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'
see anything from them about Sudan? ever hear from them when Saddam was cutting off people's hands or feeding them into shredders?
or are they just worried about some prisoners not getting 8 hours sleep?
credibility means more then just telling the truth or telling a lie.
Stop right there. Most of the detainees in Abu Graib were not "fighters" but civilians swept up in curfew violations or some such.
Not all Iraqis are Terrorists. Most of the Abu Graib detainees were civilians caught up in routine sweeps who were being questioned as to if they knew anything about other people who might be terrorists.
It seems even FReepers can't even make the distinction based on comments in this thread and others.
Well well well. I was going to Google that name and you've saved me and others the trouble.
I suspected as much.
Good grief.
They've acknowledged AND explained the memos already. See the previous post about Gen. Sanchez, for example.
It is being stirred up to be presented as something it is not.
I don't have the least bit of problem with imposing discomfort on terrorist, or culture shock such as being pushed around by female guards to help break up domestic al Queda cells which I understand was being done at Gitmo. Actually, I'd be rather upset if they weren't using these measures.
Also, I can recognize that the President could approve methods that were working in one place and have someone screw them up someplace else.
Of course, the press is going to try to use this to bring Dubya down just as they tried to use Iran-Contra agains Reagan.
What occurred in Abu Ghraid was despicable, counter-productive and probably got us squat in the way of intelligence. And I'm confident that neither the President nor any high-ranking official approved the sex games.
The Daily Telegraph is on our side, too. The Guardian will take this to the moon.
I believe that would be the brainiac named Charles Graner, ringleader and sicko extraordinaire.
Just to underscore the answer to your question and present more evidence it was not condoned or authorized, the pictures were taken with *personal cameras*, not for any official use (obviously), but taken by the rogue group.
I don't think the WH has been too bad, but I have to say Graham has been frustratingly distressing to behold.
Well, you most certainly ought not be trusting these demonstrably false media reports.
You're so precious.
I just want to pinch your cheeks!
Frankly, when it comes to terrorists, I don't care if the bastards are tortured to death to save American lives, but it has been proven that torture obtained information is notoriously unreliable. What the leftist world (and American media whores) press is seeking is a change of administration before the full truth of French, German, etc. aiding and abetting Saddam is revealed to the world. The U.N. goons are scared sh!tless that their graft and corruption in cooperating with Saddam and terrorism will snatch the gravy train from under their degenerate butts. It is a sure bet that frogman Jack Crack's crimes in aiding Saddam to develop weaponry in direct violation of U.N. sanctions will never be revealed if U.N. and French ass kissing John Feckless Kerry is elected President. Our nation will not survive a democrat return to power before the war on terrorism gets further down the 'win' road.
I should hope so! Although I would quibble with the word "abuses".
I wonder if these wonderfully moral critics question their surgeons as thoroughly. Or distract them as efficiently from performing their jobs.
"Stop right there. Most of the detainees in Abu Graib were not "fighters" but civilians swept up in curfew violations or some such."
Yikes! Even Nicholas Berg said, the 'poor fellows' who were detained in the same prison, were from all over, from Syria, Turkey, Jordan and some were 'palestinians' - none of whom spoke Iraqi and there were no interpreters. Civilians my fat backside! They were jihadi's who came to kill US soldiers. Yes, a few locals may have been picked up, but I'll take an eye witness account over your assertion any day, thank you.
Will you accept the word of the 1st Cavalry Division's own newspaper from Fort Hood?
AL SAIDIYAH, Baghdad, Iraq – Hundreds of Iraqi prisoners were released from Abu Ghraib prison are part of a coalition planned mass release on May 21. The 1st Battalion 21st Field Artillery Regiment of the 1st Cavalry Division escorted some of the released prisoners back to their homes safely, Most of the former prisoners were released back to areas where they were originally picked up.
You said MOST of the detainees were locals. They were NOT. It reads to me as if you believe the prisons in Iraq are 'full of poor, innocent civilians...'
Yes, I am happy to accept the report from the 1st Cavalry Division for which you posted a link. It says: HUNDREDS OF IRAQI PRISONERS WERE RELEASED...a statement which has no significance unless we know how many prisoners there were in total.
I doubt very much if this release includes any of the foreign fighters (jihadi's) who came from throughout the ME to fight the Coalition soldiers...those to whom Nick Berg referred in his e-mail, as: 'Poor fellows'. Who, btw, did not speak the local language and for whom he felt such sympathy...as perhaps you yourself do.
I don't.
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.