Full Version: Gen. Sanchez Perjured Himself:
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > U.S. Military Issues > U.S. Military Issues Archive
I think you meant to use this link?
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFre...?ID=17866&c=206
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFre...?ID=17866&c=206
I'm going to add this to our torture thread. We are following all of the issues surrounding the torture and killing of prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq & Guantanamo.
Interesting story, but methinks I've got two questions:
1. 'Twould seem, as indicated here, that the the ACLU says "Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" , yet methinks the folks they seem to be complaining about mistreatment of are almost exclusively people not Americans and outside the USA, therefore they wouldn't normally be seen to be protected by the Constitution, would they? Is the ACLU now claiming all people everywhere are guaranteed the protections of the American Constitution?
2. Even though the individual named in the letter is an American military officer the subject of it really seems to be civil rights related. 'Tis very possible I'm wrong, but 'twould seem, unless the real issue here is a poke at the American military, that this really belongs in the civil liberties area since that really seems the subject of the letter and focus of the group sending it, eh?
Methinks I could be wrong on one or both issues, 'twouldn't be the first time. Just the same those are IMHO valid questions to ask, eh?
1. 'Twould seem, as indicated here, that the the ACLU says "Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" , yet methinks the folks they seem to be complaining about mistreatment of are almost exclusively people not Americans and outside the USA, therefore they wouldn't normally be seen to be protected by the Constitution, would they? Is the ACLU now claiming all people everywhere are guaranteed the protections of the American Constitution?
2. Even though the individual named in the letter is an American military officer the subject of it really seems to be civil rights related. 'Tis very possible I'm wrong, but 'twould seem, unless the real issue here is a poke at the American military, that this really belongs in the civil liberties area since that really seems the subject of the letter and focus of the group sending it, eh?
Methinks I could be wrong on one or both issues, 'twouldn't be the first time. Just the same those are IMHO valid questions to ask, eh?
QUOTE(flydangler @ Apr 3 2005, 10:53 PM)
Interesting story, but methinks I've got two questions:
1. 'Twould seem, as indicated here, that the the ACLU says "Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" , yet methinks the folks they seem to be complaining about mistreatment of are almost exclusively people not Americans and outside the USA, therefore they wouldn't normally be seen to be protected by the Constitution, would they? Is the ACLU now claiming all people everywhere are guaranteed the protections of the American Constitution?
2. Even though the individual named in the letter is an American military officer the subject of it really seems to be civil rights related. 'Tis very possible I'm wrong, but 'twould seem, unless the real issue here is a poke at the American military, that this really belongs in the civil liberties area since that really seems the subject of the letter and focus of the group sending it, eh?
Methinks I could be wrong on one or both issues, 'twouldn't be the first time. Just the same those are IMHO valid questions to ask, eh?
1. 'Twould seem, as indicated here, that the the ACLU says "Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" , yet methinks the folks they seem to be complaining about mistreatment of are almost exclusively people not Americans and outside the USA, therefore they wouldn't normally be seen to be protected by the Constitution, would they? Is the ACLU now claiming all people everywhere are guaranteed the protections of the American Constitution?
2. Even though the individual named in the letter is an American military officer the subject of it really seems to be civil rights related. 'Tis very possible I'm wrong, but 'twould seem, unless the real issue here is a poke at the American military, that this really belongs in the civil liberties area since that really seems the subject of the letter and focus of the group sending it, eh?
Methinks I could be wrong on one or both issues, 'twouldn't be the first time. Just the same those are IMHO valid questions to ask, eh?
I didn't post this in the military thread so I will leave comments about that to the person who posted it. I'm sure they can share their reason for posting in this particular thread. I would like to say, however, that I wish some of our members who are former military would join us in the discussion about torture at the hands of the U.S. (FBI, CIA, MIA, etc.).
I think it is very important for all of us that we have an independent investigation of the treatment of prisoners. We need to do this for two reasons, (1) to find out who the guilty parties are and hold them accountable and (2) we need to lift the taint that surrounds those that are not guilty. Until we have an independent investigation we will see a wide brush being used to assign guilt when discussing this issue.
