Army, CIA want torture exposed

[pa28cfi]

Army, CIA want torture truths exposed
By Martin Sieff
UPI Senior News Analyst
Published 5/18/2004 7:16 AM


WASHINGTON, May 18 (UPI) -- Efforts at the top level of the Bush administration and the civilian echelon of the Department of Defense to contain the Iraq prison torture scandal and limit the blame to a handful of enlisted soldiers and immediate senior officers have already failed: The scandal continues to metastasize by the day.

Over the past weekend and into this week, devastating new allegations have emerged putting Stephen Cambone, the first Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, firmly in the crosshairs and bringing a new wave of allegations cascading down on the head of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when he scarcely had time to catch his breath from the previous ones.

Even worse for Rumsfeld and his coterie of neo-conservative true believers who have run the Pentagon for the past 3½ years, three major institutions in the Washington power structure have decided that after almost a full presidential term of being treated with contempt and abuse by them, it's payback time.

Those three institutions are: The United States Army, the Central Intelligence Agency and the old, relatively moderate but highly experienced Republican leadership in the United States Senate.

None of those groups is chopped liver: Taken together they comprise a devastating Grand Slam.

The spearhead for the new wave of revelations and allegations - but by no means the only source of them - is veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. In a major article published in the New Yorker this week and posted on to its Web-site Saturday, Hersh revealed that a high-level Pentagon operation code-named Copper Green "encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation" of Iraqi prisoners. He also cited Pentagon sources and consultants as saying that photographing the victims of such abuse was an explicit part of the program meant to force the victims into becoming blackmailed reliable informants.

Hersh further claimed in his article that Rumsfeld himself approved the program and that one of his four or five top aides, Cambone, set it up in Baghdad and ran it.

These allegations of course are anathema to the White House, Rumsfeld and their media allies. In a highly unusual step for any newspaper, the editorially neo-conservative tabloid New York Post ran an editorial Monday seeking to ridicule and discredit Hersh. However, it presented absolutely no evidence to query, let alone discredit the substance of his article and allegations.

Instead, the New York Post editorial inadvertently pointed out one, but by no means all, of the major sources for Hersh's information. The editorial alleged that Hersh had received much of his material from the CIA.

Based on the material Hersh quoted, his legendary intelligence community contacts were probably sources for some of his information. However, Hersh has also enjoyed close personal relations with many now high-ranking officers in the United States Army, going all the way back to his prize-winning coverage and scoops in Vietnam more than 30 years ago.

Indeed, intelligence and regular Army sources have told UPI that senior officers and officials in both communities are sickened and outraged by the revelations of mass torture and abuse, and also by the incompetence involved, in the Abu Ghraib prison revelations. These sources also said that officials all the way up to the highest level in both the Army and the Agency are determined not to be scapegoated, or allow very junior soldiers or officials to take the full blame for the excesses.

President George W. Bush in his weekly radio address Saturday claimed that the Abu Ghraib abuses were only "the actions of a few" and that they did not "reflect the true character of the Untied States armed forces."

But what enrages many serving senior Army generals and U.S. top-level intelligence community professionals is that the "few" in this case were not primarily the serving soldiers who were actually encouraged to carry out the abuses and even then take photos of the victims, but that they were encouraged to do so, with the Army's well-established safeguards against such abuses deliberately removed by high-level Pentagon civilian officials.

Abuse and even torture of prisoners happens in almost every war on every side. But well-run professional armies, and the U.S. Army has always been one, take great pains to guard against it and limit it as much as possible. Even in cases where torture excesses are regarded as essential to extract tactical information and save lives, commanders in most modern armies have taken care to limit such "dirty work" to very small units, usually from special forces, and to keep it as secret as possible.

For senior Army professionals know that allowing patterns of abuse and torture to metastasize in any army is annihilating to its morale and tactical effectiveness. Torturers usually make lousy combat soldiers, which is why combat soldiers in every major army hold them in contempt.

Therefore, several U.S. military officers told UPI, the idea of using regular Army soldiers, including some even just from the Army Reserve or National Guard, and encouraging them to inflict such abuses ran contrary to received military wisdom and to the ingrained standards and traditions of the U.S. Army.

The widespread taking of photographs of the victims of such abuses, they said, clearly revealed that civilian "amateurs" and not regular Army or intelligence community professionals were the driving force in shaping and running the programs under which these abuses occurred.

