Posted on 06/13/2004 6:09:20 PM PDT by ejdrapes
New evidence that the physical abuse of detainees in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay was authorised at the top of the Bush administration will emerge in Washington this week, adding further to pressure on the White House. The Telegraph understands that four confidential Red Cross documents implicating senior Pentagon civilians in the Abu Ghraib scandal have been passed to an American television network, which is preparing to make them public shortly. According to lawyers familiar with the Red Cross reports, they will contradict previous testimony by senior Pentagon officials who have claimed that the abuse in the Abu Ghraib prison was an isolated incident. "There are some extremely damaging documents around, which link senior figures to the abuses," said Scott Horton, the former chairman of the New York Bar Association, who has been advising Pentagon lawyers unhappy at the administration's approach. "The biggest bombs in this case have yet to be dropped." A string of leaked government memos over the past few days has revealed that President George W Bush was advised by Justice Department officials and the White House lawyer, Alberto Gonzalez, that Geneva Conventions on torture did not apply to "unlawful combatants", captured during the war on terror. Members of Congress are now demanding access to all White House memos on interrogation techniques, a request so far refused by the United States attorney-general, John Ashcroft. As the growing scandal threatens to undermine President Bush's re-election campaign, senior aides have acknowledged for the first time that the abuse of detainees can no longer be presented as the isolated acts of a handful of soldiers at the Abu Ghraib. "It's now clear to everyone that there was a debate in the administration about how far interrogators could go," said a legal adviser to the Pentagon. "And the answer they came up with was 'pretty far'. Now that it's in the open, the administration is having to change that answer somewhat." In the latest revelation, yesterday's Washington Post published leaked documents revealing that Gen Ricardo Sanchez, the senior US officer in Iraq, approved the use of dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns and sensory deprivation for prisoners whenever senior officials at the Abu Ghraib jail wished. A memo dated October 9, 2003 on "Interrogation Rules of Engagement", which each military intelligence officer was obliged to sign, set out in detail the wide range of pressure tactics they could use - including stress positions and solitary confinement for more than 30 days. The White House has ordered a damage-limitation exercise to try to prevent the abuse row undermining President Bush's re-election campaign. Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, has ordered that all deaths of detainees held in US military custody are to be reported immediately to criminal investigators. Deaths in custody will also be reported to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers, and to Mr Rumsfeld himself. The Pentagon has also announced an investigation into the condition of inmates at Guantanamo Bay, where more than 600 prisoners suspected of links with al-Qaeda are being held. The inquiry will be led by Vice-Adml Albert Church, who has been ordered to investigate reports that extreme interrogation techniques "migrated" from Guantanamo to Iraq. "This is not going to be a whitewash," said the Pentagon adviser. "The administration is finally realising how damaging this scandal could become." A new investigator has also been appointed to lead the inquiry into abuse at Abu Ghraib. Gen George Fay, a two-star general, will be replaced by a more senior officer. Gen Fay, according to US military convention, did not have the authority to question his superiors. His replacement indicates that the Abu Ghraib inquiry will now go far beyond the activities of the seven military police personnel accused of mistreating Iraqi detainees. Legal and constitutional experts have expressed astonishment at the judgments made by administration lawyers on interrogation techniques. In one memo, written in January 2002, Mr Gonzalez told President Bush that the nature of the war on terror "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions". Scott Silliman, a former US air force lawyer and the director of the Centre for Law Ethics and National Security at Duke University, said: "What you have is a culture of avoidance of law rather than compliance with it." A separate memo, written by Pentagon lawyers in March 2003, stated that "the infliction of pain or suffering per se, whether it is physical or mental is insufficient to amount to torture. [The pain] must be of such a high level of intensity that it is difficult for the subject to endure".Interrogation abuses were 'approved at highest levels'
the Red Cross is now also calling for Saddam to be freed because we haven't charged him with anything.
Bump for Truth
And thus starts the 2004 presidential campaign, with all of it's BS.