My own personal view is that most of the career military were not happy with the DOD civilian side who created the new policy on the treatment of prisoners. This new policy runs counter to what the military has historically supported. There have been a number of high profile former military personnel who have spoken on this issue (some of those comments can be seen in our torture thread). There are military groups that are supporting an independent investigation precisely because they support the military.
For those in the military, former military or those who are deeply concerned that the military is being blamed as a whole for these outrages I would encourage them to not deny that these incidents have happened or make excuses for why they have occured. The best thing is to support a full, independent investigation so that those who are not a party to this have their good names restored. Those in the military who are not guilty of these crimes should not have to live under a cloud of suspicion because the guilty want to block an independent investigation.
QUOTE(flydangler @ Apr 3 2005, 08:53 PM)
Interesting story, but methinks I've got two questions:
1. 'Twould seem, as indicated here, that the the ACLU says "Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" , yet methinks the folks they seem to be complaining about mistreatment of are almost exclusively people not Americans and outside the USA, therefore they wouldn't normally be seen to be protected by the Constitution, would they? Is the ACLU now claiming all people everywhere are guaranteed the protections of the American Constitution?
2. Even though the individual named in the letter is an American military officer the subject of it really seems to be civil rights related. 'Tis very possible I'm wrong, but 'twould seem, unless the real issue here is a poke at the American military, that this really belongs in the civil liberties area since that really seems the subject of the letter and focus of the group sending it, eh?
Methinks I could be wrong on one or both issues, 'twouldn't be the first time. Just the same those are IMHO valid questions to ask, eh?
1. 'Twould seem, as indicated here, that the the ACLU says "Our job is to conserve America's original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights" , yet methinks the folks they seem to be complaining about mistreatment of are almost exclusively people not Americans and outside the USA, therefore they wouldn't normally be seen to be protected by the Constitution, would they? Is the ACLU now claiming all people everywhere are guaranteed the protections of the American Constitution?
2. Even though the individual named in the letter is an American military officer the subject of it really seems to be civil rights related. 'Tis very possible I'm wrong, but 'twould seem, unless the real issue here is a poke at the American military, that this really belongs in the civil liberties area since that really seems the subject of the letter and focus of the group sending it, eh?
Methinks I could be wrong on one or both issues, 'twouldn't be the first time. Just the same those are IMHO valid questions to ask, eh?
I’ll have to agree to a point there flydangler, it’s not America’s job to compel the world to use our Constitution, or our Bill of Rights as a basis for their system of governing. But could you cite for me where people might not benefit from at least it’s basic philosophic point. I don’t think the ACLU is talking about the American government enforcing the laws of our nation anywhere but here.
http://www.aclu.org/about/aboutmain.cfm ,
Abu Ghraib Probe Suggests CIA Role in Iraqi Deaths
By David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - CIA interrogations may have played a role in the deaths of several detainees in Iraq, as Bush administration lawyers were advocating an aggressive interrogation policy that critics say led to torture, military documents and officials say.
U.S. officials have formally disclosed the death of only one person interrogated by the CIA in Iraq -- Manadel al-Jamadi, an unregistered "ghost" prisoner at Abu Ghraib who died Nov. 4, 2003, while handcuffed in a prison shower room.
But sworn statements provided to Army investigators by military intelligence and police at Abu Ghraib contain at least four references to CIA detainees dying during interrogations that do not correspond with the al-Jamadi case.
The documents, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, were collected for an Army investigation that first disclosed the presence of unregistered CIA detainees at Abu Ghraib last September.
The documents were posted on the ACLU's Web site at www.aclu.org last month. The Army used the acronym "OGA" for "other government agency" to refer almost exclusively to the CIA.
One document refers to an "OGA" detainee dying under interrogation in September 2003, two months before al-Jamadi.
