U.S. Army report on Iraqi prisoner abuse (Taguba report)

MSNBC ^ | 5/4/04 | Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba

[wideminded]

See link. I have not excerpted the report as there are many interesting parts covering various topics and they are scattered throughout. Perhaps others can post what they find most significant. The MSNBC link does not include the report annexes.

[wideminded]

IMHO an extremely thorough and impressive job was done in putting together this report. The Army does appear to have done a very serious investigation and has attempted to clean house depite what is being implied in many other articles.

Although there were indeed unacceptable abuses and failures in command, the dangers and pressures upon members of the units guarding these prisons should be noted.

[chemical_boy]

I still cant believe how stupid these MPs were, forget about giving them the geneva convention training, give them a brain instead...

[mark502inf]

FROM THE REPORT:
I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

i. (S) Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

(ANNEXES 25 and 26)

7.(U) These findings are amply supported by written confessions provided by several of the suspects, written statements provided by detainees, and witness statements. In reaching my findings, I have carefully considered the pre-existing statements of the following witnesses and suspects (ANNEX 26):

a. (U) SPC Jeremy Sivits, 372nd MP Company - Suspect

b. (U) SPC Sabrina Harman, 372nd MP Company – Suspect

c. (U) SGT Javal S. Davis, 372nd MP Company - Suspect

c. (U) PFC Lynndie R. England, 372nd MP Company - Suspect

d. (U) Adel Nakhla, Civilian Translator, Titan Corp., Assigned to the 205th MI Brigade- Suspect

(Names deleted)

8. (U) In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses (ANNEX 26):

a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;

f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

[Lefty-NiceGuy]

Question (I'm not telling; I'm asking): If the military did have knowledge of large scale abuse like this, did they have an obligation to tell the public?

Is it OK for a government agency to punish people for committing crimes, but not inform the public? You might argue that for the sake of transparent governance, the government should have to tell us when something goes bad. However, you might also argue that forcing agencies to report abuse may cause their leadership to see no evil rather than do something about it.

Obviously there are always political reasons for the people running things not wanting anything embarrassing getting out.

As far as I know there is no such obligation of government. Say there's police abuse and internal affairs finds out about it. Do they tell the public?

[mark502inf]

If the military did have knowledge of large scale abuse like this, did they have an obligation to tell the public

Lefty, first I do not characterize this as "large scale" abuse; serious, but not large scale in the context of hundreds of thousands of prisoners and thousands of guards.

I know of no legal obligation for the Army to inform the public, but they normally do. I suspect they wanted to finish the investigations and legal processes that had already started some months ago and then put out all the info at once after punishment had been administered, etc in the hopes that it would show the Army was taking/had taken the correct action. The danger of that course, as shown now that this thing blew wide open, is that if the info comes out some other way first, it may appear that the Army was either not taking action or else it was trying to hide something.

[CobaltBlue]

>>Source: Bush unhappy with defense chief
Bush 'not satisfied' with how he learned of prison abuse
Wednesday, May 5, 2004 Posted: 7:18 PM EDT (2318 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush told Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday that he was "not satisfied" at the way he received information about charges that Iraqi prisoners had been abused by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison, a senior administration official told CNN.

At a private Oval Office meeting, Bush complained about learning of the existence of photographs showing Iraqi prisoners being humiliated and degraded from media accounts, the official said.

"He was not happy, and he let Secretary Rumsfeld know about it," the official said.

Bush also voiced concern that he was not kept up to speed on important information about the scope of the problem -- and how the Pentagon was handling it, the official said.

Rumsfeld also made clear that he, too, felt "he didn't know some things he should have," according to the senior official, along with another official.

Despite the blunt exchange, however, both Bush and his press secretary, Scott McClellan voiced confidence in Rumsfeld, who has been under fire on Capitol Hill for the way the Pentagon has handled the burgeoning controversy.

Rumsfeld will testify Friday morning about the abuse reports in a two-hour open hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the panel's chairman, Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia.

The open hearing will be followed by a closed hearing before the full Senate, Warner said Wednesday on the Senate floor.

Rumsfeld will be accompanied by Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and by a high-ranking official of the Department of the Army, Warner said.

Warner had been in daylong discussions with Rumsfeld and his staff to schedule the appearance for Thursday, but the secretary said he could not because of a previously scheduled speech in Philadelphia, sources told CNN.

Earlier in the day, Bush told two Arabic-language television networks that abuse of Iraqi prisoners was "abhorrent" and would reinforce anti-American sentiment in the region.

"I think people in the Middle East who want to dislike America will use this as an excuse to remind people about their dislike." Bush told the Al-Arabiya network. "I think the average citizen will say, 'This isn't the country I've been told about.'"

In a separate interview with U.S.-sponsored Alhurra network, Bush said: "People in Iraq must understand that I view those practices as abhorrent.

"They must also understand that what took place in that prison does not represent the America that I know."

An internal report by the Defense Department determined that Iraqi prisoners were being abused.

