What are the repercussions of Iraqis tortured by Americans at Abu Ghraib prison in 2004?

Also see Updated Torture/Abuse '05-06 and see "Torture III" for 2007 and Torture IV: 2009

A chronology of Abu Ghraib, detailed and visually appealing,  is updated weekly by the Washington Post. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/daily/graphics/abughraib_050904.htm

In late April 2004 we learned from 60 Minutes II of the  investigation begun in January into the U.S. prison located at one of Saddam's notorious prisons.  Pictures show American soldiers gleefully intimidating and humiliating Iraqi prisoners, forcing them into poses and threatening shock torture.   Some of the photos are too graphic to print. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0430-01.htm

In the photo above, a hooded man allegedly was made to stand on a box of MRE's, or meals ready to eat, and told that he would be electrocuted if he fell off. The physical and sexual abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison including beatings and degrading acts by American soldiers.  Some called the actions torture. The prison was ironically the largest and most notorious during Hussein's years. 

In January after one witness came forward, 17 suspected soldiers were suspended but only one had been court-martialed.  Criminal charges were filed in March against six and three have been recommended for court-martial.  

The Post reported on April 30 that the charges included "conspiracy, dereliction of duty, cruelty and maltreatment, assault and indecent acts with another, the military's term for sexual abuse."  

Relatives of some of the soldiers and their lawyer said they were scapegoats and just following orders. One of the accused was told, according to the Post, that "he could not question the alleged victims, military investigators or other officers because they were "not reasonably available."

The first beheadings of Americans and westerners occurred soon after the Abu Ghraib torture photos first became public.  

In the first days of May, the prisoner abuse story continued on the front pages.  The New York Times reported on May 3 that "an internal Army investigation has found that key military intelligence officers and civilian employees...may have spurred" the acts. This could reveal "a much broader pattern" than the Pentagon initially acknowledged.  Richard Myers said the cases were "isolated" and that an investigation was under way, led by Paul Wolfowitz, a leading critic of the Hussein torture at the prison. The author of this web site feels that Wolfowitz is not an objective investigator.  Karpinski admitted that CIA officers participated in the interrogations.

On May 4 the Times front page story reported that the Senior American commander ordered the first punishments, "issuing severe reprimands" to six supervisors at the prison.  The punishment will most likely end their military careers but The Tribune reports that they were not demoted or discharged.   "They should have known, but they did not," said the senior US commander Lt. Gen Ricardo S. Sanchez.  However, only the six subordinates have been charged with criminal activity. We also learned that the military investigation "suggested that these problems had contributed to abuses of prisoners over many months even after earlier instances were reported and punished."  Early reports came in May 2003 and soldier were charged and punished only late in 2003.

That same day the Tribune reported that the prisoner abuse was under investigation for nearly four months, "the reprimands were delivered less than a week after CBS' 60 Minutes II first aired the photos.  Pentagon officials say that "alleged abuses were first reported by a soldier on Jan. 13, and that an investigation was begun the next day."  However, we learned in the next few days that the International Red Cross had repeatedly warned that conditions in the prison were lacking. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, chief spokeswoman in Baghdad, said, according to the paper, that it is still unclear whether the mistreatment was ordered as part of the interrogation process.  Usually, such vague denials seem to be a delay tactic for admitting bad news. We also learned that 25 prisoners have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, one who drowned in a river after being badly beaten.  In the two murder cases thus far, those found guilty have been penalized by losing their jobs. A few weeks later the Pentagon revised this number to 33.

Gen. Miller's August trip to from Guantanamo to Iraq led to a recommendation to turn over Abu Ghraib to military intelligence. There were numerous reports over weeks that prisoners were to be "loosened up." This led to the sexual humiliation which could have been used for blackmail against the prisoners. Will these allegations lead to Rumsfeld's resignation? Read more about Rumsfeld's future.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

The Pentagon strongly denied the story., calling the charges "outlandish and conspiratorial." 