Another suggests a death occurred in October, while a third said a detainee died while chained in the prison shower. A fourth document refers to a detainee dying from heart problems during interrogation.
The allegations are based on what soldiers say they heard and offer no substantiation. They provide few details and have been redacted to delete the names of the witnesses, their colleagues and superiors.
Intelligence officials dismissed the statements as unsubstantiated hearsay or garbled references to al-Jamadi, who the government says died from wounds received during capture by a Navy SEAL unit.
But they acknowledged that the CIA may have played a role in the case of an Iraqi military official who died during military interrogation in western Iraq in November 2003.
Maj. Gen. George Fay, who helped lead the Army investigation at Abu Ghraib, told Reuters that al-Jamadi was the only interrogation-related death confirmed at the prison.
But his team turned up reports of at least three other deaths elsewhere in Iraq that may have involved the CIA.
"There were allegations of at least three," Fay, an assistant deputy chief of staff for Army intelligence, said in an interview. "There may have been more. OGA may or may not have been involved -- yet to be determined."
Deaths in interrogation outside Abu Ghraib were beyond the scope of Fay's mission, so he passed the information on to Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, then the U.S. commander in Iraq.
Ultimately, the allegations were left to an investigation led by Army Brig. Gen. Richard Formica, whose findings remain classified.
The CIA, whose inspector general is reviewing about a half-dozen allegations of detainee abuse, said al-Jamadi's death was the only one at Abu Ghraib with possible CIA involvement.
The inspector general has forwarded two cases involving CIA detainee deaths in Afghanistan to the Justice Department. One case is headed for trial in U.S. District Court in North Carolina.
ACLU staff attorney Amrit Singh, who recently won a federal court order requiring the CIA to disclose detainee information, said the Army documents could indicate the number of deaths in CIA custody was understated.
"These documents suggest the CIA was routinely torturing detainees with utter impunity," said Singh, who believes the Bush administration permitted the CIA to use harsher interrogation methods than the military in a series of classified documents.
CIA Director Porter Goss assured the Senate Committee on Armed Services last month that agency practices presently conform to U.S. law on torture.
He could not say the same past techniques. But the CIA later issued a statement declaring that interrogation techniques, past and present, conform to U.S. law.
Republican Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, is resisting Democratic demands that the committee investigate reports of CIA torture of detainees and says a CIA probe now underway is sufficient.
"They are not torturing any detainee," he said last month.
Former intelligence officers believe abuse allegations stem from a policy change that allowed aggressive new interrogation methods in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"All the CIA does is follow direction from the National Security Council and the White House. It doesn't invent these things," said one former intelligence officer.
A legal opinion prepared by the Justice Department in August 2002 presented a narrow definition of torture that critics say led to the use of coercive tactics.
The White House publicly rejected that policy last summer after revelations of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and replaced it with a broader definition of torture in December.
Link -
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...security_cia_dc
By David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - CIA interrogations may have played a role in the deaths of several detainees in Iraq, as Bush administration lawyers were advocating an aggressive interrogation policy that critics say led to torture, military documents and officials say.
U.S. officials have formally disclosed the death of only one person interrogated by the CIA in Iraq -- Manadel al-Jamadi, an unregistered "ghost" prisoner at Abu Ghraib who died Nov. 4, 2003, while handcuffed in a prison shower room.
But sworn statements provided to Army investigators by military intelligence and police at Abu Ghraib contain at least four references to CIA detainees dying during interrogations that do not correspond with the al-Jamadi case.
The documents, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, were collected for an Army investigation that first disclosed the presence of unregistered CIA detainees at Abu Ghraib last September.
The documents were posted on the ACLU's Web site at www.aclu.org last month. The Army used the acronym "OGA" for "other government agency" to refer almost exclusively to the CIA.
One document refers to an "OGA" detainee dying under interrogation in September 2003, two months before al-Jamadi.
Another suggests a death occurred in October, while a third said a detainee died while chained in the prison shower. A fourth document refers to a detainee dying from heart problems during interrogation.
