVE A WINNER ---

The AP had it out on the wire -- which means why haven;t other papers picked it up?

That liberal media..

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/new...egion-apnewyork


Justice Department seeks dismissal of case brought by Canadian citizen deported to Syria

By PAT MILTON
Associated Press Writer

August 9, 2005, 8:14 PM EDT

NEW YORK -- The Justice Department argued Tuesday that national security could be jeopardized by a lawsuit claiming the United States deported a Canadian man to be tortured in Syria.

Justice Department attorney Mary Mason said at a federal court hearing that the suit by software engineer Maher Arar could force the government to reveal classified information that linked Arar to al-Qaida and justified sending him to Syria instead of Canada.

Arar, 35, sued former Attorney General John Ashcroft and others in January 2004, saying his rights under the U.S. Constitution were violated after he was deported following a stopover at John F. Kennedy International Airport in October 2002.

The case is believed to be the first challenging the government's policy of extraordinary rendition, in which terror suspects are transferred to third countries without court approval.

Arar, who was not present at the proceeding, holds dual Syrian-Canadian citizenship and was traveling on a Canadian passport when he was detained in New York.

David Cole, the lead attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the lawsuit on Arar's behalf, said that Arar was deprived of food, sleep and lied to by authorities while in U.S. detention. Cole said Arar expressed grave concerns to federal officials about being sent to Syria, saying he would be tortured there.

Arar maintains that once imprisoned in Damascus, he was tortured into making false confessions of terrorist activity. He was held for 10 1/2 months before being released without charges. He now lives in Canada with his wife and two children.

Arar, who is seeking undisclosed damages, wants a court to declare the U.S. government responsible for his detention "so that this cannot happen again to anyone else," said Barbara Olshanky, an attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Seeking to dismiss the case Tuesday, Justice Department attorneys argued that Arar was deported because the U.S. had classified evidence linking him to al-Qaida and the discretion to decide where he would be sent.

The government has submitted the classified evidence to U.S. District Judge David Trager, who is overseeing the lawsuit.

Mason contended that Arar's legal status meant he was not necessarily protected by all of the rights in the U.S. Constitution.

She said Arar, who denies al-Qaida affiliations, secured a lawyer through a call to his mother-in-law but did not take legal steps to challenge his deportation during the 12 days he was detained in New York or while he was imprisoned in Syria.

Cole said Tuesday that Arar's lawyer at the time of his initial detention was told his client was in New Jersey when in fact Arar was en route to Jordan and Syria.

The U.S. Justice Department has said that Syria promised Arar would be treated humanely and that shipping him there was "in the best interest of the security of the United States." Syria has denied Arar was tortured.

Trager reserved decision Tuesday and did not say when he expected to make a ruling in the case.


Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.

Yep.

Well, at least they are reporting on it in the Canadian press, which is better than our dear corporate-owned MSM is doing for us.

We have these Dem and Rep books going back and forth --- when are we going to get a book that just examines the press -- and how they have faded from a reputable news conveyance and examiner at least on political issues to nothing more than being a parrot...

Would make for some interesting reading and the beginning of everything that is necessary to take back the press from the White House or at least expose the difference in quality of reporting from print vs. TV vs. cable media

Because the media is more interested in being the publicists and bring fame to the likes of the Runaway Bride, Heidi Fleiss, and the 2 old "Michael Jackson" jury members, Eleanor Cook and Ray Hultman! After all the media seems to be employing those similar personalities and traits these days - gossipers sharing dirt for fame.

subscriptions drive it and I guess the fate of the world or the person is not saleable enough...

where I live I am the only person of all my neighbors who gets a newspaper -- tells you something...they all get their news if from anywhere from FUX news -- or online at CGCS....

And can you believe that these are the same sort of people who would have us believe we are anti-religion and against the Bible? Not is it any wonder so many don't have respect for what those moral preachers try to preach? They bark at the wrong tree and it has to take simpletons, brain-washed robots (like the Jim Jones and Davidian nuts), and Stepford towns to trust them.

Yes -- because we read other books/publications in addition to the the Bible we are the spawn of Satan.

The height of the hypocrisy is taking Bush's words for anything.

He doesn't go to church by his own admission.

During the lead-up to war in Iraq he ignored requests from the leader of his supposed church for a meeting.

His policies are anti-Christian because they keep the wealth in the hands of the wealthy.

He is destroying the environment.

He wants us to put our social security in the speculative stock market.

He wants government to take the place of the free will God gave us individually to exercise.

He ignores the poor who the Bible urges we should help 3,000 times in its pages...

I can't believe there is any other message more clear than this in the Bible.

3,000 times -- other than love and respect your God --- I can not imagine any other more important command.

Opening statements begin in Lynndie England court-martial USA Today
A former Abu Ghraib prison guard testified Thursday that Lynndie England was impressionable and under the sway of her soldier boyfriend, who prosecutors have described as the ringleader of detainee abuse.
Defense: Lynndie England love-struck CNN
Reservist's trial over Abu Ghraib abuse starts Boston Globe
Australian - The Age (subscription) - International Herald Tribune - Denton Record Chronicle (subscription) - all 702 related »

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050924/ts_nm/...abuse_rights_dc


U.S. Army soldiers make abuse claims in Iraq, Afghanistan By Will Dunham
2 hours, 51 minutes ago



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Army captain and two sergeants recounted in a Human Rights Watch report on Friday how Iraqi inmates near Falluja were beaten with a baseball bat, stacked clothed in pyramids, deprived of food and water and put in painful positions until they fainted.