A related story from Newsweek, "The Roots of Torture",  alleged that Powell "hit the roof" when he learned of the new policy which could lead to abuse of prisoners.  The policy, perhaps initiated by the President's chief legal council,  seemed to have "bled over" from Cuba and Afghanistan into Iraq, as authorized by Rumsfeld, who had previously intimated that the Geneva Conventions were obsolete and quaint. Newsweek reported that "Bush...Rumsfeld and Ashcroft signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods"  The secret orders were "designed to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions, which project the rights of detainees and prisoners of war.  In doing so, they overrode the objections of...Powell and America's top military lawyers."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4989422/

U.S. editorials in the spring and summer of 2004 included the New York Times of May 3 in "Nightmare at Abu Ghraib."  The paper reminds readers that US officials have known for months.  "Terrorists like Osama bin Laden have always intended to use their violence to prod the US and its allies into demonstrating that their worst anti-American propaganda was true. Abu Ghraib was an enormous victory for them, and it is unlikely that any response by the Bush administration will wipe its stain from the minds of Arabs.  The invasion of Iraq, which has already begun to seem like a bad dream in so many ways, cannot get much more nightmarish than this."

The May 5 Times, "The Torture Photos", looks at the role of Rumsfeld and how the scandal came about or might have been predictable.  "This is the kind of outcome no one wanted, although one that the Bush administration should have worried about long ago, and taken far more care to avert.  Now all the president and his top officials can do is clean up the mess and express the county's deep regret.  So far, they have accomplished neither...Member of Congress were more than justified yesterday in worrying about the safety of American soldiers...The revelation from the Abu Ghraib prison called for some humility, an apology to the abused men and an immediate, full and public accounting of what happened and who was responsible. Instead, the Bush administration began one of its now-classic defensive maneuvers...[portraying] the acts as the aberrant work of a handful of men and women, even as they knew--or should have knows--that the Army was conducting criminal investigation into more than 20 different incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan, many involving prison death."  

The editorial continues that Rumsfeld denied a cover-up because the Army began investigating in January.  "That is true, but no details were made public, even though many were available...Mr. Rumsfeld also said, unbelievably, that he had not yet finished reading the report on the Abu Ghraib prison.  At another point he seemed to shrug off the brutal treatment of the prisoners as the sort of thing that can happen in a system that is not 'perfect'--a distressing echo of his costly dismissal of the looting in Baghdad last year as the 'untidiness' of freedom." Also see "Should Rumsfeld Resign?" FAQ.

The Times concluded, "With each setback and blunder in Iraq, the administration has reacted this way, cheerfully denying that anything happened and sticking to its original plans while international support for the occupation has steadily fallen to it s current minimal level.  Recovering form this latest horror will require a lot more than that sort of business as usual."

The May 22 Times Editorial, "An Abu Ghraib Investigation", sees the case of more than the behavior of "a few sick soldiers."  That defense is not consistent with the Red Cross, recent testimony of detainees, or the Pentagon's own records.  The paper is also concerned with the deaths of at least five Iraqis there during interrogations.  "Each new panel of witnesses simply adds to the fog of misunderstanding....Among the big question that needs to be answered is how the government and the military handled the repeated complaints from the Red Cross...The military has repeatedly assured us that it will get to the bottom of this mess, but it has not provided any evidence that it's really capable of doing so."  The paper concludes, "But given the quality of the testimony so, far, it is not likely that the Senate hearings will produce the answers the public deserves.  While this many not be the idea time for an independent investigation, it is getting hard to see another option." 

An editorial from the Chicago Tribune condemned the abuse, of course, calling the photographs "sickening."  "But," the paper added, "our investment is too great and too vital to let it be jeopardized by such grotesque aberrations.  Iraqis should keep in mind that the mistreatment came to light thanks to an American soldier who reported what they had seen." ("Shame in Iraq, 5/4/04). Iraqis did not seem too comforted by such assurances. 

Among American media, the Washington Post reported that the photos "have reinforced the long-held view [in Iraq] that the US occupation is intent on humiliating the Iraqi people." "How can we not hate the Americans," commented an unemployed 19 year old, after the treatment we have received.  It is not human."  This teenager was held for six months in several prisons around Iraq.

Daniel Schnoor, commentator on NPR, (5/10/04, ATC) still hears President Bush speak of the torture chambers of Saddam being closed.  "He did not say they had been re-opened under new management." 

Added University of Michigan History Professor Juan Cole, "The public relations damage is profound and permanent.  The release of these pictures may be the point at which the United States lost Iraq."