The allegations are based on what soldiers say they heard and offer no substantiation. They provide few details and have been redacted to delete the names of the witnesses, their colleagues and superiors.
Intelligence officials dismissed the statements as unsubstantiated hearsay or garbled references to al-Jamadi, who the government says died from wounds received during capture by a Navy SEAL unit.
But they acknowledged that the CIA may have played a role in the case of an Iraqi military official who died during military interrogation in western Iraq in November 2003.
Maj. Gen. George Fay, who helped lead the Army investigation at Abu Ghraib, told Reuters that al-Jamadi was the only interrogation-related death confirmed at the prison.
But his team turned up reports of at least three other deaths elsewhere in Iraq that may have involved the CIA.
"There were allegations of at least three," Fay, an assistant deputy chief of staff for Army intelligence, said in an interview. "There may have been more. OGA may or may not have been involved -- yet to be determined."
Deaths in interrogation outside Abu Ghraib were beyond the scope of Fay's mission, so he passed the information on to Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, then the U.S. commander in Iraq.
Ultimately, the allegations were left to an investigation led by Army Brig. Gen. Richard Formica, whose findings remain classified.
The CIA, whose inspector general is reviewing about a half-dozen allegations of detainee abuse, said al-Jamadi's death was the only one at Abu Ghraib with possible CIA involvement.
The inspector general has forwarded two cases involving CIA detainee deaths in Afghanistan to the Justice Department. One case is headed for trial in U.S. District Court in North Carolina.
ACLU staff attorney Amrit Singh, who recently won a federal court order requiring the CIA to disclose detainee information, said the Army documents could indicate the number of deaths in CIA custody was understated.
"These documents suggest the CIA was routinely torturing detainees with utter impunity," said Singh, who believes the Bush administration permitted the CIA to use harsher interrogation methods than the military in a series of classified documents.
CIA Director Porter Goss assured the Senate Committee on Armed Services last month that agency practices presently conform to U.S. law on torture.
He could not say the same past techniques. But the CIA later issued a statement declaring that interrogation techniques, past and present, conform to U.S. law.
Republican Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, is resisting Democratic demands that the committee investigate reports of CIA torture of detainees and says a CIA probe now underway is sufficient.
"They are not torturing any detainee," he said last month.
Former intelligence officers believe abuse allegations stem from a policy change that allowed aggressive new interrogation methods in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"All the CIA does is follow direction from the National Security Council and the White House. It doesn't invent these things," said one former intelligence officer.
A legal opinion prepared by the Justice Department in August 2002 presented a narrow definition of torture that critics say led to the use of coercive tactics.
The White House publicly rejected that policy last summer after revelations of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and replaced it with a broader definition of torture in December.
Link -
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...security_cia_dc
QUOTE(big sky brad @ Apr 4 2005, 07:55 PM)
Abu Ghraib Probe Suggests CIA Role in Iraqi Deaths
By David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - CIA interrogations may have played a role in the deaths of several detainees in Iraq, as Bush administration lawyers were advocating an aggressive interrogation policy that critics say led to torture, military documents and officials say.
U.S. officials have formally disclosed the death of only one person interrogated by the CIA in Iraq -- Manadel al-Jamadi, an unregistered "ghost" prisoner at Abu Ghraib who died Nov. 4, 2003, while handcuffed in a prison shower room.
But sworn statements provided to Army investigators by military intelligence and police at Abu Ghraib contain at least four references to CIA detainees dying during interrogations that do not correspond with the al-Jamadi case.
The documents, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, were collected for an Army investigation that first disclosed the presence of unregistered CIA detainees at Abu Ghraib last September.
The documents were posted on the ACLU's Web site at www.aclu.org last month. The Army used the acronym "OGA" for "other government agency" to refer almost exclusively to the CIA.
One document refers to an "OGA" detainee dying under interrogation in September 2003, two months before al-Jamadi.
Another suggests a death occurred in October, while a third said a detainee died while chained in the prison shower. A fourth document refers to a detainee dying from heart problems during interrogation.