The abuse often occurred under orders or with the consent of superior officers, said the captain, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He also described U.S. forces abusing prisoners in Afghanistan, including sleep deprivation.

The captain said he sought for 17 months to raise concerns about detainee abuse through his military chain of command and to receive clearer guidance on treatment of detainees. He said superiors told him to look the other way and that his efforts could damage his career.

The three, not identified by name in the report or by the Army, said soldiers in the 82nd Airborne Division at a forward operating base near Falluja carried out the prisoner abuse.

U.S. Army spokesman Paul Boyce said Army criminal investigators had spoken to the captain, whom he described as an unidentified officer, and opened a probe into the allegations he made "that he may have witnessed or heard about acts of detainee abuse during his military service in Iraq and Afghanistan."

This account of incidents that took place at the base from summer 2003 to spring 2004 was similar to abuse occurring at about the same time at Abu Ghraib jail on the outskirts of Baghdad.

"We would give them blows to the head, chest, legs, and stomach, pull them down, kick dirt on them. This happened every day," said one sergeant in a statement in the report.

"Leadership failed to provide clear guidance so we just developed it. ... We heard rumors of (prisoners) dying so we were careful. We kept it to broken arms and legs..."

"In retrospect what we did was wrong, but at the time we did what we had to do. Everything we did was accepted, everyone turned their heads," the sergeant said.

UNDER ORDERS

"I witnessed violations of the Geneva Conventions that I knew were violations of the Geneva Conventions when they happened but I was under the impression that that was U.S. policy at the time," the captain said in the report.

Human Rights Watch identified the captain as a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, who served in the 82nd Airborne Division in Afghanistan from August 2002 to February 2003 and in Iraq from September 2003 to March 2004. He commanded a rifle company in Falluja and is now at Special Forces school at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

"He is the epitome of an honorable officer trying to do the right thing," said Human Rights Watch's Tom Malinowski.

Asked whether the captain would be punished by the Army for going public, Boyce said, "Lord, no." But Boyce said he could face potential punishment "if he were implicated in acts of detainee abuse that he committed." Boyce said the Army did not know the identities of the sergeants.

"This is another predictable report by an organization trying to advance an agenda through the use of distortions and errors in fact. It's a shame they refuse to convey how seriously the military has investigated all credible allegations of detainee abuse and how we've looked at all aspects of detention operations under a microscope," said Lt. Col. John Skinner, a Pentagon spokesman on detainee issues.

The accounts given in the report, Human Rights Watch said, contradicted claims by the Bush administration that detainee abuse by U.S. forces was not systemic or a matter of policy.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1108972,00.html

Web Exclusive | Nation
Pattern of Abuse

A decorated Army officer reveals new allegations of detainee mistreatment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Did the military ignore his charges?

By ADAM ZAGORIN
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR
Posted Friday, Sep. 23, 2005

The U.S. Army has launched a criminal investigation into new allegations of serious prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan made by a decorated former Captain in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, an Army spokesman has confirmed to TIME. The claims of the Captain, who has not been named, are in part corroborated by statements of two sergeants who served with him in the 82nd Airborne; the allegations form the basis of a report from Human Rights Watch obtained by TIME and due to be released in the next few days (Since this story first went online, the organization has decided to put out its report; it can be found here). Senate sources tell TIME that the Captain has also reported his charges to three senior Republican senators: Majority Leader Bill Frist, Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner and John McCain, a former torture victim in Vietnam. A Senate Republican staffer familiar with both the Captain and his allegations told TIME he appeared "extremely credible."

The new allegations center around systematic abuse of Iraqi detainees by men of the 82nd Airborne at Camp Mercury, a forward operating base located near Fallujah, the scene of a major uprising against the U.S. occupation in April 2004, according to sources familiar with the report and accounts given by the Captain, who is in his mid-20s, to Senate staff. Much of the abuse allegedly occurred in 2003 and 2004, before and during the period the Army was conducting an internal investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, but prior to when the abuses at Abu Ghraib became public. Other alleged abuses described in the Human Rights report occurred at Camp Tiger, near Iraq's border with Syria, and previously in Afghanistan. In addition, the report details what the Captain says was his unsuccessful effort over 17 months to get the attention of military superiors. Ultimately he approached the Republican senators.

The Human Rights Watch report—as well as accounts given to Senate staff—describe officers as aware of the abuse but routinely ignoring or covering it up, amid chronic confusion over U.S. military detention policies and whether or not the Geneva Convention applied. The Captain is quoted in the report describing how military intelligence personnel at Camp Mercury directed enlisted men to conduct daily beatings of prisoners prior to questioning; to subject detainees to strenuous forced exercises to the point of unconsciousness; and to expose them to extremes of heat and cold—all methods designed to produce greater cooperation with interrogators. Non-uniformed personnel—apparently working for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to the soldiers—also interrogated prisoners. The interrogators were out of view but not out of earshot of the soldiers, who overheard what they came to believe was abuse.