Investigators, led by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, interviewed dozens of witnesses and looked at "numerous photos and videos portraying in graphic detail actual detainee abuse" that were taken by personnel at Abu Ghraib prison on the outskirts of Baghdad.

Bush condemned the abuse as un-American.<<
-snip-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/05/iraq.abuse.main/index.html

[cake_crumb]

I'd have preferred they be allowed to tell the public about the courts martial and outline the reasons behind them. The fact is the photos were released because the military ignored Lawrence's blackmail attempt.

[cake_crumb]

"The danger of that course, as shown now that this thing blew wide open, is that if the info comes out some other way first, it may appear that the Army was either not taking action or else it was trying to hide something."

The Democrats and the media did their level best to fog the issue by burying the facts in tons of hype and make it LOOK like the military was doing nothing or trying to hide something.

The part about the dog sounds a little odd. What was the prisoner doing when he was bitten? What was the prisoner doing that the dog barked at him? Is the prisoner innocent of wrongdoing in that case? There's nothing saying dogs were deliberately ordered to maul prisoners. I take that part with a grain of salt.

[cyncooper]

Is it OK for a government agency to punish people for committing crimes, but not inform the public? You might argue that for the sake of transparent governance, the government should have to tell us when something goes bad. However, you might also argue that forcing agencies to report abuse may cause their leadership to see no evil rather than do something about it.

Your premise is flawed. The public was informed.

Note the date:

Soldiers charged with abusing Iraqi prisoners

March 20, 2004

Some secret.

The fact is that the public was informed of the allegations as soon as the military became aware of them and have been apprised of steps such as the above March story indicates.

[cyncooper]

I wanted to echo Mark. There is no evidence of any large scale abuse.

[SLB]

Interesting to note this reassignment announced by Department of the Army last week:

Major General Antonio M. Taguba, Deputy Commanding General (Support), Third United States Army, Camp Doha, Kuwait to Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness, Training and Mobilization, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, Washington, DC.

[CobaltBlue]

I don't know enough about the military - is this a promotion, a demotion, or neither?

[Polybius]

Question (I'm not telling; I'm asking): If the military did have knowledge of large scale abuse like this, did they have an obligation to tell the public?

The abuse was first reported on 13 January 2004 by Spc. Joseph Darby.

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Press Release Number: 04-01-43 announced on January 16, 2004 that an investigation was going to be conducted in a case dealing with detainee abuse. This was the first time that the press had heard anything about this and it was 3 days after the abuse had been reported.

A UCMJ Article 15 investigation was commenced on 19 January 2004 and was an extremely extensive investigation with interviews of over 50 witnesses both American and Iraqi.....In other words, such a thourough investigation takes time.

What, exactly, is your beef? That porno shots weren't posted to the Internet by the U.S. Army in January?

[SLB]

I don't know enough about the military - is this a promotion, a demotion, or neither?

Sort of a demotion. Going to a desk in the bowels of the Pentagon. Keep him out of sight and under wraps?

[SLB]

A UCMJ Article 15 investigation

An Article 15 is non-judicial punishment. Do you mean "An Army Regulation 15-6 investigation . . . . . . .

The title of AR 15-6 is: Procedure for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers

[An.American.Expatriate]

The military in the United States is accountable to the people (via the Congress). So the answer to your question is yes - the military is obligated to inform the Congress of such things. They are NOT required to call a press conference though!

[Polybius]

An Article 15 is non-judicial punishment. Do you mean "An Army Regulation 15-6 investigation . . . . .

Ooops. Sorry. My bad.

Yes, an AR 15-6 investigation.

[Pelham]

bump

[Lefty-NiceGuy]

Question (I'm not telling; I'm asking): If the military did have knowledge of abuse like this, did they have an obligation to tell the public?

Some of you are getting the wrong idea, about what I'm asking here. Let me ask a similar question on the same lines:

Does the political leadership of a democratic country have an obligation to report their failures to the public, or is this the solely responsibility of the political opposition and the press?

Let's say you're in office and you chop down a proverbial cherry tree and there's a 90% the public won't find out (at least before the next election). Do you
a) have a moral responsibility to tell the public
b) not tell the public, but not deny it if pressed with a question from the press
c) plead the 5th. I don't have to tell the public anything I don't want to.

Again I'm asking, not telling. My guess is most of us would say either a or b. It's a question of transparency, and whatever is decided can never be enshrined in law, but used by the public.

I'm not saying it this case the public wasn't informed on Jan 15th, or that they should have put the pictures on the Internet, or that the pentagon shouldn't have asked CBS to sit on the pictures. I'm asking we think public accountability begins and ends. Someone may argue that admitting to failures may be sign of weakness and undermine the mission in Iraq or other projects.

[cyncooper]

No, I don't get what you're trying to say.

The government does give disclosure and we pointed out they should and did.

The problem was discovered, investigated, and charges commenced being filed.

Then the pictures were released and a mischaracterization of responsibility followed and continues to be tried to be spun as activity sanctioned and approved by the administration when it was not.

I don't see what you are getting at. Sorry.