The allegations are based on what soldiers say they heard and offer no substantiation. They provide few details and have been redacted to delete the names of the witnesses, their colleagues and superiors.
Intelligence officials dismissed the statements as unsubstantiated hearsay or garbled references to al-Jamadi, who the government says died from wounds received during capture by a Navy SEAL unit.
But they acknowledged that the CIA may have played a role in the case of an Iraqi military official who died during military interrogation in western Iraq in November 2003.
Maj. Gen. George Fay, who helped lead the Army investigation at Abu Ghraib, told Reuters that al-Jamadi was the only interrogation-related death confirmed at the prison.
But his team turned up reports of at least three other deaths elsewhere in Iraq that may have involved the CIA.
"There were allegations of at least three," Fay, an assistant deputy chief of staff for Army intelligence, said in an interview. "There may have been more. OGA may or may not have been involved -- yet to be determined."
Deaths in interrogation outside Abu Ghraib were beyond the scope of Fay's mission, so he passed the information on to Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, then the U.S. commander in Iraq.
Ultimately, the allegations were left to an investigation led by Army Brig. Gen. Richard Formica, whose findings remain classified.
The CIA, whose inspector general is reviewing about a half-dozen allegations of detainee abuse, said al-Jamadi's death was the only one at Abu Ghraib with possible CIA involvement.
The inspector general has forwarded two cases involving CIA detainee deaths in Afghanistan to the Justice Department. One case is headed for trial in U.S. District Court in North Carolina.
ACLU staff attorney Amrit Singh, who recently won a federal court order requiring the CIA to disclose detainee information, said the Army documents could indicate the number of deaths in CIA custody was understated.
"These documents suggest the CIA was routinely torturing detainees with utter impunity," said Singh, who believes the Bush administration permitted the CIA to use harsher interrogation methods than the military in a series of classified documents.
CIA Director Porter Goss assured the Senate Committee on Armed Services last month that agency practices presently conform to U.S. law on torture.
He could not say the same past techniques. But the CIA later issued a statement declaring that interrogation techniques, past and present, conform to U.S. law.
Republican Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, is resisting Democratic demands that the committee investigate reports of CIA torture of detainees and says a CIA probe now underway is sufficient.
"They are not torturing any detainee," he said last month.
Former intelligence officers believe abuse allegations stem from a policy change that allowed aggressive new interrogation methods in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"All the CIA does is follow direction from the National Security Council and the White House. It doesn't invent these things," said one former intelligence officer.
A legal opinion prepared by the Justice Department in August 2002 presented a narrow definition of torture that critics say led to the use of coercive tactics.
The White House publicly rejected that policy last summer after revelations of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and replaced it with a broader definition of torture in December.
Link -
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...security_cia_dc
By David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - CIA interrogations may have played a role in the deaths of several detainees in Iraq, as Bush administration lawyers were advocating an aggressive interrogation policy that critics say led to torture, military documents and officials say.
U.S. officials have formally disclosed the death of only one person interrogated by the CIA in Iraq -- Manadel al-Jamadi, an unregistered "ghost" prisoner at Abu Ghraib who died Nov. 4, 2003, while handcuffed in a prison shower room.
But sworn statements provided to Army investigators by military intelligence and police at Abu Ghraib contain at least four references to CIA detainees dying during interrogations that do not correspond with the al-Jamadi case.
The documents, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, were collected for an Army investigation that first disclosed the presence of unregistered CIA detainees at Abu Ghraib last September.
The documents were posted on the ACLU's Web site at www.aclu.org last month. The Army used the acronym "OGA" for "other government agency" to refer almost exclusively to the CIA.
One document refers to an "OGA" detainee dying under interrogation in September 2003, two months before al-Jamadi.
Another suggests a death occurred in October, while a third said a detainee died while chained in the prison shower. A fourth document refers to a detainee dying from heart problems during interrogation.
The allegations are based on what soldiers say they heard and offer no substantiation. They provide few details and have been redacted to delete the names of the witnesses, their colleagues and superiors.