Specific instances of abuse described in the Human Rights Watch report include severe beatings, including one incident when a soldier allegedly broke a detainee's leg with a metal bat. Others include prisoners being stacked in human pyramids (unlike the human pyramids at Abu Ghraib, the prisoners at Camp Mercury were clothed); soldiers administering blows to the face, chest and extremities of prisoners; and detainees having their faces and eyes exposed to burning chemicals, being forced into stress positions for long periods leading to unconsciousness and having their water and food withheld.

Prisoners were designated as PUCs (pronounced "pucks")—or "persons under control." A regular pastime at Camp Mercury, the report says, involved off-duty soldiers gathering at PUC tents, where prisoners were held, and working off their frustrations in activities known as "F____a PUC" (beating the prisoner) and "Smoke a PUC" (forced physical exertion, sometimes to the point of collapse). Broken limbs and similar painful injuries would be treated with analgesics, the soldiers claim, as medical staff would fill out paperwork stating the injuries occurred during capture. Support for some of the allegations of abuse come from a sergeant of the 82nd Airborne who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Human Rights Watch quotes him as saying that, "To 'F____ a PUC' means to beat him up. We would give them blows to the head, chest, legs, and stomach, pull them down, kick dirt on them. This happened every day. To 'smoke' someone is to put them in stress positions until they get muscle fatigue and pass out. That happened every day. Some days we would just get bored so we would have everyone sit in a corner and then make them get in a pyramid. This was before Abu Ghraib but just like it. We did that for amusement.

"On their day off people would show up all the time," the sergeant continues in the HRW report. "Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the PUC tent. In a way it was sport. The cooks were all U.S. soldiers. One day a sergeant shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend over and broke the guy's leg with a mini Louisville Slugger that was a metal bat. He was the cook."

The sergeant says that military intelligence officers would tell soldiers that the detainees "were bad" and had been involved in killing or trying to kill Americans, implying that they deserved whatever punishment they got. "I would be told, 'These guys were IED [improvised explosive device] trigger men last week.' So we would f___ them up. F___ them up bad ... At the same time we should be held to a higher standard. I know that now. It was wrong. There are a set of standards. But you gotta understand, this was the norm. Everyone would just sweep it under the rug ... We should never have been allowed to watch guys we had fought."

The Captain making the allegations, say those who have been in contact with him, gave lengthy statements to Human Rights Watch only after his attempts to report what he had seen and heard to his own chain of command, were met, he claims, with repeated brush-offs. He is currently in special forces training at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The two non-commissioned officers served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and likewise approached the watchdog group, but have not conferred with Senate staff. "The captain is a very sincere officer, and troubled by what he says he has seen," says another senior aide to a Republican senator. "Only an investigation can determine how accurate his account will prove to be."

I think this is a pretty important story...

And people wonder why the insurgency is growing. And why the majority of those joining are Iraqis.

If I were a Muslim I would hate every 'Christian' on the planet.

Key allegations:

New Accounts of Torture by U.S. Troops

Soldiers Say Failures by Command Led to Abuse

(New York, September 24, 2005) -- U.S. Army troops subjected Iraqi detainees to severe beatings and other torture at a base in central Iraq from 2003 through 2004, often under orders or with the approval of superior officers, according to accounts from soldiers
released by Human Rights Watch today.

The new report, “Leadership Failure: Firsthand Accounts of Torture of Iraqi Detainees by the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division,” provides soldiers’ accounts of abuses against detainees committed by troops of the 82nd Airborne stationed at Forward Operating Base Mercury (FOB Mercury), near Fallujah.

Three U.S. army personnel—two sergeants and a captain—describe routine, severe beatings of prisoners and other cruel and inhumane treatment. In one incident, a soldier is alleged to have broken a detainee’s leg with a baseball bat. Detainees were also forced to hold five-gallon jugs of water with their arms outstretched and perform other acts until they passed out. Soldiers also applied chemical substances to detainees’ skin and eyes, and subjected detainees to forced stress positions, sleep deprivation, and extremes of hot and cold. Detainees were also stacked into human pyramids and denied food and water. The soldiers also described abuses they witnessed or participated in at another base in Iraq and during earlier deployments in Afghanistan.

According to the soldiers' accounts, U.S. personnel abused detainees as part of the military interrogation process or merely to “relieve stress.” In numerous cases, they said that abuse was specifically ordered by Military Intelligence personnel before interrogations, and that superior officers within and outside of Military Intelligence knew about the widespread abuse. The accounts show that abuses resulted from civilian and military failures of leadership and confusion about interrogation standards and the application of the Geneva Conventions. They contradict claims by the Bush administration that detainee abuses by U.S. forces abroad have been infrequent, exceptional and unrelated to policy.

“The administration demanded that soldiers extract information from detainees without telling them what was allowed and what was forbidden,” said Tom Malinowski, Washington Director of Human Rights Watch. “Yet when abuses inevitably followed, the leadership blamed the soldiers in the field instead of taking responsibility.”

