London Telegraph: Interrogation abuses were 'approved at highest levels'

Daily Telegraph ^ | June 13, 2004 | Julian Coman

[ejdrapes]

Interrogation abuses were 'approved at highest levels'

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".

[elhombrelibre]

Did you not see this portion or the article? "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."

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

[muawiyah]

Concerning methods of torture, the Washington Post writers and editors in their feature~will~destroy~Bush story this morning were much more concerned with sacks being placed over the heads of the Arab prisoners than anything else.

I looked at the photo of the crowd behind Mr. Berg just before they chopped off his head and it sure looked like they all had sacks on their heads.

I suspect Arabs are not at all distressed with the sack deal.

BTW, the way to torture a "postie" is to cut off his dope. See Richard Cohen for a character reference on that one.

[ladyinred]

Oh yes, I am sure they all know exactly what happened. And besides, if this is true, SO FREAKING WHAT? These are terrorists people, and if making them talk in the necessary ways saved lives, who cares? Good grief we have gone mad in this country.

You state the President may lose his job over this? Why? What on earth is the matter with people in this country?

[oceanview]

the media is trying to morph all of these stories - going back to the Gitmo prisoners, even the AQ captures like KSM and Subayda, into one big "torture everywhere and violation of the Geneva convention" story - and tie it all to Abu Ghraib. they know that the sheeple are too dumb to sort all of this out.

[elhombrelibre]

Yes, and I don't expect that anyone will question the motives of those who seem more bent on protecting terrorists and beating Bush than on protecting Americans and other members of the civilized world.

[Edit35]

I think this ultimately may cost the President his job - if it turnes out that civilian leaders in Washington approved certain interrigation tactics.

Oh yeah, ejdrapes. I can see the indictment now.

Conspiracy to put underwear on a terrorist's head.

Or how 'bout this: Unlawful legal discussion of how to prevent another 9/11-type terror attack on US interests.

Or maybe: Accessory to practicing humiliation by forcing a terrorist prison to stand in the nude.

Or maybe cruelty to animals due to knowledge that snarling guard dogs were forced to be in the same vicinity as slimy soldier-killers.

C'MON. Why are you even posting this type of crap, unless you are really a liberal mole and are trying to demoralize Freepers.

It won't work. Even if they find a videotape of GWB saying "let's get rough on these terrorists", I believe the majority of good decent patriots in this country would say Good For HIm.

[Always Right]

So much for "confidential."

And if they were Democratic confidential memos, the story would be how these memos were stolen and no mention of what was in them....

[oceanview]

well, its worth posting because it outlines what the media strategy will be.

so far, the WH hasn't been too good at making the blunt points you listed. and we have idiots like Lindsey Graham running around representing "our side" on all the talk shows saying that everything he sees is "torture".

[Revolting cat!]

[conservative in nyc]

Relax.

The only new "news" here is that some U.S. network (SeeBS?) has gotten their hands on confidential Red Cross memos that allegedly contradict "previous testimony by senior Pentagon officials who have claimed that the abuse in the Abu Ghraib prison was an isolated incident." We'll see. The one Red Cross report that has been leaked to the press through the Wall Street Journal (likely by the Bush Administration) wasn't that much of a bombshell and has long since been forgotten. In fact, I think it got fairly little play in the media because it was mainly positive.

All of the allegedly "bombshell" memos that have been discussed in the media so far were written in response to how to treat prisoners at Gitmo, where the Geneva Conventions did not apply, before the Iraq war, not Abu Ghraib or Iraq. And, IIRC, the memo required command authority before the most coercive techniques were imposed at Gitmo. I keep on repeating this every time the Slimes reports something about Gitmo: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY ABUSE AT GITMO RISING TO THE SAME LEVEL AS THE ISOLATED INCIDENTS AT ABU GHRAIB.

The Slimes and their cohorts are trying to claim that "lawlessness" at Gitmo was imported to Iraq with General Miller when he reviewed interrogation techniques in Iraq. BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS LAWLESSNESS AT GITMO. Even one of the witnesses in the Taguba Report, a seemingly well-meaning Dean-supporting former army intelligence officer who served with the Utah National Guard at Gitmo and a private contractor in Abu Ghraib said so. That dog don't hunt.