Hersh has spearheaded the waves of revelations of shocking abuse. But other major U.S. media organizations are now charging in behind him to confirm and extend his reports. They are able to do so because many senior veteran professionals in both the CIA and the Army were disgusted by the revelations of the torture excesses. Now they are being listened to with suddenly receptive ears on Capitol Hill.

Republican members in the House of Representatives have kept discipline and silence on the revelations. But with the exception of the increasingly isolated and embarrassed Senate Republican Leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, other senior mainstream figures in the GOP Senate majority have refused to go along with any cover-up.

Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Pat Roberts of Kansas and John Warner of Virginia have all been outspoken in their condemnation of the torture excesses. And they did so even before the latest, most far-reaching and worst of the allegations and reports surfaced. Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, lost no time in hauling Rumsfeld before it to testify.

The pattern of the latest wave of revelations is clear: They are coming from significant numbers of senior figures in both the U.S. military and intelligence services. They reflect the disgust and contempt widely felt in both communities at the excesses; and at long last, they are being listened to seriously by senior Republican, as well as Democratic, senators on Capitol Hill.

Rumsfeld and his team of top lieutenants have therefore now lost the confidence, trust and respect of both the Army and intelligence establishments. Key elements of the political establishment even of the ruling GOP now recognize this.

Yet Rumsfeld and his lieutenants remain determined to hang on to power, and so far President Bush has shown every sign of wanting to keep them there. The scandal, therefore, is far from over. The revelations will continue. The cost of the abuses to the American people and the U.S. national interest is already incalculable: And there is no end in sight.


Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International

 

[Snoopy58]

Geneva for Demagogues

The facts about the rules of war and U.S. interrogation in Iraq.

Monday, May 17, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

If there's a silver lining to the 24/7 coverage over Abu Ghraib, it is that we are slowly learning that these abuses were in fact the fault of a few undisciplined, poorly led soldiers. The accusation that the practices were part of the "system," or resulted from Army or Pentagon rules, is also being exposed as a political slur.

On the first point, we now know the soldiers in those awful photos were derelict in many ways. Testimony is emerging that they indulged in sexual escapades and other behavior that any normal person would consider depraved. According to Specialist Jeremy C. Sivits, the first of the alleged offenders to face court martial, Specialist Charles A. Garner Jr. put a sandbag over one detainee's head and "punched the detainee with a closed fist so hard in the temple" that he was knocked unconscious.

This is inhumane, and deserves to be punished if proven in court. The unit's commanders should also be held responsible for its poor morale and lack of discipline. But as Specialist Sivits says in his sworn statement, no one ordered what is revealed in those photos: "Our command would have slammed us. They believe in doing the right thing. If they saw what was going on, there would be hell to pay."

This directly counters the continuing effort in Washington to portray the abuses as the inevitable result of the "climate" created by Donald Rumsfeld's Guantanamo rules. The latest such spin emerged last week with reports about the special interrogation techniques sanctioned by Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, the Iraq theater commander. Consider this demagogic exchange between the Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman, General Peter Pace, and Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed during Thursday's hearing at the Senate Armed Services Committee:

Senator Reed: "So I pose the following question: General Pace, if you were shown a video of a United States Marine or an American citizen in the control of a foreign power, in a cell block, naked with a bag over their head, squatting with their arms uplifted for 45 minutes, would you describe that as a good interrogation technique or a violation of the Geneva Convention?"

General Pace: "I would describe it as a violation, sir."

This--along with a similar answer from Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz--was widely broadcast as a "gotcha" moment. Mr. Reed alleged that since the scenario he described included techniques contemplated in the Sanchez guidelines, this meant the Pentagon had authorized violations of the Geneva Conventions.

But of course the two Pentagon officials had admitted no such thing--even if, amidst Mr. Reed's harangue, their answers were incomplete. Let's start with the fact that nowhere did the Sanchez rules suggest that someone can be held naked. Lieutenant-General Keith Alexander had explained this to Mr. Reed as a violation of "commander's guidance" at another hearing only two days earlier, but that didn't stop the Senator from distorting his question by using the word "naked" again.

Then there's the fact that while the Sanchez standards did allow short-term sensory deprivation and stress positions with the specific approval of a commanding general in every instance, there is no indication that anyone intended them to be used together. As it happens, requests to use stress positions were made only three times--and all three were denied. Only about 25 exceptional interrogation requests were made in total--all for segregation.