Soldiers referred to abusive techniques as “smoking” or “"expletive deleted"ing” detainees, who are known as “PUCs,” or Persons Under Control. “Smoking a PUC” referred to exhausting detainees with physical exercises (sometimes to the point of unconsciousness) or forcing detainees to hold painful positions. “"expletive deleted"ing a PUC” detainees referred to beating or torturing them severely. The soldiers said that Military Intelligence personnel regularly instructed soldiers to “smoke” detainees before interrogations.

One sergeant told Human Rights Watch: “Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the PUC tent. In a way it was sport… One day [a sergeant] shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend over and broke the guy’s leg with a mini Louisville Slugger, a metal bat.”

The officer who spoke to Human Rights Watch made persistent efforts over 17 months to raise concerns about detainee abuse with his chain of command and to obtain clearer rules on the proper treatment of detainees, but was consistently told to ignore abuses and to “consider your career.” He believes he was not taken seriously until he approached members of Congress to raise his concerns. When the officer made an appointment this month with Senate staff members of Senators John McCain and John Warner, he says his commanding officer denied him a pass to leave his base. The officer was interviewed several days later by investigators with the Army Criminal Investigative Division and Inspector General’s office, and there were reports that the military has launched a formal investigation. Repeated efforts by Human Rights Watch to contact the 82nd Airborne Division regarding the major allegations in the report received no response.

The soldiers’ accounts show widespread confusion among military units about the legal standards applicable to detainees. One of the sergeants quoted in the report described how abuse of detainees was accepted among military units:

“Trends were accepted. Leadership failed to provide clear guidance so we just developed it. They wanted intel [intelligence]. As long as no PUCs came up dead it happened. We heard rumors of PUCs dying so we were careful. We kept it to broken arms and legs and "expletive deleted".”

The soldiers’ accounts challenge the Bush administration’s claim that military and civilian leadership did not play a role in abuses. The officer quoted in the report told Human Rights Watch that he believes the abuses he witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan were caused in part by President Bush’s 2002 decision not to apply Geneva Conventions protection to detainees captured in Afghanistan:

“[In Afghanistan,] I thought that the chain on command all the way up to the National Command Authority [President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld] had made it a policy that we were going to interrogate these guys harshly. . . . We knew where the Geneva Conventions drew the line, but then you get that confusion when the Sec Def [Secretary of Defense] and the President make that statement [that Geneva did not apply to detainees] . . . . Had I thought we were following the Geneva Conventions as an officer I would have investigated what was clearly a very suspicious situation.”

The officer said that Bush’s decision on Afghanistan affected detention and interrogation policy in Iraq: “None of the unit policies changed. Iraq was cast as part of the War on Terror, not a separate entity in and of itself but a part of a larger war.”

As one sergeant cited in the report, discussing his duty in Iraq, said: “The Geneva Conventions is questionable and we didn’t know we were supposed to be following it. . . . [W]e were never briefed on the Geneva Conventions.”

Human Rights Watch called on the military to conduct a thorough investigation of the abuses described in the report, as well as all other cases of reported abuse. It urged that this investigation not be limited to low-ranking military personnel, as has been the case in previous investigations, but to examine the responsibility throughout the military chain of command.

Human Rights Watch repeated its call for the administration to appoint a special counsel to conduct a widespread criminal investigation of military and civilian personnel, including higher level officials, who may be implicated in detainee abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere.

Human Rights Watch also called on the U.S. Congress to create a special commission, along the lines of the 9/11 commission, to investigate prisoner abuse issues, and to enact proposed legislation prohibiting all forms of detainee treatment and interrogation not specifically authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation and all treatment prohibited by the Convention Against Torture.

“When an experienced Army officer goes out of his way to say something’s systematically wrong, it’s time for the administration and Congress to listen,” Malinowski said. “That means allowing a genuinely independent investigation of the policy decisions that led to the abuse and communicating clear, lawful interrogation rules to the troops on the ground.”

Source: Human Rights Watch

Full report: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/us0905/

Summary: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/us0905/1.htm#_Toc115161399

More on torture: http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=usa_torture

Private Gets 3 Years for Iraq Prison Abuse New York Times
Pfc. Lynndie England, a 22-year-old clerk in the Army who was photographed with naked Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, was sentenced on Tuesday to three years in prison and a dishonorable discharge for her role in the scandal.