David Brooks of the New York Times has generally been supportive of the war.  He opens "For Iraqis to Win, the U.S. Must Lose" (5/11/04) with, "This has been a crushingly depressing period, especially for people who supported the war...the predictions people on my side made about the post- war have not yet come true.  The warnings others made about the fractious state of post-Saddam society have.  It's still too soon to declare the Iraq mission a failure...Nonetheless, it's not too early to begin thinking about what was clearly an intellectual failure.  There was, above all, a failure to understand the consequences of our power....Far from being blinded by greed," Brooks felt we were blinded by idealism of Democracy in the Middle East.

"We went into Iraq with what, in retrospect, seems like a childish fantasy...We didn't understand that the tragic irony that our power is also our weakness.  As long as we seemed so might, others, event hose we were aiming to assist, were bound to revolt.  They would do so for their own self-respect.  In kicking out Saddam, we robbed the Iraqis of the honor of liberating themselves.  The fact that they had no means to do so is beside the point."

Paul Krugman, also of the New York Times wrote "Just Trust Us" (5/11/04).  A critic of the war before it began, Krugman feels that "from the day his administration took office, its slogan has been 'just trust us'...Did top officials order the use of torture?  It depends on the meaning of the words 'order' and 'torture.'"  Maj. Gen. Miller's visit in August concluded with recommendations that "the guards help interrogators, including private contractors, by handling prisoners in a way that 'sets the conditions' for 'successful interrogation and exploitation.'  What did he and his superior thinks would happen."

Krugman concludes, "You can't prevent any serious inquiry into why George Bush led us to war to eliminate WMD that didn't exist and to punish Saddam for imaginary ties to Al Qaeda, then express shock when Mr. Bush' administration fails to follow the rules on other matters."

As the images of sexual humiliation hit the front pages all over Europe and the Middle East and were broadcast in Middle East TV, reaction included an editor of an Arab newspapers:  "This is the straw that broke the camel's back for America.  The liberators are worse than the dictators...They have not just lost the hearts and minds of Iraqis but all the third World and the Arab countries."  Reaction on capital hill came from Joseph Biden who described the prisoner abuse and torture as "the single most significant undermining act that's occurred in a decade in that region of the world, in terms of our standing..."

Others commented that the "trophy pictures" were like American lynching photos, distributed as postcards in the early and mid-1900s.

At the Chicago Tribune, Kathleen Parker sees our perspective skewed by "hysteria."  On the one hand, she sees the potential repercussions are "almost unbearable to consider: continued loss of respect in the world; increased risk to our soldiers...empowerment of insurgents, derailment of our mission in Iraq, and ultimately, further destabilization in the Middle East."  On the other hand, she feels the "hysterical left" is unfairly comparing Bush to Hussein.  Others wrote to her, "Grow up, this is war...We should have shot [all the Iraqi prisoners]."  Pleased with the investigations thus far, Parker explains that "freedom requires constant vigilance, self-scrutiny and correction." 

That same May 12, Clarence Page examines the "weapons of mass photography."  Rumsfeld, he believes, does not see the lack of preparation of post-Saddam as the problem, but the photos. He describes the photos "of naked Iraqi detainees...being poked, prodded, wired, bagged, paraded around, stacked up and otherwise humiliated by make and female American guards."  Reacted to Seymour Hersh's first report (see above), Page adds, "Those with long memories may recall ...Hersh's first big scoop, the 1968 massacre of unarmed Vietnamese villages, including women and children, at My Lai.  It didn't get much ink when he reported it in late1969 until the Cleveland Plain Dealer printed photos.

Among letters to the editor, one man from Chicago wrote to the Times that "Every war has images that burn their way into the conscienceless of the world .  World War II had the pictures of the recently freed inmates at Auschwitz.  Vietnam had the monk setting herself aflame, the girl burned by napalm ruining naked and the Vietnamese officer shooting a Vietcong prison at point-blank range."

Amazingly, John Kerry did not mention Abu Ghraib during the campaign of 2004.

Pentagon officials appeared before Congress on May 4 and Rumsfeld gave a press conference and lengthy NPR interview, dealing with the prisons, troops levels, and the insurgency. Sen. Kennedy worried that the abuse is more widespread that is publicly acknowledged. The following day President Bush gave two interviews on Arab TV stations.  He did not actually apologize but said that he was "appalled."  The video or audio is from the President.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/media/apdaily/050504-6v.htm.   Only a few days later, in talking with the press about his meeting with the Jordanian President, President Bush did apologize. 