Intelligence officials dismissed the statements as unsubstantiated hearsay or garbled references to al-Jamadi, who the government says died from wounds received during capture by a Navy SEAL unit.
But they acknowledged that the CIA may have played a role in the case of an Iraqi military official who died during military interrogation in western Iraq in November 2003.
Maj. Gen. George Fay, who helped lead the Army investigation at Abu Ghraib, told Reuters that al-Jamadi was the only interrogation-related death confirmed at the prison.
But his team turned up reports of at least three other deaths elsewhere in Iraq that may have involved the CIA.
"There were allegations of at least three," Fay, an assistant deputy chief of staff for Army intelligence, said in an interview. "There may have been more. OGA may or may not have been involved -- yet to be determined."
Deaths in interrogation outside Abu Ghraib were beyond the scope of Fay's mission, so he passed the information on to Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, then the U.S. commander in Iraq.
Ultimately, the allegations were left to an investigation led by Army Brig. Gen. Richard Formica, whose findings remain classified.
The CIA, whose inspector general is reviewing about a half-dozen allegations of detainee abuse, said al-Jamadi's death was the only one at Abu Ghraib with possible CIA involvement.
The inspector general has forwarded two cases involving CIA detainee deaths in Afghanistan to the Justice Department. One case is headed for trial in U.S. District Court in North Carolina.
ACLU staff attorney Amrit Singh, who recently won a federal court order requiring the CIA to disclose detainee information, said the Army documents could indicate the number of deaths in CIA custody was understated.
"These documents suggest the CIA was routinely torturing detainees with utter impunity," said Singh, who believes the Bush administration permitted the CIA to use harsher interrogation methods than the military in a series of classified documents.
CIA Director Porter Goss assured the Senate Committee on Armed Services last month that agency practices presently conform to U.S. law on torture.
He could not say the same past techniques. But the CIA later issued a statement declaring that interrogation techniques, past and present, conform to U.S. law.
Republican Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, is resisting Democratic demands that the committee investigate reports of CIA torture of detainees and says a CIA probe now underway is sufficient.
"They are not torturing any detainee," he said last month.
Former intelligence officers believe abuse allegations stem from a policy change that allowed aggressive new interrogation methods in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"All the CIA does is follow direction from the National Security Council and the White House. It doesn't invent these things," said one former intelligence officer.
A legal opinion prepared by the Justice Department in August 2002 presented a narrow definition of torture that critics say led to the use of coercive tactics.
The White House publicly rejected that policy last summer after revelations of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and replaced it with a broader definition of torture in December.
Link -
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...security_cia_dc
I think that the CIA have played a MAJOR role in this scandal. It ticks me off when the lowly soldiers are the only ones to take the fall (except for Gen. Karpinski because she had the audacity to criticize those further up the chain of command).
For those in the military or former military I will repost this excellent op-ed. It is not anti-military to question the torture of detainees.
Some In Military Can't Remain Silent About Torture, Abuse Of Power
A letter to President Bush emphasized the scope of the problem, noting that there were 'dozens of well-documented allegations of torture, abuse and otherwise questionable detention practices.'
By BOB HERBERT
Published on 4/4/2005
At dinner on a rainy night in Manhattan this week, I listened to a retired admiral and a retired general speak about the pain they've personally felt over the torture and abuse scandal that has spread like a virus through some sectors of the military.
During the dinner and in follow-up interviews, Rear Adm. John Hutson, who is now president of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H., and Brig. Gen. James Cullen, a lawyer in private practice in New York, said they believed that both the war effort and the military itself have been seriously undermined by official policies that encouraged the abuse of prisoners.
Both men said they were unable to remain silent as institutions that they served loyally for decades, and which they continue to love without reservation, are being damaged by patterns of conduct that fly in the face of core values that most members of the military try mightily to uphold.
“At some point,” said Cullen, “I had to say: “Wait a minute. We cannot go along with this.”'