Lynndie England arrived at the courthouse today in Fort Hood, Tex., to begin the sentencing phase of her trial.
After the sentence was announced, Private England hung her head and cried briefly before hugging her mother, one of the few signs of emotion she showed in the six-day trial. She had been found guilty on Monday of one count of conspiracy to maltreat prisoners, four counts of maltreatment and one count of committing an indecent act. She made no comment on Tuesday as she was led out of the courthouse in handcuffs and leg shackles. Earlier in the day, though, she took the stand and apologized for abusing the prisoners, saying her conduct was influenced by Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr., her boyfriend at the time. She said she was "embarrassed" when photographs showing her posing next to naked detainees became public in 2004. "I was used by Private Graner," she said. "I didn't realize it at the time." Specialist Graner was reduced in rank after he was convicted in January as ringleader of the abuse. Often groping for words and staring downward, Private England directed her apology to the detainees and to any American troops and their families who might have been injured or killed as a result of the insurgency in Iraq gaining strength. Prosecutors argued on Tuesday that the anti-American feeling generated in Arab and Muslim countries by the Abu Ghraib scandal justified sentencing Private England to four to six years in prison and dishonorably discharging her from the Army. The charges the jury found her guilty of on Monday carried a maximum penalty of nine years. "I can't think of another incident that has more tarnished the reputation of the United States Army," Capt. Chris Graveline, the lead prosecutor, told the jury of five officers, several of whom have served in Iraq. "Has this abuse had an impact on our war in Iraq? Definitely." But Private England's lawyer, Capt. Jonathan Crisp, urged them to "let her go home" to West Virginia without prison time and live with the "stigma" of what she had done. Appealing to the jury as a mother, Private England described her fear after the photos of the mistreatment became public. She said she was scared she would be sent to prison, separated from her young son, whose father is Private Graner. "I was scared I'd have to leave him and he wouldn't know me when I returned, and he wouldn't view me as his mother, he'd view me as a stranger," she said. Private England will be eligible for parole after a year, prosecutors said. She can also appeal the sentence, the third longest received by the nine soldiers found guilty in the Abu Ghraib abuse. She said she was drawn to Specialist Graner, a member of the same unit, because he showered her with attention and made her feel safe. "He was very charming, funny and at the time it looked to me like he was interested in the same things I was," she said. "Now I know it was all an act, to lure me in, I guess." Testifying earlier in the day for the defense, Private Graner conceded that Private England had been susceptible to his influence. "She's young," he said. "She's suggestible, sir." Prosecutors told jurors to discount Private England's post-conviction apology. Captain Graveline read names of Iraqi prisoners forced into sexually humiliating poses in the pictures with Private England. "The accused stands up and says, 'I apologize for the photographs,' " he said. "O.K., but what about the abuse?" Defense lawyers also sought to show that Abu Ghraib was a chaotic, unpleasant place that was frequently under attack. Due to personnel shortages, support soldiers like Private England were sometimes called on to assist prison guards, they said. Stjepan Mestrovic, a sociology professor at Texas A&M University who was called by the defense, said the officers in charge were responsible for confusion about rules of conduct and unclear lines of authority. "She was caught up in this chaotic situation that was going on around her, so the abuse was inevitable," Dr. Mestrovic said. The defense also suggested that the harsh treatment of prisoners stemmed from the presence of military intelligence personnel, who wanted prisoners softened up. But under prosecution questioning, Private Graner admitted that no military intelligence personnel had been present on the night of Nov. 7, 2003, when prisoners were mistreated.
Lynndie England sentenced to three-year jail term Malayala Manorama
Pfc. England Gets 3 Years in Abuse Case ABC News
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - CBC News - Xinhua - San Diego Union Tribune - all 1,654 related »

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9530938/

Judge orders release of new Abu Ghraib photos
Terrorism fears do not justify withholding detainee abuse pictures, he says

BREAKING NEWS

Updated: 1:01 p.m. ET Sept. 29, 2005
NEW YORK - Pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison must be released despite government claims that they could damage America’s image, a judge ruled Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ordered the release of certain pictures, saying terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven they “do not need pretexts for their barbarism.”

The American Civil Liberties Union sought the release of 87 photographs and four videotapes as part of an October 2003 lawsuit demanding information on the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody and the transfer of prisoners to countries known to use torture. The ACLU contends that prisoner abuse is systemic.



“Our nation does not surrender to blackmail, and fear of blackmail is not a legally sufficient argument to prevent us from performing a statutory command,” the judge wrote in his 50-page decision. “Indeed, the freedoms that we champion are as important to our success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the guns and missiles with which our troops are armed.”

"fear of blackmail is not a legally sufficient argument to prevent us from performing a statutory command,”

Let's keep pushing:

Katrina - FEMA screwup
Plamegate
DeLay scandal
Frist Scandal
Abu Ghraib photos
New allegations of abuse by decorated well-respected soldiers

Make sure these get the attention they deserve in the MSM.

Now all we need is for our dear Senators and Congressmen to get a backbone. Write them and COMPLAIN!!!

It's about freakin' time. At least the courts aren't going to allow BushCo to whitewash and bury everything for their own purpose. At least not 'til Roberts and Bush's next appointee corrupt the USSC (or should I say... further corrupt after the 2000 election award).

As to the image of America...

I think George Bush has already done as much damage to America's image that can possibly be done...

The only thing that the pics will hurt are Bush's image... which is quickly fading anyway.

The only image Bush cares about is his image with the US voters. He doesn't give a flying F what the rest of the world thinks about him. Amazingly, this attitude is appealing to a large minority of the voters.

Bush to the rest of the world: "When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you".

These will be coming out at the same time that a decorated, well respected person in the military is claiming systematic abuse of prisoners.

