According to this show, Rumsfeld lied to McCain while under oath.

Rumsfeld told him that the Iraq-based interrogators were under orders to follow the geneva conventions, yet they had already showed documents and eyewitness accounts that Rumsfeld had ordered Iraq-based interrogators to use gitmo-perfected techniques.

I feel as though I am living in a country no better than Nazi Germany.

Here are some of the comments that were left on the Frontline website. I hope you guys will add your own comments too.

Dear FRONTLINE,

The information in the program was not new to me. What I found "interesting" are the "postings". You can sure tell who "thinks" for themselves and who follows the "Limbough" crowd. When some folks hear the truth,and it is different that what they have been led to believe, it hits them in the gut and denial comes out SCREAMING. I don't really think that the "enemy" is sitting home in their living rooms watching Frontline.

s Nelson
Germantown , Wi

Dear FRONTLINE,

Hearts and minds are the strategic objective in Iraq. Every tortured prisoner is lost. When they and their stories circulate, when people are abused in their homes, their families and friends are lost as well. To promote and encourage decency, civility, and the rule of law, while beating the citizenry, arresting nearly at random, and expecting low level staff to be "creative", transforms a very difficult task all into one that is nearly impossible.

Peter Silva

Dear FRONTLINE,

God Bless America!

In order to defeat your enemy you have to think like your enemy and at times behave like your enemy, even if the rest of the country cringes at your behavior. We look like novices in the military theater arena when under the guise of civilized fighting, we rule out the use abhorrent intellegence-gathering practices. Stop making our military the scapegoats for political purposes. If we commit to war as a nation, it has to be to win and not to second guess our professional warriors, for they have a job to do in order to improve outcomes for our nation. It is they and their countless sacrafices that has kept this country the envy of the rest of the world. We can't fight with one hand tied behind our back and expect victorious outcomes. Our enemies rejoice because they believe that we as a nation do not have the backbone or stomach to condone said behavior as a means to an end. When we undertook the search for WMD, it was with the understanding that things would get ugly, pretty ugly before it got better. Just ask the family of a patriot whose life might have been saved by timely intellegence.

Jorge Pastor
Staten Island, New York

Dear FRONTLINE,

It is unfortunate that the major networks and media in general; have chosen to advance patriotic rhetoric over actual American values and human rights. Their apparent refusal to fully expose, investigating and ascertain the truth with regard to these matters has made us all complicit in these atrocities.

However, I would like to commend Frontline for not abrogating their moral duty, by providing factual information and tangible resources. The program truly clarifies the interplay of various laws, policies and procedures; as well as their actual, if not intended consequence.

Randall Cooper
Boston, MA

Dear FRONTLINE,

I am totally disgusted that Americans would purport themselves in this way, no matter what the cause. I do not believe that it is necessary, and am alarmed that only low level members were punished, although I realize this is the norm. I cannot believe that the Bush administration has any supporters at all after seeing this show. As with children, we must lead by example, not by lowering ourselves to the depths of our enemies.

Mollie Crockett
Barling, AR

Dear FRONTLINE,

While most of the facts presented in the "Torture" documentary was known to me, the piece was for me extraordinarily powerful. You have courageously told the truth -- something all too rare in journalism at this time. You do not flinch from explaining the pressures on our young soldiers, nor the deception and moral bankruptcy of those who gave them their orders -- and to date have avoided all accountability. The embrace of torture by the US Armed Forces is both a national disgrace -- and an error of practical judgment for which this nation will suffer the consequences for a long time to come. Thank you for your honesty.

alex lerman
chappaqua, ny

Dear FRONTLINE,

Well it was obvious to me, it was right there in black and white. They showed the written orders of Rumsfeld and Sanchez and nothing mentioned starvation, beating, sodomy, groping by female interegators and the like. That was the choice of some beligerant young people such as we have running around the streets of any civilized nation. The ones that torture animals, beat people up in bars, or vandalize for the fun of it. Many of these types of yound men and women join the military and you get what we had at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

This movie proved to me that the higher ups never ordered these extreme measured. They only authorized the kinds of harsh techniques that most Americans don't object to after an event like 9/11. Dogs are fine, though not to maul, which was stated was the case by the young man at the end. Standing for hours... no problem. Many old women do it as greeters at Walmart and Meijer. Sleep deprivation... who cares. Hot room, cold room... who cares. Loud music... who cares. Get the idea?

But sodomy, beating, and true starvation is sick and twisted. Again, not authorized by our leaders. Look, I'm not giving terrorists the benefit of the doubt over our military leaders. Remember 9/11.

anti terrorist
Detroit, MI

Dear FRONTLINE,

Its amazing to see the documented footage of abuses. What scares me more is what has been missed over the past that has fueled the anger towards America and its citizens. With this and other documentaries we may now see first hand WHY fundamentalist ideals generate so much support. The American public is generally protected from the evil that we do abroad. Until the chickens come home to roost. Then we say, "how could this be?"

Ausar Amen
NY, NY

Dear FRONTLINE,

While the motivations of the interrogators may be benevolent (saving American lives), torturing an individual who know nothing will simply create a terrorist. Thus, using torture to fight terrorism can often result in exacerbating the problem.

Vinnie R
Wichita, Kansas

Dear FRONTLINE,

I watched your 10/18/05 airing regarding the "torture" question and I must say that I was surprised that this would air while our troops are in harms way. I think there should absolutely be freedom of speech, but discretion seems to be lacking in the airing of this report. I will ask a question that I know you will not answer, but how many Americans have PBS placed in danger by enraging a huge muslim population with this report? Sleep well PBS employees knowing our young service men and women will be defending the freedom you enjoy while facing an enemy you have just held a pep-rally for.

Jimmy Wingfield
Johnson, TN

Dear FRONTLINE,

We have to do what ever is necessary to stop this world wide.If it takes terror to stop terror, so be it.

Mike Mitchell
Nashville, TN

Dear FRONTLINE,

Thank you for continuing to show us the truth, even when it is difficult for us to watch. The saying goes that this was the result of a few bad apples. It surely was, unfortunately the worst, most rotten and stinking apples are at the top and still sitting there stinking.

I am concerned for the kind of American soldiers who are coming home. I want them to get the psychological help they will need.

Kathy Sanden

Dear FRONTLINE,

From what I saw of this program, it seemed to me that a tremendous amount of charges were made with no evidence to back them up. Films of soldiers horsing around were used to intimate that these soldiers were doing the same things to prisoners. My favorite phrase, "then the knives came out", is a perfect example of guilt by innuendo. In the past, I have found Frontline to be balanced in its portrayal of facts in a story. Not this time. All that is missing from this story is a subliminal picture of President Bush. If it wasn't so serious, it would be pathetic.

John Doty
Austin, Texas

Dear FRONTLINE,

This show, this despicable show, you treasonous cowards, I am appalled how you put our soldiers at risk and enlighten the enemy!

I am so sickened by watching this show, this disgrace, this true treasonous act! You should be ashamed for selectively picking cowards who would rather see this great country be degraded for the sake of ratings, liberal base, than the protectors of this great country, how dare you, you should be ashamed.

Thank god for tough action, strong will and a dogged determination to see through your devise, destructive, and dangerous airing of this terrible betrayal of the men and woman who are protecting everything you have and everything you ever will have, I'm sick!

Wayne Woran

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/talk/

Here was my comment to Frontline. It has not been added yet (I hope they at least read it if they don't post it).



Dear Frontline, thank you so much for broadcasting this important program.

I have been following this story since we first saw the horrendous photos from Abu Graib so I was familiar with a lot of what was included in your program. Even so, I was still deeply disturbed and angered by what I saw.

The most heartbreaking part of your program for me was when one of the interrogators you interviewed stated:

"Well hypothermia was a widespread technique. I haven't heard a lot of people talking about that, and I never saw anything in writing prohibiting it or making it illegal. But almost everyone was using it when they had a chance, when the weather permitted. Or some people, the Navy SEALs, for instance, were using just ice water to lower the body temperature of the prisoner. They would take his rectal temperature to make sure he didn't die; they would keep him hovering on hypothermia. That was a pretty common technique".