The two retired officers have lent their support to an extraordinary lawsuit that seeks to hold Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ultimately accountable for policies that have given rise to torture and other forms of prisoner abuse. And last September they were among a group of eight retired admirals and generals who wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to create an independent 9/11-type commission to fully investigate the problem of prisoner abuse from the top to the bottom of the command structure.
Hutson, who served as the Navy's judge advocate general from 1997 to 2000, said he felt sick the first time he saw the photos of soldiers abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. “I felt like somebody in my family had died,” he said.
Even before that, he had been concerned by the Bush administration's decision to deny the protections of the Geneva Conventions to some detainees, and by the way prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were being processed and treated. He said that when the scandal at Abu Ghraib broke, “I knew in my soul that it was going to be bigger than that, that we had just seen the tip of the iceberg and that it was going to get worse and worse and worse.”
The letter to President Bush emphasized the wide scope of the problem, noting that there were “dozens of well-documented allegations of torture, abuse and otherwise questionable detention practices” involving prisoners in U.S. custody. It said:
“These reports have implicated both U.S. military and intelligence agencies, ranging from junior enlisted members to senior command officials, as well as civilian contractors. No fewer than a hundred criminal, military and administrative inquiries have been launched into apparently improper or unlawful U.S. practices related to detention and interrogation. Given the range of individuals and locations involved in these reports, it is simply no longer possible to view these allegations as a few instances of an isolated problem.”
Hutson and Cullen have worked closely with a New York-based group, Human Rights First, which, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, filed the lawsuit against Rumsfeld. A report released this week by Human Rights First said that the number of detainees in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan has grown to more than 11,000, and that the level of secrecy surrounding U.S. detention operations has intensified.
Burgeoning detainee populations and increased secrecy are primary ingredients for more, not less, prisoner abuse.
One of many concerns expressed by Hutson and Cullen was the effect of the torture and abuse scandal on members of the military who have had nothing to do with it. “I think it does stain the honor of people who didn't participate in it at all,” said Hutson. “People in the military who find that kind of behavior abhorrent are painted with the same broad brush.”
Cullen, who has served as chief judge of the Army's Court of Criminal Appeals, spoke in terms of grief. “You feel sorrow,” he said, “because you know there are so many servicemen and women out there who want to do the right thing, who are doing tough jobs every day. And to see these events blacken their names and call into question their whole mission just makes me sad. Very, very sad.”
Bob Herbert is a syndicated columnist.
http://www.theday.com/eng/web/news/re.aspx...4ae9dc71&prnt=1
Some In Military Can't Remain Silent About Torture, Abuse Of Power
A letter to President Bush emphasized the scope of the problem, noting that there were 'dozens of well-documented allegations of torture, abuse and otherwise questionable detention practices.'
By BOB HERBERT
Published on 4/4/2005
At dinner on a rainy night in Manhattan this week, I listened to a retired admiral and a retired general speak about the pain they've personally felt over the torture and abuse scandal that has spread like a virus through some sectors of the military.
During the dinner and in follow-up interviews, Rear Adm. John Hutson, who is now president of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H., and Brig. Gen. James Cullen, a lawyer in private practice in New York, said they believed that both the war effort and the military itself have been seriously undermined by official policies that encouraged the abuse of prisoners.
Both men said they were unable to remain silent as institutions that they served loyally for decades, and which they continue to love without reservation, are being damaged by patterns of conduct that fly in the face of core values that most members of the military try mightily to uphold.
“At some point,” said Cullen, “I had to say: “Wait a minute. We cannot go along with this.”'
The two retired officers have lent their support to an extraordinary lawsuit that seeks to hold Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ultimately accountable for policies that have given rise to torture and other forms of prisoner abuse. And last September they were among a group of eight retired admirals and generals who wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to create an independent 9/11-type commission to fully investigate the problem of prisoner abuse from the top to the bottom of the command structure.
Hutson, who served as the Navy's judge advocate general from 1997 to 2000, said he felt sick the first time he saw the photos of soldiers abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. “I felt like somebody in my family had died,” he said.