Why not release the Pics ?
Hell man they are all over the internet anyway
As far as trading the pics for access to Porn Sites i'm not so sure of that. They claim the soldiers are trading the pics to gain access to the porn sites ! That is a Damn Load of Bull Crap!!!!! I know plenty of sites to see these pics and some don't even have porn on them at all ! and they are Free!!!!!!

Although I support the decision on 1st. Amendment grounds....

These are different pictures than the ones you've already seen, and by all accounts they are far worse.

Well, don't blame the pictures for any ensuing shock. Blame Bush and Co, who obviously condone and even authorize this sort of thing.

Awwww!!!!!!!! quit your bitchin Mr Jim !
You know your Halliburton Stocks are Kicking Ass !



Just kidding !

Found this on DKos, regarding that military whistleblower. Seems he's being "sequestered" at Ft. Bragg after writing a letter to Senator McCain about the systematic prisoner abuse.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/29/165035/597

What does this say about McCain?

Actually, McCain has been very outspoken against the BushCo torture policy. He has publicly supported investigating the higher-ups' role in setting that policy, and is all for setting definite standards for treatment of prisoners. Although I disagree with McCain on a lot of things, he's been on the right side of this issue.

But McCain lets this guy sit in prison for blowing the whistle?

I don't think the release of these photos does anything positive--unless it results in high-level officers or politicians who approved these abuses to get nailed. I don't think that will happen though.

Maybe it will finally prompt disgust in the hold-outs who still support BushCo. There's got to be some reason why they have fought so hard to prevent these from being released.

Do you think the release of pictures from concentration camps in Nazi Germany might have halted that abomination?


The truth hurts sometimes. But it is the truth.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170889,00.html

A national disgrace, that is the subject this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

At the behest of the ACLU (search), federal judge Alvin Hellerstein (search) has ordered the government to release more pictures of the Abu Ghraib abuse. This, despite the fact that General Richard Myers (search), chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Hellerstein that the pictures would put U.S. military personnel in even more danger. And the general told us there's nothing new in those pictures.

At first, Hellerstein gave lip service to Myers, saying the general's concerns had to be taken seriously. But today, the judge rejected the safety of the troops saying, "Terrorists do not need pretexts for their barbarism."

Apparently, Hellerstein missed the Newsweek (search) Koran debacle, where 15 people were killed immediately after a bogus report by that publication, inciting impulsive violence is done on a case-by-case basis.

Now I'm so angry at Hellerstein's ruling, I cannot even describe it. First of all, I apologize to everybody American soldier all over the world on behalf of the vast majority of Americans who don't agree with Hellerstein and the ACLU.

Unfortunately, America is a divided country and there are elements in it like the ACLU, who will put soldiers in jeopardy for ideological reasons.

Hellerstein's a liberal judge, appointed by Bill Clinton (search). He and his wife have been consistent donors to left wing politicians. And the ACLU is thrilled to have him hearing the case. But all of that is no solace to young Americans risking their lives right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places. It is absolutely disgraceful that they should be facing even more danger because of this ruling.

Now maybe something good will come out of this. Hellerstein's ruling is so dangerous and irresponsible, the ACLU's crusade is so over the top, that perhaps Americans not angered by the far left before, will finally figure it out.

The far left element in America is a destructive force that must be confronted when it puts Americans in danger. There's no question Hellerstein has aided the terrorists by his ruling. No question at all. They can't wait to get these pictures. The BBC, CBC, French media, and many American newsrooms also can't wait. Why? Because the pictures will hurt the Bush administration. That's why. Once again, ideology trumps the safety of Americans.

Now I firmly believe most Democrats are as angry with Hellerstein's ruling as I am. I heard from some of them today on the radio. This is a far left problem, not a mainstream problem.

Finally, where the deuce is the Pentagon? How many generals stepped up today to denounce Hellerstein's ruling? They should be all over the media. There's an old adage in the military, look out for your guys. Are they looking out for their guys? And that's “The Memo.”

The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

One month ago today, Hurricane Katrina (search) hit, and since then the wind has been unbelievable in the media. Just for fun, I had the "Factor" research staff check out to see just how many anti-Bush editorials and op-eds The New York Times has printed since the storm blew in. The number is 53. There have been 53 anti-Bush columns in the New York Times (search) in a month.

My question to that paper is why bother? Why not just put the bold letters up on the editorial pages, "We hate Bush." You don't need any back up. You hate him, we got it.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/100205Y.shtml

Fixing responsibility for Abu Ghraib abuse
OUR OPINION: PUNISHING ONLY LOW-LEVEL SOLDIERS ISN'T ENOUGH



The conviction and sentencing of Lynndie England last week, the last of nine courts-martial of enlisted men and women for abusing detainees at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, brought an unsatisfactory conclusion to the scandal. Responsibility for what happened must not end there.

Those young soldiers did not act in a vacuum. They were part of a mission bigger than themselves. They were carrying out assignments to defeat an enemy defined by military brass at the Pentagon and civilians in the White House.

When the final chapter in this scandal is written, all who had a part in it should be identified and made to own up to their responsibility -- just as happened with Lynndie England and the other foot soldiers. Private England was sentenced to three years in prison and given a dishonorable discharge from the Army. No officer or commander thus far has been tried, although several have gotten administrative punishments.