A transcript of one of the interviews can also be read.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3854-2004May5?language=printer

Even more photos were released by the Washington Post on the same day that Thomas Friedman, of the New York Times, called for the firing of Donald Rumsfeld. Bush "expressed his displeasure" to  Rumsfeld privately concerning not being informed about the photos. This is the first time the President has been known to criticize one of his cabinet members. The President knew about the alleged torture in January. 

Amnesty International delivered accounts of abuse to the CPA back in the summer of 2003. AI sees a pattern of mistreatment.  "Detainees have reported being routinely subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment during arrest and detention."  The group added, "The prison was notorious under Saddam Hussein--it should not be allowed to become so again."  Other concerns are that insurgents might be less likely to surrender.  Humiliation would be seen as worse than death.

The International Red Cross (ICRC) likewise warned the U.S. of mistreatment for months.  Based on their 29 visits to prisons, they had specifically asked the U.S. to take action. They had warned the U.S. of problems at 12 prisons. In addition to the abuse, the ICRC complained that family members of those detained were not notified. Their 24-page report, only made available on May 10, "cites more than 250 allegations of mistreatment at prisons and temporary detention facilities."

Why was a formal investigation delayed? Though reports on Abu Ghraib were sent after an October visit, the Pentagon did not launch a formal investigation until Jan. 13 when a computer disk of photos was provided to officers. 

The LA Times reported that the administration asserted in a letter to the Red Cross on December 24, 2003, that detainees "were not entitled to the full protections of the Geneva Conventions."  The USA Today points out that this is consistent with a January 2002 directive by the White House which labeled the Conventions as "quaint" and "obsolete." 

Other brutal torture and threats of rape are too harsh to be described on this web site. In addition, the ICRC quoted the U.S. that 70-90% of those detained are innocent and later released. 

In mid-May the Red Cross further reported that one U.S. response to their warning of prison abuse in October and November of 2003 had been trying to curtail spot inspections.  The U.S. wanted them to make appointments before future visits.  One claim was that interrogation of isolation could be interrupted by the Red Cross. (NYTimes front page story of May 19)

In mid-May British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon revealed, according to the New York Times, that "in response to complaint raised" in the summer of 2003 by the Red Cross, the British Army in September "stopped its practice of putting hoods on Iraqi prisoners." (5/11/04). 

Amidst all the prison torture attention, President Bush declared Iraqis now lead a better life.  "Illegal militias and remnants of the regime, joined by foreign terrorists, are trying to take by force the power they could never gain by the ballot.  These groups have found little support among the Iraqi people...Electricity is now more widely available than before the war.  Iraq has a stable currency, and banks are thriving."

The President continued, "Schools and clinics have been renovated and reopened, and power plants, hospitals, water and sanitation facilities, and bridges have been rehabilitated...We are prepared to enforce order in Iraq...The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the globe, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the Middle East."  The President clearly shows no signs of contemplating a withdraw or decrease in U.S. troops. The administration also focused on the idea that the abhorrent behavior is just a few bad apples and not condoned or suggested by any superiors. 

Much of the U.S. watched on the Friday morning of May 7 as Donald Rumsfeld was called before Congress to answer some tough questions.  In addition to cable, all three major networks ran the live coverage, very unusual for daytime TV.  The Secretary of Defense warned that more photos and even video were to come which were blatantly sadistic and inhumane.  A few days later it was not clear when or if the photos would be released. Some worried that more photos might endanger the troops. Though the President told us he privately reprimanded Rumsfeld for not showing him the photos, he publicly was very supportive of his Defense Secretary.

The Speaker of the House, John Kerry, and others called for his firing or resignation, as Kerry had done so first months ago.  Added Kerry, "Our moral authority around the world is at an all-time low." He called the President's response "slow and inappropriate" and wanted to know who knew what and when.  As of May 9, no Republicans had directly called for his resignation. President Bush emphasized his strong confidence in his Defense Secretary on May 10

Among Rumsfeld's opening comments were, "I offer my deepest apology...I take full responsibility...[This is] inconsistent with the values of our nation...and fundamentally un-American.  He also suggested compensation for those harmed.  