These prisoners weren't treated roughly enough, IMHO......
Those who vote for someone other than him deserve what they get. The problem is the rest of us would suffer as well. We must not let them betray America from within. We must win this war.
Only if the American voters have a death wish. The Democrats made a tactical descision to be "anti-war". They are mistaking this current conflict with Viet Nam, where when we pulled out, only the South Vietnamese paid a price.
Pulling out of Afghanistan and/or Iraq will not end the war. Remember, the middle east terrorist have been at war with the West for many years, it is only recently that we have begun to treat it as a war, and not as a law enforcement issue.
If the main stream media and the left do succeed and Kerry is elected, we will pay a much greater price in blood and money then if President Bush was allowed to finish what we have started.
"IF" this does cost the President the election then America deserves what she gets.
"Those who vote for someone other than him deserve what they get. The problem is the rest of us would suffer as well. We must not let them betray America from within. We must win this war."
There was a day in which I would have agreed with you, however, after the Clinton years I came to understand "faith" and who is ultimately in control. Those who voted, and continue to support Clintons have not got their justice yet, that special day is yet ahead.
The real question is why we didn't open the gates of hell on these evil men. Oh, we did worst. We put panities on their heads. Yawn.
The Red Cross has become a partisan organization.
The Red Cross is desperate to gets its dirty hands on the oil money in the mid-east. I feel they have been unfairly siding with terrorist and feeding anti-American sediment worldwide with reports of U.S. abuses.
The simple fact is; US soldiers dressed terrorist up in womens underwear and took pictures of it. They probably got good information and took it to the next step (nude photos). Big deal! They might of got information that saved a US soldiers life.
Humiliated yes, Tortured to death no!
Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
If it turns out that Rumsfeld or Myers, or Bush approved these tactics how do they defend approving something they've now condemed?
No, it does matter a great deal, because how you answer that question will determine whether or not we will be effective in getting good intel out of these scum or not.
The problem is that the press is equating solitary confinement with feeding people into shredders.
If you look at what the "human rights" lawyers claim is legal, our troops would have to read these guys there rights and arrange an attorney for them, which is simply lunacy.
The President needs to step up to the plate and state clearly what was approved and what was not, and make it clear that what went on at Abu Ghraib was not approved by anyone, while leaving the door open for coercive techniques to be used when appropriate.
That's a tough policy to enunciate, but it's the correct one. It's also an open question as to whether or not it can be made loud enough to be heard above the gibbering chorus of left-o-babble bleating about "torture".
what tactics? the use of dogs, are you saying that Rumsfeld/Sanchez should have banned the use of dogs? sleep deprivation, we have to make sure the prisoners get 8 hours of restful sleep now?
You are accepting the media definition of "torture". I'm not.
The humilation tactics - the photos of the human pyramids, the dog leashes, the panties on the head, although they don't rise to the level of torture in my mind, should not have occured simply as a matter of military discipline and maturity, which those soldiers did not uphold.
I don't recall Bush every apologizing for prisoner "torture", just their "treatment". there is a big difference, but the media wants to morph that all into one.
Dude, what's with the tiny font? Some of us have poor vision. If you expect everyone to read your posts, they ought to be legible.
The fact is the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to fighters who a) are not fighting for a Nation b) people who target civilians, and randomly at that. We fall into a trap if we give these savages the rights that they deny us in their war against civilization.
And evidently, we don't want the world to view us in this light, or we wouldn't be trying to distance ourselves from it. If we're only doing these types of things because our survival depends on it, why are we distancing ourselves from the actions, saying that they're shameful? Why can't we assert our superiority here?
What I'd like to know, is whose idea was it to photograph all this stuff? That is one of the warfare tactics sure to go down in History as the left of the bellcurve brigade stuff. What a bunch of idiots.
are the soldiers being prosecuted for using dogs and not letting the prisoners get enough sleep? are they being prosecuted for hooding them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.