This information was new to me and quite frankly I just died inside when I heard it. For me, to hear that our troops were copying "techniques" that Joseph Mengele used in his hypothermia experiments on concentration camp victims literally brought tears to my eyes. I kept asking myself how could we let this happen and how can we pretend that it didn't?

I recently called my Senator, Mitch McConnell, where I congratulated him on his affirmative vote in the recent 90-9 vote to set new limits on interrogation. This vote was a good first step going forward but we must not ignore the past. We must have a full, independent investigation into the issues you covered in your program tonight.

Up until now we have had a handful of people held accountable for their actions. It is not good enough. The documents that have been released so far clearly show that this was not an isolated case of a few low-level people who thought this up. This was a well-orchestrated plan and we must hold those at the top accountable for their actions. To do anything less would be to abdicate our role as citizens.

If we fail as a country in our duty to investigate this criminal behavior we don't deserve to call ourselves Americans.

Where are thoes Abu Ghraib pictures that the ACLU won the release of? I'd like to see them hitting the news about the same time that the Plame indictments come down, and Bush vetoes the anti-torture bill.

I actually hope they don't hit in the middle of the Plame thing. If they do they will be pushed to the side once again because everyone will focus on Plame.

They will be having a live chat with the Producer of this Fronline show at 11 a.m. tomorrow online at the Washington Post website. You can submit questions at that time or now if you so choose.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5101800710.html

I just finished watching Frontline....this is a disgrace...they have to be charged and convicted of war crimes....Rumsfield is a despicable man, no better than Himmler...come to think of it, he looks a bit like Himmler....
You are right nrns, this regime reminds me more, and more of Hitler, and his thugs.
What happened to "Never Again"?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101805I.shtml

Frontline has a marvelous library set up on their website. You can look at interview, documents, etc.

At the end of the program, the commentator said McCain got most senators to pass an anti-torture bill recently to add to the defense appropriation bill.

What the program did not say was that BUSH SAID HE WOULD VETO THE DEFENSE BILL IF THIS AMENDMENT IS NOT REMOVED!

You can bet that the WH is now working over the House republicans to defeat this amendment in the compromise bill.

Bush has never vetoed any spending bill and especially does not want to defeat a defense bill.

This is an earlier piece that came out on Oct. 1. The author is a 27 year veteren of the CIA.

October 1, 2005
Abu Ghraib: Command Responsibility

by Ray McGovern
The news that yet another Army private, Lynndie England, 22, of Fort Ashby, W. Va., has been convicted and sentenced for posing for the infamous photos of torture at Abu Ghraib, while her superiors duck responsibility, is a sad commentary on the degenerating ethos of the U.S. Army.

The reminder of the photos of those inexcusable activities was sickening enough and England deserves to be punished. But I am of the old-Army school where officers took responsibility for the actions of those under their command. It is no less than scandalous how the Army brass and its civilian leadership, who are demonstrably responsible for the torture, continue to dance away from taking responsibility.

They chose, instead, to stone the woman, like the hypocrites of Bible fame, contending that the photos inflamed the insurgency in Iraq. It is the torture, not the photos, that has inflamed the insurgency. And responsibility for the torture reaches directly up the chain of command to the commander in chief himself. Perhaps when even more repulsive photos and videos of torture at Abu Ghraib are released, as federal judge Alvin Hellerstein ordered yesterday, the American people finally will be jarred awake.

So far, the silent acquiescence with which Americans have greeted President George W. Bush's open assertion of a right to torture some prisoners evokes memories of the unconscionable behavior of "obedient Germans" of the 1930s and early 1940s. Thankfully, despite the hate whipped up by administration propagandists against people branded "terrorists," polling conducted last year showed that most Americans reject torturing prisoners. Almost two-thirds held that torture is never acceptable.

Yet few speak out, perhaps because President Bush says he too, is against torture, and our domesticated media have successfully hidden from most of us the fact that the president has added a highly significant qualification. On February 7, 2002, the president issued an order instructing our armed forces "to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva" (emphasis added). In the preceding paragraph, the president determined that Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees "do not qualify as prisoners of war." Never mind that there is no provision in the Geneva Conventions for such a unilateral determination.

Speedy Gonzales

In taking this position, Bush had to overrule then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, the only one of his senior advisers with experience in combat. On January 26, 2002, Powell sent to then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales formal comments on the latter's memorandum for the president, the subject of which was "Decision Re Application Of The Geneva Convention On Prisoners Of War To The Conflict With al-Qaeda And The Taliban."

This is the Mafia-like memorandum in which Gonzales not only branded some Geneva provisions "quaint" and "obsolete," but also reassured the president that he could probably escape domestic criminal prosecution for violating the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. 2441), as well. Here is what Gonzales tells the president on this key point:

"...it is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441. Your determination would create a reasonable basis in law that Section 2441 does not apply, which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution."

Meanwhile, back at the State Department, Powell apparently thought the memorandum was still in draft. But Gonzales, who knew what the president wanted, did not wait for Powell's formal comments. Rather, on January 25, Gonzales sent his final draft to the president, thereby shielding him from dissonance like Powell's written observation that exempting detainees from Geneva protections "will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions and undermine the protections of the law of war for our troops."

Gonzales was already aware of Powell's opposition, and in his own memo, the former White House counsel and now attorney general was dismissive of Powell's request that the president reconsider the argument that al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees are not prisoners of war under Geneva. In a short paragraph tacked onto the bottom of a list of "negatives," Gonzales took brief note of Powell's objections. Gonzales" paragraph speaks volumes in the light of subsequent abuses in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantánamo :

"A determination that the GPW [Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War] does not apply to al-Qaeda and the Taliban could undermine U.S. military culture which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of conduct in combat, and could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of adversaries."

Last week, more than a dozen high-ranking military officers sent a letter to President Bush, pointing out that "It is now apparent that the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and elsewhere took place in part because our men and women in uniform were given ambiguous instructions, which in some cases authorized treatment that went beyond what was allowed by the Army Field Manual."

A pity that Colin Powell limited himself to writing memos to the president"s lawyer.

The photos from Abu Ghraib and the more recent Human Rights Watch report describing "routine" torture by the once highly professional 82nd Airborne Division offer graphic evidence that Powell's misgivings were well-founded. The report relies heavily on the testimony of a West Point graduate, an Army captain who has had the courage to speak out after 17 months of trying in vain to go through Army channels.

Human Rights Watch Director Tom Malinowski has noted, "The administration demanded that soldiers extract information from detainees without telling them what was allowed and what was forbidden. Yet when the abuses inevitably followed, the leadership blamed the soldiers in the field instead of taking responsibility." A Pentagon spokesman has dismissed the report as "another predictable report by an organization trying to advance an agenda through the use of distortion and errors of fact." Judge for yourselves; the report can be found here. It's grim but required reading.

Pictures Worth A Thousand Words

After seeing the photos from Abu Ghraib last year, Senate Armed Forces Committee Chairman John Warner of Virginia took a strong rhetorical stand against torture. But then he quickly succumbed to White House pressure to postpone Senate hearings on the subject until after the November 2004 election.

More recently, Warner joined two other Republican senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, in attempts to introduce amendments against torture to the defense authorization bill. The amendments would require that U.S. forces revert to the standards set forth in Army Field Manual (FM 34-52) for interrogating detainees held by the Defense Department. The manual prohibits the use of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Another amendment discussed would require that all foreign nationals "be registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross." This would prohibit sequestering unregistered "ghost detainees" at prisons like Abu Ghraib and secret CIA interrogation centers.

Inured as I thought I had become to outrageous behavior at the top of the Bush administration, I found its reaction shocking. On the evening of July 21, Vice President Dick Cheney went to Capitol Hill to dissuade the three senators from proceeding with the amendments. But the senators have not been cowed"not yet, at least. Four days later on the floor of the Senate, John McCain – who knows something of torture – made a poignant appeal to his colleagues to hold our country to humane standards in treating captives, "no matter how evil or terrible" they may be. "This is not about who they are. This is about who we are," said McCain.