Mr. Reed should have his staff get him the Geneva Conventions to read. What he'd learn is that the treatment in his hypothetical question would be barred because U.S. soldiers wearing the uniform would be classified as "prisoners of war." Even tempting detainees who are POWs with a candy bar to answer questions beyond name, rank and serial number violates the Third Geneva Convention. As for his hypothetical "American citizen," he or she might benefit from the civilian protections of the Fourth Geneva Convention depending on circumstances.

These distinctions matter, because the Geneva Conventions are about more than subjective opinions of what constitutes "humane" treatment. The Conventions themselves make very clear distinctions between POWs and others; and it's clear that the terrorists held at Guantanamo don't meet the criteria spelled out in the Third Geneva Convention for designation as POWs. Perhaps Mr. Reed's constituents would like to know that under the standard he wants imposed, even al Qaeda detainees would be off-limits to all but pro forma interrogation.

A reading would also inform the Senator that--apart from Iraqi soldiers detained in uniform and certain members of Saddam Hussein's chain of command--most Iraqi detainees are arrested as civilians and fall under the protection not of the Third Geneva Convention but of the Fourth.

The Fourth allows--indeed obliges--an occupying power to use its discretion within wide parameters to maintain law and order (Article 64), and contains no specific restriction on interrogation, other than saying that "protected persons" not be subjected to "physical or moral coercion" (Article 31). But--note well--protected persons are defined as "persons taking no active part in the hostilities" (Article 3).

In other words, the Geneva Conventions do not speak specifically to the interrogation treatment of non-uniformed Baathist or jihadi guerrillas detained in connection with attacks on U.S. forces or Iraqi civilians. Except that the Fourth does permit us to execute them (Article 68)--a practice often seen in the less politically correct wars of years past.

With that in mind, we'll risk liberal censure and suggest that 45 minutes of uncomfortable posture (the guidelines' limit) and the other techniques that were on General Sanchez's list are certainly appropriate. The U.S. holds some very dangerous people in Iraq, and it's easy to forget that the point of interrogating them is to better protect both U.S. soldiers and the Iraqi civilians that the Geneva Conventions oblige us to safeguard.

Amid the political demagoguery being applied by the likes of Senator Reed, General Sanchez has now banned most interrogation techniques. So the U.S. command in Iraq will no longer even entertain requests for anything more rigorous for detainees than segregation from other prisoners.
The very real danger of course is that all of this will result in the collection of less actionable intelligence to stop the roadside bombs and mortar attacks that are killing American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. If it does, we hope Senator Reed and his media cheerleaders will acknowledge their responsibility.

 

[bart]

By Martin Sieff UPI News Analyst

Note that this is a news analyst, and this is an opinion piece. The guy that gave the story that Mr. Sieff is issuing opinion on is a second hand witness that did not even see any of the alleged acts. Add this to your list of leftist bias, and assisting islamic terrorists whatever the cost to America.

 

[Singlecoil]

I bet Bart would really hate the comments of this pinko former Marine Drill Sergeant who participated in the invasion of Baghdad.

Link

 

[merikeyegro]

Add this to your list of leftist bias, and assisting islamic terrorists whatever the cost to America.

Who would've thought that speaking out against some grave abuses of others is tantamount to treason? The gall of these people! They should be ashamed that they criticize the wrongdoings of others and don't worship Bush. I mean, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Bush are SAINTS. Truly saints. They do NOT lie. They do NOT do any wrong at all. I heard an administration official say this. He also told me that being against a stupid war makes me a terrorist. Funny. I don't feel like one...

Did anyone else here know this? The First Amendment allows no help whatsoever to those freedom-hating, towelhead, rug pilots. I wasn't made aware of this in Civics I. Maybe someone else was. I guess I was absent that day.

That's right. Telling Bush and his buddies that they are, in fact, IDIOTS and that abusing Muslims makes us LESS SAFE - you heard it here first - and MORE susceptible to terrorism is treason. You're such a moron for saying $hit like this. Listen to yourself. You applaud behavior that, in fact, helps out the terrorists. You think bin Laden can't use a few of those photos as recruitment posters? And this behavior was condoned, if not ORDERED, by higher-ups. You call yourselves crusaders AGAINST terrorism. I fail to see how this is true.