When Rumsfeld appeared, most Senators condemned the prisoner abuse but Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) felt the criticism was exaggerated and misplaced:  "I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment."  A few "misguided" and "maybe even perverted" perpetrators needed to be punished. "These prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands.  And here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals.  I am also outraged that we have so many humanitarian do-gooders right now crawling all over these prisons, looking for human rights violations while our troops, our heroes, are fighting and dying." 

One response to Sen. Inhofe's argument is from the LATimes, reporting that 70-90% are arrested by mistake, according to coalition military intelligence officials.   
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-redcross11may11,1,1022582,print.story?coll=la-news-a_section

A positive idea on the prison scandal is the our freedom of press makes an investigation possible.  These crimes would never have been investigated under Saddam.  Our government is open to criticism and debate is allowed.

The Senate Committee Chair, Warner (below, at right, R-VA), spoke of the 60 years of his life this is "as serious an issue of military misconduct."  He expressed concerns about the conduct of the war on terror and feels it may make our forces less safe.  

In late May Warner was criticized by some Republicans for keeping the issue on the front burning for his committee.  Democrat Senator Levin (at left, MI) felt the conduct was probably not aberrant.  "The planners are at least as guilty."  He spoke of the pattern to "soften them up," according to the Taguba report.

On May 11, Army Gen. Taguba was called before Congress. A few months earlier, he was the author of the Army's 6000 page report critical of the abuse and the patterns of abuse.  At the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, he reported that from October to December there were "sadistic, blatant, and wonton...criminal [and] systematic. abuses."  He blamed the treatment on four main problems:: discipline, training, leadership and supervision. Taguba also concluded that the six or seven soldiers acted on their own.

Who are the private contractors?  Even a few days after the pictures broke, Gen. Meyers of the Joint Chiefs, had not read the summary report.  Some of those guilty were probably private contractors, who seem subject to few laws.  There are some 20,000 of them operating in Iraq.  In mid and late May as more bad news kept seeping out, we learned that a Titan contractor had allegedly raped a teenage boy.  The investigation began in January but the suspect was still employed by the U.S.  He can only be prosecuted with Bremer's special permission.. Will contractors be given immunity?  In June, two contractors were being sued for allegedly conspiring with U.S. officials to abuse Iraqi prisoners. 

Who was in charge of Abu Ghraib?   Karpinski was evidently replaced by Col. Thomas Pappas.  The two did not get along. In the fall of 2003, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller visited the prison and suggested changed.  After the pictures were revealed, Miller moved from Guantanamo prisons to Abu Ghraib the "clean up" emphasized a few revisions in the rules at the prison:  no more hoods, a thorough investigation, and train the personnel better. 

This same period of early-mid May saw another bin Laden tape released in which he called for a reward of $125,000 in gold for anyone who killed Bremer, Annan, Brahimi, or others.  Previously, bin Laden had urged actions based on promises of heaven. 

In the UK, Amnesty International alleged that the British killed civilians for no reason, including a young girl.  The case of the Iraqi families, we learned in mid-May, will be brought to a British court. Meanwhile, Tony Blair has faced increased criticism on prisoners and the war from his opposition.  Would Blair be forced to resign?

By February 2005, two British soldiers were convicted of abusing prisoners in May 2003.  It was reported that the abuse came to light after film was dropped off at a photo shop in  England which showed the scenes of abuse.  

On May 11 came to release of a horrific video showing the beheading of an American contractor from Pennsylvania.  The group, with links to al Qaeda, said the killing was in revenge for the prison torture. Also see "Americans Being Killed" FAQ.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17639-2004May11.html

The new photos and even video were shown secretly to the Senate on May 12.  They were appalled.  Senators disagreed about whether these new photos should be released.

The Pentagon announced new guidelines for prisoners in Iraq, such as use of hoods, stress positions, etc. Congress and human rights groups disagreed that these policies had been appropriate under the Geneva Conventions.

The NYTimes story of May 18 was of a Iraqi-born Swede who was asking for $100,000, claiming torture.  Ironically, he had been a vocal opponent of Hussein and at Abu Ghraib in the 80s had been tortured Mr. Saleh claims he witnessed a guard shoot and kill several prisoners.  