The following day, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist pulled the Pentagon spending bill off the floor, sparing Bush the political risk of vetoing the much-needed defense authorization bill simply because it included amendments requiring the protections for detainees required by U.S. criminal statute and international law.

It will be interesting to see if, in the end, the senators cave in to White House pressure. For if they do, they will be providing yet another congressional nihil obstat for the general approach so succinctly voiced by the president to then-terrorism czar Richard Clarke and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in the White House on the evening of 9/11. According to Clarke, the president yelled, "I don"t care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass."

Reprinted courtesy of TomPaine.com.

http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=7464

Here is the transcript from the live discussion today.

Producer Michael Kirk was online Wednesday, Oct. 19 at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the film "The Torture Question," which examines alleged abuses in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and Abu Ghraib and the debate over acceptable methods of interrogation.

The transcript follows.

____________________

San Diego, Calif.: Mr. Kirk,

Thank you for this film. Why, do you think, has investigative journalism failed (until now) to dig into the abuse of the current administration? Reporters back down from the President instead of digging in and demanding an answer to tough questions.

What has happened to tough journalism in America?

Michael Kirk: The tough journalism on this subject has been coming from The Washington Post and The New York Times, writers from the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh and Jane Mayer. What has not happened is any long-form broadcast coverage in-depth. Sadly, the networks and the cable news outfits simply aren't doing that much of this kind of work. I hope they will pursue this story further now that some of the ground has been plowed.

_______________________

Columbus, Ohio: With all of the talk about what happened in Abu Ghraib, why is the mainstream media so unwilling to talk about the other side...what Iraqis did to U.S. POWs? Don't buy into the story of Jessica Lynch being well treated by her captors. Jessica did not receive her injuries in the humvee wreck. Eyewitnesses saw that she was fully capable of walking after she was pulled from the disabled humvee. She was brutally abused by her Iraqi captors and the only medical care that was given to her was deliberately just enough to keep her alive...nothing more. There are also the other POWs who were kept with her. They were tortured in ways that make what happened to the POWs in Abu Ghraib pale in comparison to them. The U.S. POWs were then murdered in cold blood. For example, when PFC Lori Ann Piestewa's body was recovered during the Lynch rescue, it was found horribly mutilated and with a bullet in the back of her head. This runs contrary to the official story that Lori died from head injuries incurred in the humvee wreck. Sgt. Donald Walter's family had to fight the Pentagon to finally have it admitted that Donald was captured alive and later murdered by his Iraqi captors as well. The whole truth about Iraqi abuse of U.S. POWs needs to be told.

Michael Kirk: It is undeniable that horrible things happen to soldiers on both sides during war. And there seems to be ample evidence that this is especially true in Iraq. But as horrible as these things are--they are not the subject of this report. It was about us--the Americans--and what we are doing. We followed the criticisms offered by our own soldiers and American politicians (like Senator McCain) who continue to be concerned about how Americans act in the world, and the consequences of those actions.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Were you allowed to go into the prison?

Michael Kirk: Yes. We went to both Gitmo and Abu Ghraib prisons.

_______________________

Kent, Ohio: Mr. Kirk, that was a terrific program. Do you think that our use of interrogation techniques that some would label torture and that involve humiliation and degradation of prisoners is undermining support for the U.S. occupation among people in Iraq? Do Iraqis see us as promoters of democracy and human rights, given the revelations about our treatment of prisoners?

Michael Kirk: I don't really know how Iraqis feel about us and our stated quest to bring them democracy. I went to Iraq and I produced this report for a different reason. I do know from talking to many American soldiers (including high ranking officers) that they are worried about the effect of our interrogation policies on the safety of our military people (now and in the future) and on America's reputation throughout the world.

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: After Iraq was subdued, what was the real military urgency about finding Saddam's hiding place or buried WMD that would justify torture? Wasn't the urgency driven by internal American politics, the need to find political cover for an illegitimate pre-emptive war? Was there a real sense that buried WMD might be brought out, set up, and targeted at the U.S. right under our noses? What made them think that getting Saddam would end the insurgency? How was any of this torture justified except to curry favor with the President, Cheney and Rumsfeld?

Michael Kirk: I don't know the answer to your question. I know from my reporting and talking to politicians and military leaders that the urgency to find WMD, Saddam Hussein and the leaders of the insurgency was based on many imperatives--saving lives, calming the situation in Iraq and, of course, domestic (American) political considerations. The truth is that with this story as well as all big stories--there are always many reasons why things happen.

_______________________

Oak Park, Ill.: Will President Bush, Secretary Defense Donald Rumsfeld or senior military leaders ever acknowledge publicly take responsibility for this national tragedy in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay?

Do you think any senior officials will be held accountable and fired over this tragedy, as it continues?

Are there any significant historical correlations or learnings with the Vietnam War and the performance of our military then in terms of POWs?

Are there any senators, Republican or Democrat, willing to go public with their outrage over this situation? I know John McCain has spoke bluntly during some hearings about in the Senate. But I think this situation requires repeated public outrage by someone who has the power to shame and embarrass this administration.

Michael Kirk: Two weeks ago Senator McCain offered an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill in the Senate. The amendment basically calls for human treatment of prisoners captured by America troops. It passed 90 to 9. I was especially interested to note that 46 Republicans voted FOR the measure in what many saw as a rebuke of Secretary Rumsfeld and the President. The President, incidentally has threatened to veto the appropriations measure if it passes.

As to future problems for the Secretary or senior military leaders--that will depend on whether after a robust national dialogue (if one happens) the American people feel they should be assigned some blame for what has happened.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: A disturbing portrayal of events. Brig General Karpinski, one of your esteemed interviewees, has been booted from the military for justifiable reasons. Fishback admits having no in person knowledge of torture, only hearsay.

Why would anyone legitimate be interviewed by someone from your program? It's a sham.

Michael Kirk: I do not believe Captain Fishback only had "second-hand" information about events in Iraq. General Karpinski was demoted to Colonel, not "booted" from the military. I'd invite you to the FRONTLINE Web site to read her interview and those of others in the program in order to get your facts straight.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: Have you spoken with many Iraqi civilians for their thoughts on prison abuses? Is the affecting their impression of Americans?

Michael Kirk: I have not spoken with Iraqi citizens about this matter. We followed Senator McCain's adage in our film--"this is not about them, it is about us."

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: Thank you for your great programming. I was wondering if the international community could push for violation of war crimes by the United States?

Michael Kirk: I have asked this question myself. I know that in the early going there was some worry about this matter from Alberto Gonzales and the other lawyers around the president. It is one of the reasons torture was defined so narrowly (hard to commit the crime) and for not adhering to the Geneva Conventions with regard to Al Qaeda and the Taliban prisoners from Afghanistan.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Mr. Kirk,

Did you get--or did your interviewees convey --any sense of proportions regarding the percentage of soldiers who were unhappy about our treatment of prisoners?

Michael Kirk: I am under the impression--partly from how available some of the evidence of abuse was to find--that the abuse happens often enough to be talked about at many levels. It remains to be seen--hopefully after military investigations, and further in-depth journalistic inquiries--how deep all this runs. For now, I believe it is more common that I thought when we began researching this story, and sources we talked to say the lack of oversight seems to be in direct proportion to the urgency to get information about the insurgency.

_______________________

Amenia, N.Y.: Has early reaction to "The Torture Question" led you to believe the documentary may inspire a new investigation into these abuses or will the reaction be "We have already thoroughly investigated the situation"? Do you, as the director, hope that further investigation is sparked by your work? Thanks!

Michael Kirk: I am a believer in aggressive, tough and fair journalism. I have a strong belief that kind of work keeps our country free and strong. I sincerely hope other journalists will take up the story and pursue it as aggressively as they can.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: I was with Army Intelligence in Vietnam with the First Infantry Division (66-67) and later served as an interrogations advisor for central Intelligence for two more tours. In the context of Vietnam, there was never a situation when mistreatment served any good purpose. Our experience was that the Vietnamese were so sure that they would be badly treated and good treatment (meal down town at the local market) would get them to tell us all they knew. So far as I knew, most of the other provinces were the same. The Vietnamese may have mistreated prisoners, but we had no need or reason to do so.