Chain of command

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that in an organization as rigidly controlled as the military, commanders bear some degree of responsibility for the actions of troops under their command. The top officers are responsible for the training, or lack thereof, supervision, discipline and guidance of troops under their command. In Iraq, military leaders on the ground decide what the specific missions are and how to achieve them, including whether to adhere to Geneva Conventions, international law or the U.S. Constitution. And the colonels and generals themselves are following orders from their civilian bosses, who define the broader goals and objectives. In this war, the civilian leadership in Washington defined the fight as a war against terrorism.

It is easy to see how all of this may have been fuzzed up with the detainees at Abu Ghraib. Are they civilians, insurgents, prisoners of war or terrorists? What are the rules applicable to their detention? At Abu Ghraib prison, soldiers were put in a confused and chaotic environment either with, (a) tacit instructions about what was expected of them or, ( no instructions at all. In either case, they are not lone actors in what occurred.

Army Capt. Ian Fishback, 26, succinctly states the case for responsibility. He spent nearly 18 months going up the chain of command, reporting on abuses at Abu Ghraib, asking questions and trying to get answers and guidance. Frustrated with denials and avoidance, he went public with his concerns. ''We did not set the conditions for our soldiers to succeed,'' he said. ''We failed to set clear standards, communicate those standards and enforce those standards. For us to get to that point now, however, we have to come to grips with whether it's acceptable to use coercion to obtain information from detainees.'' Clearly, Capt. Fishback gets it.

Is anyone in Congress listening?

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/.../printstory.jsp

October 5, 2005
Soldier Reports More Abuses to Senator
By ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 - An Army captain who has reported new allegations of detainee abuse in Iraq met Tuesday with Senator John McCain and staff aides on the House Armed Services Committee and gave them additional accounts of abuse in Iraq that other soldiers had sent him in recent days, Congressional aides said.

The officer, Capt. Ian Fishback, in a brief interview after his half-hour meeting with Mr. McCain declined to describe the new information he gave the senator or, in a separate meeting, to the House aides. But Captain Fishback said that since he and two other former members of the 82nd Airborne Division last month accused soldiers in their battalion in Iraq of routinely beating and abusing prisoners in 2003 and 2004, several other soldiers had contacted him and asked him to relay to lawmakers their own experiences.

Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said nothing in a statement about any new reports of abuse, saying only, "I'm even more impressed by what a fine and honorable officer he is."

But a senior House aide who met with Captain Fishback said the officer had read a letter from a sergeant describing detainee abuse in Iraq and allowed the aides to read the document before taking it back. The aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because Captain Fishback related the information in confidence for use in a possible Congressional investigation, declined to give details of the abuse.

In separate statements to Human Rights Watch, Captain Fishback and two sergeants related their experiences as they recounted how members of the First Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry, had repeatedly beaten Iraqi prisoners, exposed them to extremes of hot and cold, and stacked them in human pyramids at Camp Mercury, a forward operating base near Falluja.

The abuses reportedly took place between September 2003 and April 2004, before and during the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

The Army has started a criminal inquiry into the allegations by Captain Fishback and the two sergeants.

Captain Fishback is scheduled to meet Wednesday with Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/05/internat...agewanted=print

PRISONER ABUSE
Investigation aims far too low

BY JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
jgalloway@krwashington.com

Well, they finally got to the bottom of the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal last week. An Army court martial convicted Pfc. Lynndie England and sentenced her to three years in prison and a dishonorable discharge for holding that leash, pointing with scorn and other offenses.

They've gotten to the bottom, all right. With England's conviction, that wraps up the cases against nine enlisted soldiers who starred in those terrible digital photos in 2003.

So that's it, huh?

Not exactly. We still haven't gotten to the top of this scandal, the Guantánamo problems and questions raised last week by an Army captain from the 82nd Airborne Division troubled by, of all things, a conscience.

Capt. Ian Fishback, a West Point graduate, was a lieutenant in both Afghanistan and Iraq when he became troubled by what he was seeing: American soldiers beating Iraqi detainees until their arms and legs were broken. Death threats. Extreme forced physical exertion. Sleep deprivation. Exposure to the elements.

He began a 17-month journey, or attempted journey, up the chain of command, asking, then pleading for simple guidance on whether American troops in Iraq were bound by terms of the Geneva Conventions. He wrote a letter to the two top Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner, R-Va., and John McCain, R-Ariz.

''This is a tragedy,'' he wrote. ``I can remember, as a cadet at West Point, resolving to ensure that my men would never commit a dishonorable act; that I would protect them from that type of burden.''

What did this honorable American officer ask that was so hard? ``Give (our soldiers) a clear standard that is in accordance with the bedrock principles of our nation.''

Capt. Fishback added: ``Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as al Qaeda's we should not be concerned. When did al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States?''

Nobody in his chain of command showed the slightest concern about what the captain reported and what he sought. Nobody showed any interest until Human Rights Watch revealed details of his case last week.