Also on May 19 came the first public trials for court martial taking place in Iraq.  We also hope to learn how high up the command are the guilty parties. Jeremy Sivits pleaded guilty and was found guilty, given one year confinement.  After the Sivitz trial the next one was not scheduled until June 21.

Of the 37 deaths, only one U.S. soldier has been punished, as of early June. He had shot and killed a prisoner who was throwing stones at a detention center. This soldier was demoted and discharged, but not court martialed

The Reuters and NBC news organizations were very upset about allegations that some of their journalists were abused and humiliated in January.  The Pentagon investigation found no wrongdoing but failed to interview the alleged victims.  The three working for Reuters were Iraqis and were held near Fallujah.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37729-2004May18.html

As each day seemed to bring new questions or revelations, the front page story from the Tribune on May 20 was of a 16 year old boy mistreated to get his dad to talk.  This was according to a military intelligence analyst who served at Abu Ghraib.  More and more, the problems seemed like more than "a few bad apples."

How high does the scandal reach?  In late May the Pentagon was denying that Gen. Sanchez visited the prison and witnessed harsh interrogations, possibly abuse. For a few days Sanchez refused the respond directly to these accusations only saying that he "didn't know" about the abuse until January.  

Leader of U.S. troops in the Middle East, Gen. Abizaid was called to testify by a U.S. Army Judge.  One attorney believed that the order to abuse rose at least as high as Rumsfeld.

Seymour Hirsh of The New Yorker, spoke in mid-August of even more horrific torture, including children and certain unspeakable acts.  His new book Chain of Command on U.S. prisons in Cuba, Afghanistan, and Iraq was released in September.  Hirsh reported that in the fall of 2002 warnings of war crimes at Guantanamo were relayed to NSC's Rice.  The abuses were widely known but not acted on.  Hirsh was interviewed on NPR's Morning Edition at September 15.  

At The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh's detailed article was entitled "Torture at Abu Ghraib."  Hirsh examines the brutalization and wonders, "How far up does the responsibility go?"  He concludes that key military intelligence officers may have actively encouraged acts of abuse and humiliation, according to the New York Times. http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040510fa_fact

Hersh's second investigative piece raised even more damning questions.  "The Gray Zone", posted on May 15, alleges that Special Access Program (SAP) was approved by Rumsfeld and assisted by his deputy Stephen Cambone, at left.   Hersh's new book on the scandal, out in the fall of 2004, is entitled Chain of Command.  See a complete list and description of scores of Iraq War books.

How widespread was the abuse?  The front page New York Times headline of May 26 cited an army survey's conclusion of "widespread pattern of abuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Of the 37 cases of prisoners who have died in U.S. custody, the Army "did not conduct autopsies and says it cannot determine the causes of the death."  We learned the the military completed autopsies on 20 prisoners who died in custody only after months had passed.  

The Red Cross complaints continued to surface into late May. A report leaked to news organizations concluded, "Nine months into the present conflict, there is still no satisfactory system of notification to the families of captured or arrested persons,. even though hundreds of arrests continue to be carried out every week."

In June Rumsfeld admitted that there were some ghost detainees, those who were never registered.  Some were held this way for months. We also learned that there are 19 U.S. run secret prisons throughout the world.  In January and February of 2005 we learned more about the US. sending suspects to countries such as Syria and Egypt, known for their torture.  In one case, a Canadian citizen was released after months of alleged torture. 

The same day as the "widespread abuse" headline came the rousing and/or controversial speech by Al Gore.  He felt that the prison scandal was not the result of "a few twisted minds at the lowest ranks of our military enlisted personnel" but, according to the Times, "what he described as the Bush administration's systematic disregard for the requirements of the Geneva Conventions."  "'The abuse...flowed directly from the abuse of the truth that characterized the administration's march to war and the abuse of the trust that had been placed in President Bush by the American people in the aftermath of Sept. 11th.'"  See more on Gore's comments at Congress/Press Reactions FAQ

Among the June press reaction to a story than continued in the headlines for a third consecutive month, was "So Torture is Legal?", and "Small Comfort",  op-eds in the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44874-2004Jun15?language=printer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42033-2004Jun14?language=printer

What will change after June 30, 2004?  10 days before the official transfer of power, the U.S. maintained plans to hold 500 detainees.  Human rights groups denounced the plans as illegal of a power no longer occupying a country.