Why is Iraq different? Where did these procedures come from? I suspect that our prisoner drills with air force personnel may have contributed to this problem. Those were exercises where air force staff would evade capture and be "interrogated" when captured. I know this got out of hand and with our own people.

I don't know about the special forces.

Michael Kirk: Our reporting showed us that coercive measures don't work in most cases--with the exception of so-called "ticking time bombs." The particularly unpleasant and perhaps illegal procedures employed at Gitmo and in Iraq grew up in an ad hoc fashion as young (mostly) military intelligence soldiers tried to make sense out of confusing and complicated authorizations from Secretary Rumsfeld, General Sanchez, a variety of officers, CIA officers, and private contract interrogators. Geneva, The UCMJ and the Field Manual were not in use...what were the young soldiers following?

_______________________

Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada: Have you ever read the book, "Discipline and Punish - The Birth of the Prison" by Foucault?

In watching your program, there are many issues and questions that are raised around the idea of "power" and trying to uphold this concept of U.S. democracy throughout the world. Do you see this as a U.S./Orwellian "double-speak" (i.e.. "Freedom and Democracy" through "Torture and Control")? Now, post 9/11, do you see this attitude migrating into the American public psyche?

P.S.. I very much enjoyed watching your film and only wished more Americans could watch it and start asking the important questions of their government for accountability - both at nationally and maybe more importantly, internationally.

Michael Kirk: I promise to read them now. Thank you for your kind words.

_______________________

La Jolla, Calif.: Mr Kirk,

In one section of the program you described how US operatives go into Iraqi homes and interrogate people ("breaking ribs" was mentioned).

I wanted to know more about what instigates such an event? What type of information causes our soldiers to break into an Iraqi home and drag people off to prison?

Thank you.

Michael Kirk: There is, in Iraq, an urgent need for information. That need is being conveyed every day to soldiers on the ground. Sometimes, I gather, under the kind of extreme circumstances they encounter, this type of thing happens. Preventing it takes strong leadership, according to officers and officials I have spoken with. That kind of leadership often comes from the top down.

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: Given the clarity of the connection between Private England's behavior and the paper trail back to Secretary Rumsfeld, do you think the Army will void her prosecution?

Michael Kirk: No. Let's be very clear--the actions (some would call them "sadistic") are not legally or morally excusable if they are violations of the law. The question, as experts I have talked to articulate it, is not whether soldiers who do wrong should be excused--it is whether those who either order, condone or create a climate for such acts should also be held responsible. To date, in Abu Ghraib 7 military police and 2 military intelligence (enlisted) soldiers have been held responsible in court for their actions.

_______________________

Frrdericksburg, Va.: Did you offer a preview of this decidedly biased piece to any administrative official prior to its airing? Will the public see their comments on-air? In the interest of fairness and journalistic integrity will you and PBS offer an on-air rebuttal by any administration official?

Michael Kirk: We never show a program to anyone outside our editorial and promotion process prior to broadcast. We made strenuous efforts to get Secretary Rumsfeld and many other top government officials to talk to us for the program. Your quarrel about whether you are allowed to hear their side of the story is with them, not us.

_______________________

Kalispell, Mont.: First, thank you for a very informative program. I love Frontline. It gets to the heart of the problems we are facing.

Do you think Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be tried for war crimes? And how will they be remembered in the history books? I read in our local paper that Cheney has made over 78 million dollars in his stock in Halliburton since we invaded Iraq. FDR once said he hoped that WWII would not make any wartime millions. Seems to me this invasion into Iraq was about oil, power and money. Or are they synonymous??

Michael Kirk: How history and the courts will treat the people you mentioned will, in some way, depend on whether the American people are allowed to join the dialogue about this issue. At the present time the House of Representatives is considering whether to support Senator McCain's call for mandated humane treatment of prisoners. There is still time for citizens to enter that debate and articulate any number of positions on this vital subject.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Thank you Mr. Kirk. Thank for your detailed exposure of what has transpired, and the history of how we arrived at "the pictures." I also appreciate that you showed some graphic footage of the Iraq war, which I think is grossly absent from us Americans protected in our bubble.

My question is, do you see anyone in the future being held culpable? Or is everyone off the hook and "Rumsfeld walks away from this"?

Many thanks.

Michael Kirk: See the above answer. And thank you.

_______________________

Dallas, Tex.: Thank you for presenting an issue that I have tried to bring to the attention of my less enlightened friends. They will no longer wonder why I have an American flag hanging upside down in my room.

Michael Kirk: It's America...we can do what we think we must.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Have the conditions gotten better at Abu Ghraib?

Michael Kirk: Yes, but they are still very primitive. The soldiers working there are doing their best...travel to and from Abu Ghraib continues to be dangerous. The detainees are still coming in (4100 at last count). There is an effort to give some control over to the Iraqis, but I think the Americans (by necessity) are still very much in charge. There continue to be mortar attacks, and in April there was a full scale attack on the prison. In terms of abusive interrogations--we hear that those kind of things have been dramatically cleaned up. There are, however, 16 other prisons in Iraq. We did not visit, and journalists do not regularly report from them.

_______________________

Columbia, Md.: What do you think is the best way to convince our fellow Americans that, I can't believe I'm even having to say this, torture is wrong. We know it's ineffective, but beyond that, it's not who we want to be. I don't care (well, I care, but you know what I mean) what the enemy does. This is OUR country---if we can't stand against torture, the ultimate evil, then on what do we base our conception of ourselves as good people?

And most important, it doesn't matter whether the victims "deserve" it or not; torturing them turns US, our boys and girls, into torturers. What a terrible legacy to bring home with them.

Michael Kirk: A national dialogue, spurred by journalism, and elected officials, involving citizens will help educate people about this matter. Then they can openly decide what they are comfortable with....

_______________________

Memphis, Tenn.: Mr. Tony Lagouranis revealed that the 'coercive interrogation' techniques used on Iraqis was more widespread than reported and that it has now lead to people being beaten and even suffering broken bones inside their own homes. What do you think the White House's response to this news will be?

Michael Kirk: I hope they will investigate the allegations and prosecute wrongdoers at all levels of the chain of command. To date the President has threatened to veto the Defense Appropriations bill if Senator McCain's amendment requiring humane treatment of detainees is passed by the House.

_______________________

Middleton, Wis.: Thank you for your program. I watched and took copious notes. I'd like to see it again. I think I should renew my membership in PBS although I have been without any income for 8 months. I spend two hours a day reading news online and at the library. I was surprised recently I brought up news of the conviction of L. England to find my apartment manager insisted she had heard nothing about the Abu Ghraib news and a neighbor said, "who cares?". Now I would like to do a survey and find out more about how Americans are reacting. A friend in Alabama felt Rumsfeld should be accountable, too. From your program, I see just why he thought so. Was part of your motivation in doing the program that you perceived a lack of appreciation on the part of the average person?

Michael Kirk: We make programs to inform and educate. That's our sole purpose.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: When you get comments from people complaining that your reporting is "biased" or one-sided, do they ever actually explain why they believe it to be so? I notice that the pro-Administration comments on this chat don't; they just insinuate that you somehow weren't fair or balanced, presumably because they don't like the results. Where's the point-by-point rebuttal? Thanks.

Michael Kirk: We strive to be fair. My personal agenda is to find as many facts as possible, try to make sense of them for an average viewer and tell a story that makes it compelling and useful.

_______________________

University Heights, Calif.: I wonder what you left out of the program. Was there well documented information that you felt was too inflammatory for your broadcast?

Michael Kirk: FRONTLINE's incredible Web site is an important resource for viewers who want to know more. The film is really only the tip of the iceberg of information we gathered over the past year. I invite you to go there--see what could not be fit into the program, read and learn and follow leads yourself. It is an effort to be transparent in our journalism (the interviews of major subjects are there) as is some of the footage we couldn't get into the program. Enjoy yourself and learn much more about the issue. And in a few minutes you will be able to see the entire film again...on the web.