Even before that, he had been concerned by the Bush administration's decision to deny the protections of the Geneva Conventions to some detainees, and by the way prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were being processed and treated. He said that when the scandal at Abu Ghraib broke, “I knew in my soul that it was going to be bigger than that, that we had just seen the tip of the iceberg and that it was going to get worse and worse and worse.”
The letter to President Bush emphasized the wide scope of the problem, noting that there were “dozens of well-documented allegations of torture, abuse and otherwise questionable detention practices” involving prisoners in U.S. custody. It said:
“These reports have implicated both U.S. military and intelligence agencies, ranging from junior enlisted members to senior command officials, as well as civilian contractors. No fewer than a hundred criminal, military and administrative inquiries have been launched into apparently improper or unlawful U.S. practices related to detention and interrogation. Given the range of individuals and locations involved in these reports, it is simply no longer possible to view these allegations as a few instances of an isolated problem.”
Hutson and Cullen have worked closely with a New York-based group, Human Rights First, which, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, filed the lawsuit against Rumsfeld. A report released this week by Human Rights First said that the number of detainees in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan has grown to more than 11,000, and that the level of secrecy surrounding U.S. detention operations has intensified.
Burgeoning detainee populations and increased secrecy are primary ingredients for more, not less, prisoner abuse.
One of many concerns expressed by Hutson and Cullen was the effect of the torture and abuse scandal on members of the military who have had nothing to do with it. “I think it does stain the honor of people who didn't participate in it at all,” said Hutson. “People in the military who find that kind of behavior abhorrent are painted with the same broad brush.”
Cullen, who has served as chief judge of the Army's Court of Criminal Appeals, spoke in terms of grief. “You feel sorrow,” he said, “because you know there are so many servicemen and women out there who want to do the right thing, who are doing tough jobs every day. And to see these events blacken their names and call into question their whole mission just makes me sad. Very, very sad.”
Bob Herbert is a syndicated columnist.
http://www.theday.com/eng/web/news/re.aspx...4ae9dc71&prnt=1
QUOTE(big sky brad @ Apr 4 2005, 05:55 PM)
The documents were posted on the ACLU's Web site at www.aclu.org last month. The Army used the acronym "OGA" for "other government agency" to refer almost exclusively to the CIA.
One document refers to an "OGA" detainee dying under interrogation in September 2003, two months before al-Jamadi.
Another suggests a death occurred in October, while a third said a detainee died while chained in the prison shower. A fourth document refers to a detainee dying from heart problems during interrogation.
The allegations are based on what soldiers say they heard and offer no substantiation. They provide few details and have been redacted to delete the names of the witnesses, their colleagues and superiors.
Intelligence officials dismissed the statements as unsubstantiated hearsay or garbled references to al-Jamadi, who the government says died from wounds received during capture by a Navy SEAL unit.
One document refers to an "OGA" detainee dying under interrogation in September 2003, two months before al-Jamadi.
Another suggests a death occurred in October, while a third said a detainee died while chained in the prison shower. A fourth document refers to a detainee dying from heart problems during interrogation.
The allegations are based on what soldiers say they heard and offer no substantiation. They provide few details and have been redacted to delete the names of the witnesses, their colleagues and superiors.
Intelligence officials dismissed the statements as unsubstantiated hearsay or garbled references to al-Jamadi, who the government says died from wounds received during capture by a Navy SEAL unit.
The CIA and the soldiers at Abu Ghraib weren't the only ones committing these types of crimes.
I put this article up on the forum almost 5 months ago here.
QUOTE(big sky brad @ Apr 4 2005, 08:30 PM)
The CIA and the soldiers at Abu Ghraib weren't the only ones committing these types of crimes.
I put this article up on the forum almost 5 months ago here.
I put this article up on the forum almost 5 months ago here.
Glad to hear it. I hope you will continue to find these stories and post them.
Can you add this one to our torture thread? Thanks.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.