God bless America. Only here can we say that speaking out against your government officials is complicit with terrorism and, thus, treasonous. Bush got into your head real easy and brainwashed the piss outta you. Go back to Hannity and Colmes and leave the rest of us alone...

 

[pa28cfi]

settle down guys

You guys are turning it into a political issue. I'm only interested in finding out what happened and were they acting alone or on orders? Let's get the facts out, then we can argue about whether it was justified under the circumstances.

 

[deadstick]

The thing is this story was released MONTHS AGO!! Nobody gave a hoot until the pics went public and then everybody got on their moral high-horses. I'm not defending the actions at the prison. I'm just a few pounds over max torque about the recent knee-jerk reaction by the public, the Congress, and the some of the military leaders. The word is not a pretty place once you pull your head out of the sand. Is it?

Like many things, this investigation has already been botched. You're telling me that a handful of E-somethings did all this and not a single officer or senior NCO knew about it. AND that Army Reserve one-star general...she makes me want to hurl. "It's not my fault, but the fault of some of my subordinates." Not word-for-word, but pretty close. Guess what, General? That was YOUR watch. Those were YOUR Brigade commander's troops. One of YOUR company commanders either had his/her head in the sand or allowed it. "I didn't know" is not a defense. Dereliction of duty is still a punishable offense. The bar, leaves, birds, and stars are not Christmas decorations, folks. When you put those on, you take responsibility.

 

[merikeyegro]

Sorry if I went a little beserk there. I just don't like it when someone says that my (or anyone's) exercise of 1st Amendment rights is tantamount to treason. I fail to see the link...I'm done.

I agree with you. The buck has to stop at the leadership. That's what leadership is all about. When things go well, you get the credit. If they go poorly, you get $hit on. It's part of the job. If any one of us was the CP at a base, we'd take a beating if something that a subordinate did on our watch wasn't properly executed or supervised. The general is likely to blame partly. It sounds as if also there were not so much ORDERS that made it happen, but complacency or ignorance that allowed it to continue. The orders to ignore the Geneva Conventions came from Rumsfeld & Co. during battle/intel operations with al Qaeda. In this context, the techniques were OK, I guess. However, it then got expanded to include Taliban (legal combatants) and Iraqis (legal combatants). It sounds as if this occurred under the watch and pseudo-order of Rumsfeld, Bush, and Lt. General Jeff Miller. Miller was sent to Iraq from Cuba to change up the interrogation process. He was sent there by the DOD. Gen. Miller then ordered the rearragement of Abu Ghraib, under the command of Brig. General Karpinski, to be under military intel command. That Karpinski claims she knew nothing is a weak defense. It happened at her prison. If she didn't know, what kind of leader is she? It's her realm. She should have AT LEAST been in the know. Anyway, from here it all went downhill, all the way to the E-types. The current 7 on courts-martial are scapegoats. The responsibility went much farther up than this. This was confirmed by Maj. General Anthony Taguba's internal report on the abuses.

The Hersh piece in The New Yorker actually says that it was a plan gone awry - the techniques were to be used on terrorists in non-combat areas where the captives are not POWs, however the techniques were allowed in Iraq once things there went to hell. Some in the intel community were pissed because getting the terrorists to talk this way was relatively effective. They didn't want the program to go outside of intel for fear of it being exposed. Guess they were right. They say that you should just let a sleeping dog lie. The techniques are not OK in a war zone but would be OK in a non-combat area where intel operations are predominant. Geneva Conventions are there for a reason. They rule legal combatants, which would govern all prisoners taken in Iraq, military or civilian. In the end, a small, covert program turned into accepted military interrogation doctrine that violates the Geneva Conventions.

I'd like to know more, as well. This is the way I currently understand the situation. Read Hersh's piece in the New Yorker, Taguba's report, and ICRC report to get a better idea of the facts. Every news agency in the world has a synopsis or 5, so I'm sure you could get analysis, too. Have fun...

 

[deadstick]

one more thing...

How many have heard about the lawsuits against Saddam by former American POWs form GW1? Anybody remember the video of pilots with bruised, swollen faces? They filed lawsuits against Saddam's funds which were seized and frozen accounts. Recently, they were told they cannot go after those funds because they were being used to rebuild Iraq. Part of me thinks that makes since.

BUT, when the SECDEF turns around and proposes reparations to the Iraqis who were abused, well, that's just a little bit stinky and a slap in the face.