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: In a recent book, "Our Father's War", the author illustrates the "code of silence" about slaughter in Italy during WWII. This code seemed to be common to almost all veterans after the war was over. Do you think there is or will be a code of silence about activities in Iraq? If so, what sociological process accounts for such widespread unwritten and spontaneous agreements? Is it shame or some concept of patriotism?

Michael Kirk: I'm not sure. So many soldiers there have digital cameras. Many have computers with live Internet capabilities. It is hard to keep secrets long in a web and wired world. We are regularly (now) receiving reports from Iraq on our computers (at FRONTLINE)...and I hope that if there are others who know the truth of what is happening there, they will contact me: mike_kirk@wgbh.org

_______________________

Coral Gables, Fla.: Why did you exclude the most important evidence, cited by Republican Senators Graham and McCain, showing U.S. raping children in front of their parents? MSNBC, The New Yorker, and all other news outlets have discussed this. There are even photos and videos of this torture, which a judge has ruled must be released. Rumsfeld, illegally, continues to refuse to release these images, even to Congress. Why does Frontline always edit out the most negative evidence of anything about the Bush administration? This evidence is not partisan or claims by the so-called "liberal media" but are factual, proven by the judgment, admitted true by Rumsfeld, Graham, and McCain, and other Republicans and military officials.

Why? Does Frontline fear the whole truth would appear too partisan, thus it shows only partial truths to create a fake "balance"?

Michael Kirk: We do not intentionally do anything of the sort (about either side) and we never will. There are matters of legality and taste and journalistic proof that sometimes preclude our use of material--but NEVER to favor a political position.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Thank you all for joining us today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5101800710.html

Thanks for the post nrns....it's great that they will show the film on the web for those who missed it.
I just wish there would be more interest in this thread.

October 25, 2005
Exception Sought in Detainee Abuse Ban
By ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 - Stepping up a confrontation with the Senate over the handling of detainees, the White House is insisting that the Central Intelligence Agency be exempted from a proposed ban on abusive treatment of suspected Qaeda militants and other terrorists.

The Senate defied a presidential veto threat nearly three weeks ago and approved, 90 to 9, an amendment to a $440 billion military spending bill that would ban the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of any detainee held by the United States government. This could bar some techniques that the C.I.A. has used in some interrogations overseas.

But in a 45-minute meeting last Thursday, Vice President Dick Cheney and the C.I.A. director, Porter J. Goss, urged Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who wrote the amendment, to support an exemption for the agency, arguing that the president needed maximum flexibility in dealing with the global war on terrorism, said two government officials who were briefed on the meeting. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the discussions.

Mr. McCain rejected the proposed exemption, which stated that the measure "shall not apply with respect to clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States, that are carried out by an element of the United States government other than the Department of Defense and are consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and treaties to which the United States is a party, if the president determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack."

Spokesmen for Mr. McCain, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Goss all declined to comment on the matter Monday, citing the confidentiality of the talks.

Human rights organizations said Monday that it was unclear whether the language in the changes proposed by the White House meant that the president would decide exemptions case by case or whether there would be more of a blanket authority. But they said the administration's proposal would seriously undermine Mr. McCain's measure.

Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First, formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, said the administration had interpreted an international treaty banning torture to mean that a prohibition against cruel and inhumane treatment did not apply to C.I.A. actions overseas.

"That's why the McCain amendment is important, and that's why this language they're floating now would gut it," said Ms. Massimino, who provided a copy of the administration's proposed changes to The New York Times.

Human rights advocates said that creating parallel sets of interrogation rules for military personnel and clandestine intelligence operatives was impractical in the war on terrorism, where soldiers and spies routinely cross paths on a global battlefield and often share techniques

"They are explicitly saying, for the first time, that the intelligence community should have the ability to treat prisoners inhumanely," Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said. "You can't tell soldiers that inhumane treatment is always morally wrong if they see with their own eyes that C.I.A. personnel are allowed to engage in it."

Mr. McCain's provision faces stiff opposition in the House, which did not include similar language in its version of the spending bill.

The White House has threatened to veto any bill that includes the McCain provision, contending that it would bind the president's hands in wartime.

But Mr. McCain has kept the pressure on as the issue moves to a House-Senate conference committee, perhaps later this week or next. Shortly after the Senate vote on Oct. 5, Mr. McCain's staff sent members of the conference committee letters endorsing the provision signed by more than two dozen retired senior military officers, including former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and John M. Shalikashvili, both former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The matter will probably be settled in a private meeting in the next week or two among four senior lawmakers: Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and Representative C. W. Bill Young of Florida, both Republicans; and Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii and Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, both Democrats. All are on the conference committee.

Mr. McCain originally offered his measure earlier this year, when the Senate was working on a bill setting Pentagon policy. But Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, scuttled that bill, partly because of White House opposition to the amendment.

Now it appears that senators have struck a deal to revive the budget bill for Senate floor debate and action. One of the principal amendments that Democrats are expected to offer, sponsored by Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, would create an independent commission to review accusations of prisoner abuse by American forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere. The White House has also threatened a presidential veto if any bill comes to Mr. Bush's desk that contains the provision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/politics...agewanted=print

Mr. McCain rejected the proposed exemption, which stated that the measure "shall not apply with respect to clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States, that are carried out by an element of the United States government other than the Department of Defense and are consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and treaties to which the United States is a party, if the president determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack."

That's an extremely broad exception. Basically ............. Bush would get to do whatever he wants.

Yup. Torturer-in-chief.

All the little creep has to do is withdraw from the treaties to which the United States is a party. Gonzales has already given him permission to do that.

I've been worrying about this since my last post. Here's a challenge to the Bushite lurkers to take back to their 'fearless leader':

In the next TV address Bush makes, he should specifically tell the American people why torture is a required technique in his "War on Terror". Cheney, Chertoff, Goss and Negroponte should be right beside him and make their own cases for it as well.

The American public should see exactly who is formulating such policies in our names.

Let's see, the US is supposed to be a beacon of democracy and human rights for the world yet our president and his minions see nothing wrong with torturing people and denying civil rights-- even to people in GiTMO who have committed no crimes or terrorist acts.

It's one thing to interrogate terror suspects to get information. There are all kinds of ways to extract information without torture. If nothing else, torture only gets you bad information. I guarantee if you torture anybody on the planet you could get them to say that they were on the grassy knoll in '63.

This torture stuff is also among the things that are turning so much of the rest of the world against us and infuriating even more muslime radicals.

I don't see how even a bunch of jackasses like those in the Whitehouse could possibly see this a beneficial thing.

I frequently see criticism for Democrats so I want to congratulate Carl Levin for offering this amendment.

I don't know if you realize what this means. It means that the Bush Administration officially condones torture.

Yet all those soldiers in Iraq supposedly did it on their own, without any direction from higher ups.

Again: the Bush Administration has come out on the side of torture. It officially condones torture.

This is the USA?

Anyone that still believes the spin that the abuse and torture of our prisoners was an aberration by a few low level soldiers and not the policy of this adminstration is obviously quite willing to be deceived.

I agree. Let them have an open and public dialog about whether torture is acceptable and whether it achieves the desired results. Let's bring this into the open with a national address.

You just don't understand, we can only be free by practicing the act of torture to those individuals our honest government decides are worthy of being tortured!

Its just that simple!

Technical correction, it doesn't mean they condone torture, it means they ENDORSE torture and consider it to be a vital tool. It also means they perjured themselves during the torture inquiries.

I hope everyone will contact their Senators and these Senators mentioned above. We really need to let them know that we are focused on this issue and that we will hold them accountable if they allow the president to write the approval of torture into our laws.

I also hope you will tell you Senators to support the Carl Levin amendment.

I'll contact Murtha from PA. and write my senators about the Levin amendment.

Thanks Amy.