This article is flawed in other ways. Scott Horton, their main (Kerry-supporting) lawyer source, was NEVER president of the New York State Bar Association. The Washington Post printed a retraction when they once claimed that he was even chairman of a committee of the New York State Bar Association. He merely headed the committee on international human rights of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York --- i.e. he is a liberal Kerry supporter. The article refers to an ongoing military investigation --- what the Slimes and its cohorts were complaining weren't being taken, as a 'damage-limitation exercise"

As I have said from the beginning of this "scandal", President Bush might better be served by doing a document dump and getting it over with. Otherwise, the Slimes, See-BS and their liberal cohorts will just drip-drip-drip out what they have until election day.

[Proud Legions]

This is just more stupidity within the press, although enough people will not read closey what the article says and come to the same conclusions you did (no insult intended).

Read closely, and you will see it never mentions anything about the sexual abuse, and possible physical abuse, that got those soldiers and their immediate commanders in trouble.

This mentions sleep deprivation and uncomfortable positions, etc. These technqes have been allowed by international law forever. We have never used them for POWs, but these men are NOT POWs by both US and International/Geneva COnvention definations.

Lots of to do about nothing new, but headlines and 2 minute broadcasts will make it look like these leaked memos really men something.

On a related topic, I saw a heard a report the other day that said the prisoner abuse story is now the second most reported event in the New York Times' history (for the same number of days since it broke); only 9/11 beats it out. Wow, that means, acoording to the NYTs, it is a more important issue than the Civil War, WWI, the Depression, Pearl Harbor, WWII, Nuclear Bombs, the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the Soviet Union. More important the Kenndy's assassination, Vietnam, Nixon's Resignation, Man on the Moon, the Automobile, Flight, the discovery of the Cure for Polio...I think you get the point.

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

Good grief...makes one fear for the future of this county.

[Proud Legions]

These interrogation techniques are legal by international law. These prisoners were not POWs by internationa standards. In contrast, the techniques used at the prison were not legal, but of course that is very cleaverly not what this article is saying...yet most Americans will not notice that this leaked memo does not actually say that...just insinuates it.

[Proud Legions]

Yep. That is why hoepfully the LTs through 1 star in charge there will be punished, along with the soldiers and NCOs.

A bad unit. NOT a bad Army, nor bad leadership at the White House.

[cyncooper]

For weeks now (this spin--I speak of what I'm about to outline, not the Abu Ghraib revelations, which happened well before, started when my daughter was still in school and the last day was May 20) the media and liberals have attempted to mix apples and oranges.

There was a rogue group at Abu Ghraib. In no way, shape or form did the administration condone or approve or authorize that behavior.

That business is being mixed up with other unrelated (and unapproved) actions where there may have been misbehavior or outright criminal behavior by a guard or two, and combined with memos authorizing certain interrogation techniques, and being served up as a soup of deceit saying "the administration approved prison abuse".

They certainly did not and it will not cost the president his job. That is absurd and the crime would be if that were to happen through such abetting of the outrageous presentation being made here by the media.

It would be nice if Freepers could get it straight and worked on decrying this attempt to bring down a good and decent man (or whoever in his administration they can manage) instead of handwringing or implicitly approving of such.

[A. Pole]

The Red Cross has zero credibility, as far as I am concerned.

Yes, trust the government.

[cyncooper]

The Red Cross has zero credibility, as far as I am concerned.

RED CROSS TO USA: CHARGE SADDAM OR FREE HIM!

[oceanview]

indeed. the media knows the sheeple cannot differentiate the prisoners at Gitmo, the AQ prisoners being held who knows where, the iraqi prisoners, and the pictures from Abu Ghraid that the media has described to everyone as showing "torture", from each other.

[churchillbuff]

The Red Cross has zero credibility, as far as I am concerned.

Why? Do you have evidence that they lie? I'd be interested in seeing the evidence of untruths from the Red Cross. Traditionally, it's been seen as a honorable humanitarian organization - - - I even have Red Cross lifesaving certificates!

[cyncooper]

Thank you for mentioning Gitmo. I happened to see Rita Cosby, of all people, yesterday on Fox. Seems she went there last week and inspected the facilities.

She was shocked--Shocked at how well the detainees are being treated and the amenities they are given.

I expect she'll be showing more of the footage I saw and discussing this more in detail soon.