Then the Army got very interested. Orders went down to interrogate the captain and demand that he identify two sergeants who also witnessed some of the abuse. Once again, the powers-that-be were eager to get to the bottom of the issue. Find some enlisted men or non-coms and hang them out to dry. Shame on them.

And unless the good senators are ready at last to step up to the plate and hold independent hearings on the question of how the United States treats prisoners or detainees who end up in U.S. custody anywhere in the world, shame on them, too.

We've been treated to the spectacle of a Republican-controlled House and Senate abdicating their constitutional responsibility to conduct rigorous oversight of actions and failings of the executive branch of government. This has gone on for the four-plus years that President Bush has occupied the White House, and it looks as if we'll get more of the same for three more years and a bit.

There have been 17 separate investigations of Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and other prisoner-abuse scandals. All have gone straight to the bottom of every case. All have consistently claimed that no one higher up the chain of command, including the civilian leadership in the Pentagon, bears any responsibility for any of this.

Hogwash. BS. Nonsense.

If the lowest private fails, then others have failed in training, leading and directing that private. The chain runs from sergeant to lieutenant to captain to lieutenant colonel to colonel to one, two, three and four stars, on to the longest serving, most arrogant secretary of defense in our history, Donald H. Rumsfeld, and beyond him to President Bush.

It's past time for responsibility to begin flowing uphill in this administration. It's time for leaders to take responsibility for what's being done in our names and under our proud flag. It's time for Congress to do its job if the administration won't do its job.

Joseph L. Galloway is the senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/.../printstory.jsp

October 6, 2005
Senate Moves to Protect Military Prisoners Despite Veto Threat
By ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - In a sharp rebuke to the White House, the Senate overwhelmingly agreed Wednesday to regulate the detention, interrogation and treatment of prisoners held by the American military.

The measure ignited a fierce debate among many Senate Republicans and the White House, which threatened to veto a $440 billion military spending bill if the detention amendment was tacked on, saying it would bind the president's hands in wartime. Nonetheless, the measure passed, 90 to 9, with 46 Republicans, including Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, joining 43 Democrats and one independent in favor.

More than two dozen retired senior military officers, including Colin L. Powell and John M. Shalikashvili, two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, endorsed the amendment, which would ban use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in United States government custody.

It would also require all American troops to use only interrogation techniques authorized in a new Army field manual. It would not cover techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Republicans and Democrats took to the Senate floor on Wednesday in a passionate debate over the measure, which supporters said would clarify a jumble of conflicting standards and cast a new spotlight on the treatment of detainees at American prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba. "Confusion about the rules results in abuses in the field," said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican and the measure's main sponsor. "We need a clear, consistent standard."

Mr. McCain, who was a prisoner of war in the Vietnam War, added in closing Wednesday night: "Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But every one of us - every single one of us - knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies."

Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, questioned why the White House would oppose a measure that codifies military procedures and policies, and reaffirms a ban against torturing detainees. "It is time for Congress, which represents the people, to clarify and set the rules for detention and interrogation of our enemies," he said.

Opposing the effort, Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, said that requiring American troops to follow procedures in the Army manual was not practical in the current war environment. "The techniques vary upon the circumstances and the physical location of people involved," Mr. Stevens said

The measure faces stiff opposition in the House. And the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said, "If it's presented, then there would be a recommendation of a veto." Armed with the strong Senate vote, however, Mr. McCain is expected to keep the pressure on in the public arena and when the spending bill goes to a House-Senate conference committee.

Mr. McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina offered the same proposal during the summer as the Senate was working on a bill setting Pentagon policy. But Mr. Frist scuttled that legislation in part because of White House opposition.

In July, the White House dispatched Vice President Dick Cheney to Capitol Hill to lobby Senators McCain, Graham and John W. Warner of Virginia personally. This week, White House officials not only pressured Mr. McCain to modify his measure, but also approached sympathetic Senate Republicans to work against the amendment.

The Senate vote drew applause from human rights organizations. "Senator McCain's amendments are a key step toward the restoration of the military's traditional prohibition against torture and inhumane treatment," said Leonard S. Rubenstein, executive director of Physicians for Human Rights.

The vote came two weeks after the Army began an inquiry into new allegations of prisoner abuse in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 by members of a battalion of the 82nd Airborne Division. Three former members of the unit who have come forward have said many American troops who interrogated detainees did not know which techniques were permitted.

As the debate over detainees and Pentagon policy proceeded, senior Senate Democrats pressed the Bush administration Wednesday to lay out a detailed strategy for the war as Iraqis prepare to vote next week on a constitution. "It's simply time for some accountability," said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.

In a letter to the president, Mr. Biden and other Democrats asked Mr. Bush a series of pointed questions: How many Iraqi forces can operate without United States assistance? What specific steps is the administration taking around the referendum to reconcile Iraq division? What is being done to attract more international support to stabilize Iraq? How should the public assess progress?

"In times past, when asked to explain your Iraq policy to our troops and the American people, you have chosen to reply that we need to 'stay the course,' " the letter said. "But simply staying the current course is not a strategy for success."

Carl Hulse contributed reporting for this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/politics...agewanted=print

This is tremendous news. Hope is in the air.