Cheney Plan Exempts CIA From Bill Barring Abuse of Detainees

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 25, 2005; A01



The Bush administration has proposed exempting employees of the Central Intelligence Agency from a legislative measure endorsed earlier this month by 90 members of the Senate that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoners in U.S. custody.

The proposal, which two sources said Vice President Cheney handed last Thursday to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the company of CIA Director Porter J. Goss, states that the measure barring inhumane treatment shall not apply to counterterrorism operations conducted abroad or to operations conducted by "an element of the United States government" other than the Defense Department.

Although most detainees in U.S. custody in the war on terrorism are held by the U.S. military, the CIA is said by former intelligence officials and others to be holding several dozen detainees of particular intelligence interest at locations overseas -- including senior al Qaeda figures Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaida.

Cheney's proposal is drafted in such a way that the exemption from the rule barring ill treatment could require a presidential finding that "such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack." But the precise applicability of this section is not clear, and none of those involved in last week's discussions would discuss it openly yesterday.

McCain, the principal sponsor of the legislation, rejected the proposed exemption at the meeting with Cheney, according to a government source who spoke without authorization and on the condition of anonymity. McCain spokeswoman Eileen McMenamin declined to comment. But the exemption has been assailed by human rights experts critical of the administration's handling of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This is the first time they've said explicitly that the intelligence community should be allowed to treat prisoners inhumanely," said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "In the past, they've only said that the law does not forbid inhumane treatment." Now, he said, the administration is saying more concretely that it cannot be forbidden.

The provision in question -- which the Senate on Oct. 5 voted 90 to 9 to attach to its version of the pending defense appropriations bill over the administration's opposition -- essentially proscribes harsh treatment of any detainees in U.S. custody or control anywhere in the world. It was specifically drafted to close what its backers say is a loophole in the administration's policy of generally barring torture, namely its legal contention that these constraints do not apply to treatment of foreigners on foreign soil.

The House version of the appropriations bill contains no similar provision on detainee treatment, and lawmakers are to meet later this week to begin reconciling the conflict.

Cheney's meeting with McCain last week was his third attempt to persuade the lawmaker, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, to accept a less broad legislative bar against inhumane treatment. Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride declined to comment, saying, "the vice president does not discuss private conversations that he has with members [of Congress] . . . or information that may be exchanged with members."

She added that the intent of such meetings is usually "to build consensus on legislative issues, still in the policymaking process." CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a former Cheney aide, said the agency does not comment on the director's meetings.

Other sources said the vice president is also still fighting a second provision of the Senate-passed legislation, which requires that detainees in Defense Department custody anywhere in the world may be subjected only to interrogation techniques approved and listed in the Army's Field Manual.

The manual is undergoing revision, and McCain has contended that this process will give the military sufficient flexibility to respond to terrorist countermeasures. But Cheney's office has argued in talking points being circulated on Capitol Hill that the manual "will be inapplicable in certain instances" because of such countermeasures.
The CIA has been implicated in a number of alleged abuses in Iraq and has been linked to at least a few cases in which detainees have died during interrogations at separate military bases throughout the country. So far, no CIA operatives have been charged in connection with the abuse, although a single CIA contract employee is on trial for involvement in the death of an Afghanistan detainee, and sources have indicated that a grand jury may be looking at other allegations involving the CIA.

A report by the CIA inspector general's office on the agency's role in the handling of detainees is classified. It has been shown to the Justice Department and briefed only to a few lawmakers. Several military investigations have already blamed the CIA for leading a program in Iraq that essentially made detainees disappear within the military's detention system with no record of their captivity -- a practice that human rights groups have said violated international laws of war.

In a particularly infamous case, a detainee at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq named Manadel Jamadi was photographed after his death, packed in ice, by military police soldiers at the facility. He allegedly died in a shower room during interrogation by CIA officers after being brought there by Navy Seal team members. A high-level CIA operative allegedly helped conceal Jamadi's death after Army officers found his body.

But the extent of the CIA's direct involvement in torture is unclear, partly because the agency has been reluctant to help the Defense Department's many investigations into abuse and has refused to provide Army officers with documents deemed relevant to the probes.

Staff writer Dana Priest contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2402051_pf.html

This is Bush's USA. This is the right wing's USA. These a$$&*!#$ don't speak for all of us.

US detainees 'murdered' during interrogations

By Associated Press

10/25/05 "Associated Press" -- -- Washington -- At least 21 detainees who died while in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan were the victims of homicide and usually died during or after interrogations, according to an analysis of Defence Department data.

The analysis by the American Civil Liberties Union, released today, looked at 44 deaths described in records obtained by the ACLU. Of those, the group characterised 21 as homicides, and said at least eight resulted from abusive techniques by military or intelligence officers, such as strangulation or "blunt force injuries", as noted in the autopsy reports.

The 44 deaths represent a partial group of the total number of prisoners who have died in US custody overseas; more than 100 have died of natural and violent causes.

In one case, the report said, a detainee died after being smothered during interrogation by military intelligence officers in November 2003. In another case cited by the report, a prisoner died of asphyxiation and blunt force injuries after he was left standing, shackled to the top of a door frame, with a gag in his mouth.

One Afghan civilian, believed by the ACLU to be Abdul Wahid, died from "multiple blunt force injuries" in 2003 at a base in Helmand province, Afghanistan, according to an autopsy report provided by the Defence Department.

Wahid, 28, was taken from his home by Afghan militia and accused of being a terrorist. The autopsy report said he died in American custody, although his father has blamed the militiamen.

The detailed list of prisoners whose deaths the report considered homicides includes two detainees who were beaten and died from "blunt force injuries" at the Bagram Airfield detention centre in Afghanistan, according to the autopsies.

Earlier this month, Private First Class Damien Corsetti, a military intelligence interrogator with the 519th MI Battalion at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, became the 15th soldier to face charges since those 2002 deaths.

Details about the detainee abuse and deaths have been released by the Pentagon as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU. Many of the incidents have been made public before, and in a number of cases the soldiers and officers involved have been prosecuted and punished.

"The US military does not tolerate mistreatment of detainees," army spokesman Colonel Joseph Curtin said. "Past cases have been fully investigated. When there is credible evidence, commanders have the prerogative to prosecute."

To date, there have been more than 400 investigations of detainee abuse, and more than 230 military personnel have received a court-martial, non-judicial punishment or other administrative action.

"There is no question that US interrogations have resulted in deaths," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said. "High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable."

The data includes detainees who were interrogated by military intelligence, Navy Seals and "Other Governmental Agency" personnel, which generally refers to the CIA.

On the Net:

ACLU documents: http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/

Copyright: Associated Press

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10751.htm

US detainees 'murdered' during interrogations

By Associated Press

10/25/05 "Associated Press" -- -- Washington -- At least 21 detainees who died while in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan were the victims of homicide and usually died during or after interrogations, according to an analysis of Defence Department data.

The analysis by the American Civil Liberties Union, released today, looked at 44 deaths described in records obtained by the ACLU. Of those, the group characterised 21 as homicides, and said at least eight resulted from abusive techniques by military or intelligence officers, such as strangulation or "blunt force injuries", as noted in the autopsy reports.

The 44 deaths represent a partial group of the total number of prisoners who have died in US custody overseas; more than 100 have died of natural and violent causes.

In one case, the report said, a detainee died after being smothered during interrogation by military intelligence officers in November 2003. In another case cited by the report, a prisoner died of asphyxiation and blunt force injuries after he was left standing, shackled to the top of a door frame, with a gag in his mouth.

One Afghan civilian, believed by the ACLU to be Abdul Wahid, died from "multiple blunt force injuries" in 2003 at a base in Helmand province, Afghanistan, according to an autopsy report provided by the Defence Department.

Wahid, 28, was taken from his home by Afghan militia and accused of being a terrorist. The autopsy report said he died in American custody, although his father has blamed the militiamen.

The detailed list of prisoners whose deaths the report considered homicides includes two detainees who were beaten and died from "blunt force injuries" at the Bagram Airfield detention centre in Afghanistan, according to the autopsies.

Earlier this month, Private First Class Damien Corsetti, a military intelligence interrogator with the 519th MI Battalion at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, became the 15th soldier to face charges since those 2002 deaths.

Details about the detainee abuse and deaths have been released by the Pentagon as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU. Many of the incidents have been made public before, and in a number of cases the soldiers and officers involved have been prosecuted and punished.

"The US military does not tolerate mistreatment of detainees," army spokesman Colonel Joseph Curtin said. "Past cases have been fully investigated. When there is credible evidence, commanders have the prerogative to prosecute."

To date, there have been more than 400 investigations of detainee abuse, and more than 230 military personnel have received a court-martial, non-judicial punishment or other administrative action.

"There is no question that US interrogations have resulted in deaths," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said. "High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable."

The data includes detainees who were interrogated by military intelligence, Navy Seals and "Other Governmental Agency" personnel, which generally refers to the CIA.

On the Net:

ACLU documents: http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/

Copyright: Associated Press



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10751.htm

Vice President for Torture

Wednesday, October 26, 2005; A18



VICE PRESIDENT Cheney is aggressively pursuing an initiative that may be unprecedented for an elected official of the executive branch: He is proposing that Congress legally authorize human rights abuses by Americans. "Cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of prisoners is banned by an international treaty negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the United States. The State Department annually issues a report criticizing other governments for violating it. Now Mr. Cheney is asking Congress to approve legal language that would allow the CIA to commit such abuses against foreign prisoners it is holding abroad. In other words, this vice president has become an open advocate of torture.

His position is not just some abstract defense of presidential power. The CIA is holding an unknown number of prisoners in secret detention centers abroad. In violation of the Geneva Conventions, it has refused to register those detainees with the International Red Cross or to allow visits by its inspectors. Its prisoners have "disappeared," like the victims of some dictatorships. The Justice Department and the White House are known to have approved harsh interrogation techniques for some of these people, including "waterboarding," or simulated drowning; mock execution; and the deliberate withholding of pain medication. CIA personnel have been implicated in the deaths during interrogation of at least four Afghan and Iraqi detainees. Official investigations have indicated that some aberrant practices by Army personnel in Iraq originated with the CIA. Yet no CIA personnel have been held accountable for this record, and there has never been a public report on the agency's performance.

It's not surprising that Mr. Cheney would be at the forefront of an attempt to ratify and legalize this shameful record. The vice president has been a prime mover behind the Bush administration's decision to violate the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture and to break with decades of past practice by the U.S. military. These decisions at the top have led to hundreds of documented cases of abuse, torture and homicide in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Cheney's counsel, David S. Addington, was reportedly one of the principal authors of a legal memo justifying the torture of suspects. This summer Mr. Cheney told several Republican senators that President Bush would veto the annual defense spending bill if it contained language prohibiting the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by any U.S. personnel.

The senators ignored Mr. Cheney's threats, and the amendment, sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), passed this month by a vote of 90 to 9. So now Mr. Cheney is trying to persuade members of a House-Senate conference committee to adopt language that would not just nullify the McCain amendment but would formally adopt cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as a legal instrument of U.S. policy. The Senate's earlier vote suggests that it will not allow such a betrayal of American values. As for Mr. Cheney: He will be remembered as the vice president who campaigned for torture.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2501388_pf.html

October 26, 2005
Editorial

Legalized Torture, Reloaded

Amid all the natural and political disasters it faces, the White House is certainly tireless in its effort to legalize torture. This week, Vice President Dick Cheney proposed a novel solution for the moral and legal problems raised by the use of American soldiers to abuse prisoners and the practice of turning captives over to governments willing to act as proxies in doing the torturing. Mr. Cheney wants to make it legal for the Central Intelligence Agency to do this wet work.

Mr. Cheney's proposal was made in secret to Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who won the votes of 89 other senators this month to require the civilized treatment of prisoners at camps run by America's military and intelligence agencies. Mr. McCain's legislation, an amendment to the Defense Department budget bill, would ban the "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of prisoners. In other words, it would impose age-old standards of democracy and decency on the new prisons.

President Bush's threat to veto the entire military budget over this issue was bizarre enough by itself, considering that the amendment has the support of more than two dozen former military leaders, including Colin Powell. They know that torture doesn't produce reliable intelligence and endangers Americans' lives.

But Mr. Cheney's proposal was even more ludicrous. It would give the president the power to allow government agencies outside the Defense Department (the administration has in mind the C.I.A.) to mistreat and torture prisoners as long as that behavior was part of "counterterrorism operations conducted abroad" and they were not American citizens. That would neatly legalize the illegal prisons the C.I.A. is said to be operating around the world and obviate the need for the torture outsourcing known as extraordinary rendition. It also raises disturbing questions about Iraq, which the Bush administration has falsely labeled a counterterrorism operation.

Mr. McCain was right to reject this absurd proposal. The House should reject it as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/opinion/...agewanted=print

PLEASE KEEP THOSE EMAILS & LETTERS COMING

Negotiators on Torture Bill Feeling Heat
Wednesday October 26, 2005 1:01 AM


By LIZ SIDOTI

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Congressional negotiators are feeling heat from the White House and constituents as they consider whether to back a Senate-approved ban on torturing detainees in U.S. custody or weaken the prohibition, as the White House prefers.

Led by Vice President Dick Cheney, the Bush administration is floating a proposal that would allow the president to exempt covert agents outside the Defense Department from the ban.

Meanwhile, some newspapers are calling for lawmakers to support Sen. John McCain's provision that would bar the use of ``cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'' against anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held.

``There's a lot of public pressure to retain the language intact. At the same time, there's pressure from the vice president's office to modify it,'' said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, which supports McCain's provision.

In a meeting last week with McCain, R-Ariz., Cheney and CIA Director Porter Goss suggested language that would exclude clandestine counterterrorism operations overseas by agencies other than the Pentagon ``if the president determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack.''

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Tuesday that the president has ``made our position very clear: We do not condone torture, nor would he ever authorize the use of torture.''

McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, said he rejected the administration's proposal because ``that would basically allow the CIA to engage in torture.''

It is unclear how much influence McCain has in the negotiations to resolve differences between House and Senate versions of the $445 billion defense bill. McCain will not be involved directly in those talks.

Among those leading the negotiations will be Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla., who head the defense spending subcommittees.

Young has said the U.S. has no obligation to terrorists, and he and other top House Republicans have signaled they will try to change the Senate-approved language.

Stevens, who voted against it in the Senate, has said the language is too broad in applying to agents who work undercover. He has said the administration shares that concern.

``I still believe we have to take into account the situation that clandestine people find themselves in,'' Stevens said. But he said he had not seen the vice president's language and could not say whether he would support it.

Top Democratic negotiators - Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii and Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania - support McCain's language, but their clout is limited because they are in the minority party. Nevertheless, Murtha said he planned to press negotiators not to change the Senate-passed provision.

Lawmakers say Cheney's latest alternative was just one of several that the White House has offered.

This month, the Senate added the ban and the interrogation standards to its defense bill by a 90-9 vote. The administration threatened a veto if the president's ability to conduct the war was restricted.

The House bill did not include McCain's plan, which also would require the military to follow the Army Field Manual when imprisoning and questioning suspects in the fight against terrorism.

Since the Senate vote, some newspapers have urged lawmakers in their states to support McCain's approach. Several papers took aim at Republicans who are leading the negotiations.

``Sen. Stevens is wrong and should follow the lead of Sen. McCain, who speaks firsthand of the wrongs of torture,'' the Anchorage Daily News said Monday.

The St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times weighed in on Oct. 16, saying that Young and other negotiators ``have an obligation to rise above partisanship and uphold principles that should be beyond debate in a civilized society.''


http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...5369887,00.html

I'm glad such a major publication is calling Cheney out so bluntly for this. I wish they had been doing this all along, and not just when they saw him as vulnerable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5102501388.html

McCain fights exception to torture ban
Ex-POW assails bid to exempt the CIA
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | October 26, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Senator John McCain yesterday warned that a push by the White House to exempt overseas CIA agents from a proposed ban on mistreating prisoners in US custody would exacerbate the problem of detainee abuse by giving interrogators legal authority to torture suspected terrorists.

''I don't see how you could possibly agree to legitimizing an agent of the government engaging in torture," said the Arizona Republican, who survived torture as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. ''No amendment at all would be better than that."

McCain went public with his concerns after published reports yesterday that Vice President Dick Cheney met with him to urge changes to his widely supported proposal to outlaw cruel and degrading treatment of detainees by any US official. Cheney suggested exempting CIA counter-terrorism agents working overseas, but McCain balked.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan yesterday declined to comment on Cheney's conversations with McCain. But he insisted the Bush administration opposes torture under any circumstances.

''We do not condone torture, nor would [President Bush] ever authorize the use of torture," McClellan said. ''We have an obligation to abide by our laws and our treaty obligations, and that's what we do. That is our policy."

Under law, it is unclear whether the president can authorize CIA interrogators to abuse overseas prisoners in the name of protecting national security. The CIA has been charged with detaining and interrogating ''high value" Al Qaeda leaders in secret overseas facilities.

After the 2001 terrorist attacks, the administration crafted a secret legal memo arguing that Bush could authorize aggressive interrogations to protect national security. The controversial memo defined ''torture" narrowly as pain that is equal to organ failure and that is inflicted as an end to itself, rather than as a means to obtaining life-saving information.

The administration repudiated the memo in 2004 after it leaked, and said it had never been used. But the White House insists the Constitution gives the commander-in-chief the power to decide how terrorism suspects will be treated.

Human rights activists argue that the president's powers do not allow him to override laws and treaties against torture and other forms of cruel and degrading treatment. The debate is unresolved, resulting in legal confusion.

Cheney's proposed changes to McCain's bill would clear up the confusion -- while opening the door to legalized abuse, critics say. If Congress passes an anti-abuse law that exempts the CIA, the law would constitute, for the first time, clear authorization for the CIA to engage in abusive interrogations to protect national security.

''It will be a major step backwards from where the law currently stands," said Marty Lederman, a former Clinton administration Justice Department official who is now a professor at the Georgetown University law school. ''It would make the law worse than it currently is."

The Senate voted 90-9 three weeks ago to attach McCain's amendment to a military appropriations bill, in a bipartisan vote that was seen widely as a rebuke to Bush administration policies following detainee abuse scandals at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere.

The measure is not in the House version of the bill. It is pending before a House-Senate conference committee, which has the power to delete, modify, or keep the detainee language.

Lawmakers are due to meet privately today to discuss the detainee issue for the first time. The Senate delegation is led by Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, one of nine who voted against McCain's proposal. Yesterday, Stevens said that if the detainee language becomes law, it would jeopardize the lives of clandestine agents.

''I do think we have to take into account -- and that's why I voted against it -- the position of those people who we send into harm's way, in a clandestine way," Stevens said. ''What is the standard that applies to them in terms of saving their own lives? . . . I have not seen the vice president's language. I have no solution to it yet. I don't know how to solve it. But I know there's a problem."

McCain responded: ''I don't know how you protect your life by torturing somebody. I've never understood that scenario."

McCain's proposal would do two things. First, it would restrict military interrogators to using only techniques authorized in the Army Field Guide, imposing firmer limits on military prisons.

Second, it would prohibit torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody anywhere in the world. That rule would extend to CIA agents and officials from allied governments.

Several weeks ago, the White House threatened to veto the military appropriations bill should the final version contain McCain's proposal, citing Bush's need for flexibility in setting policy for the treatment of prisoners in the war on terrorism.

But the threat did not deter 90 members of the Senate, including 46 Republicans, from approving the amendment.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...ure_ban?mode=PF

A tortured way to run war on terror
Bush administration shouldn't unilaterally call the shots, especially in threatening veto on treatment of detainees

BY OONA A. HATHAWAY
Oona A. Hathaway, an associate professor at Yale Law School and a Carnegie scholar, is writing a book on international law.

October 26, 2005

For years, the Bush administration has insisted that it - and it alone - should be in charge of the war on terror. And for years, Congress and the courts have relented. Earlier this month, though, that began to change. Over the threat of a presidential veto, the Senate voted, 90-9, to place limits on the military's treatment of detainees abroad.

Unfortunately, this sensible move is now in jeopardy. The provision is currently before a House-Senate conference committee led by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), one of the nine senators who voted against the measure. That committee could cut the provision or - as now seems more likely - gut it by adding an exemption that would allow the CIA to engage in cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment on behalf of the United States.

Indeed, Vice President Dick Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss met with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who wrote the original provision, and pressured him to support an exemption for the agency. He refused, and Congress should, too.

The addition of the exemption for the CIA would succeed in turning a victory for human rights into a stunning defeat. Congress would, for the first time, actively aid and abet the administration's decision to use cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment against foreigners captured abroad.

The committee should not let that happen. It should keep the provision as it is, because it is good policy and because it constitutes a vital assertion of Congress' rightful role in the war on terror.

In some ways, what is most remarkable about the McCain amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill is that we need it at all. The amendment is a model of restraint: It says that prisoners should be treated in accordance with international law, allowed access to the International Red Cross and interrogated with methods permitted by the Army field manual. These are not extreme restrictions.

Indeed, they are simply a reaffirmation of the principles embodied in the international Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which the United States ratified a little more than a decade ago. Yet, the reaffirmation of this international commitment today is crucial because it has become clear that the administration has engaged in a systematic effort to evade it when it comes to foreign prisoners.

Despite repeated evidence of its inability (or unwillingness) to prevent human rights violations against its foreign prisoners, the administration also continues to cling to the dangerous and undemocratic position that it should be the only arbiter of our nation's military and intelligence conduct in the war on terror.

In the wake of the amendment's passage, for instance, White House spokesman Scott McClellan attacked it as "unnecessary and duplicative," arguing that "it would limit the president's ability as commander in chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism." The message to Congress and the courts could not be clearer: Stop trying to interfere.

But interfere they can and should. The Constitution gives Congress war-making powers, too, after all. It also makes it Congress' duty to "define and punish" violations of the law of nations. As Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) explained, "In the short term, the president can set the rules. But the war on terror is now four years old. ... For the longer term the people should set the rules. That's why we have an independent Congress. That's our job."

Nor should Congress wait for the courts. Not only are the courts poorly suited to setting basic policy, but, in addition, the last thing the Republican leadership in Congress should want is courts "legislating from the bench." And even those who would like the courts to put the brakes on executive power should feel no assurance that they will. Last year, the Supreme Court insisted that the executive branch didn't have exclusive power over prisoners captured in the war on terror. But on the most important of those decisions - Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Justice Sandra Day O'Connor cast the crucial vote. If Harriet Miers is approved for O'Connor's seat, she cannot be counted on to vote the same way.

Congress now has the chance to take its place alongside the president in determining the conduct of the war on terror. It should refuse to allow any part of the U.S. government to engage in cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, demonstrating to Americans and the world that our nation stands for justice and accountability as well as power.
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oph...oints-headlines

Sharks aren't the only creatures that can smell "blood in the water"!...So do scavengers.

Greed is Cheney's trouble. He head, eyes and ears are so bloated to enriching himself with power and money, he can definitely equate himself to Palpatine in Star Wars. Rumsfeld chosed to become his Darth Vader.

What's amazing to me is that such a subject would even be open for discussion. It's astounding that McCain would have to include anti-torture language in any bill, and it defies any sense of credibility that, once included, it would be contested. What has America come to?

BushCo.

They have been critical all along. There was also a NYT editorial today that was also contemptuous of Cheney. Both of these papers have run numerous pieces on the abuse of prisoner issue.

I started a thread yesterday in the online forum about this issue (I moved it today to the human rights forum). You can go to this thread to see the NYT editorial and other editorials and stories about this issue.

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...showtopic=40771

Another rebuke of Cheney (and Congress) for their torture agenda.