In July and August we continued to learn more about the torture.  It turns out that most of those tortured were alleged to be common criminals.  Col. Pappas seemed to cover-up some of the 30+ deaths in detention that had taken place.  

In mid-August 2004 an army internal report was released which concluded that "Sanchez did not send order to abuse detainees."  There was no culpability higher than commanders at the prison.  The report, written by Gen. Paul J. Kern, was not allowed to investigate anyone who ranked above him.  Faulty supervision is criticized as well as shifting guidelines for control.  The New York Times  concluded its front page article by reminding us that two investigations are forthcoming, one by the Navy's inspector general and a panel led by former Defense Sec. James Schlesinger, appointed by Rumsfeld.

A few days later work came word of another Army report, that the torture resulted from "failures of leadership" rising to the highest levels of the US command in Iraq (including Gen. Sanchez).  Senior defense officials spoke anonymously in advance of a 9000 page document organized by Maj. Gen. George R. Fay and then Kern.  Sanchez had been re-assigned out of Iraq a few months before. Sanchez changed rules for interrogation three times in 30 days, leading to confusion. Fay's report also described the torture of teenagers in a sadistic way,  including "dog games".  The policy of "ghost detainees" kept from the Red Cross was also criticized.  The New York Times labeled some of these internal army reports as a "whitewash."  They also examined the role of intelligence officers. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27048-2004Aug23?language=printer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33789-2004Aug25.html

The army report found at least 50 Americans responsible and blames General Sanchez for changing orders, and exceeding the Geneva guidelines with his initial policy. One of his memorandum did not authorize abuse but "effectively opened the way for interrogation techniques that the Pentagon has labeled abusive." (NYTimes, lead page 8/27/04, "Army's Report Faults General in Prison Abuse")

Another of the dozen reports which followed General Taguba's original report came  from former Sec. of Defense James Schlesinger.  Appointed by Sec. Rumsfeld, his August 24th report was a broader condemnation.  There was no call for the resignation of Sec. Rumsfeld.  Schlesinger faulted many more than "a few bad apples" as the Pentagon had earlier claimed.

In addition, his panel saw responsibility rising to the top of the Pentagon which he called "leadership failures at the highest level."  Schlesinger saw faulty oversight or guidelines and allowing the conditions which led to abuse, torture, and "sadism."  We also learned the odd fact that National Security Council staff visited the prison.  Did they put pressure the Americans to obtain information?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28862-2004Aug24?language=printer

The Wall Street Journal reported that on the 181 year old Lancet the UKs leading medical journal.  Examining the role of health care workers at the prisons, University of Minnesota professor Steven Miles concludes that "government documents show that the US military medical system failed to protect detainee's rights, sometimes collaborated with interrogators or abusive guards, and failed to properly report injuries or deaths caused by beatings."  An accompanying editorial in the Lancet says that medical personnel "may have helped, covered up or stood by silently when humiliation, degrading treatment and physical abuses" took place.  In response, the Pentagon took "strong exception" to the allegations, many of which were based on previously released reports, articles, Pentagon investigations, and testimony.  ("Military Medical Ethics Questioned", 8/20/04).  

The Toronto Star added to the Wall Street Journal analysis, quoting Professor Miles:  "a medic inserted a intravenous catheter into the corpse of a detainee who died under torture in order to create evidence that he was alive at the hospital."  Death certificates were falsified and medical investors "routinely attributed deaths to natural causes when proof of abuse was glaring.  The Lancet editorial urged, "Health-care workers should now break their silence."

After early September Congressional testimony, Abu Ghraib seemed to fall of the radar screen for most mainstream focused on the Presidential election.  The Washington Post editorial of October 15, "Remember Abu Ghraib?" wondered why the topic was "remarkably omitted" from the debates.  These photographs and torture have done "grave damage to the U.S.'s ability to combat extremism in the Muslim world.  There is, too something important to debate:"  whether the U.S. continues to abide by the Geneva Accords.  While "the administration's guilty silence" concerns the paper, neither Bush or Kerry have answered this question.  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34176-2004Oct14?language=printer

With less than two weeks until the U.S. elections, another reservist pled guilty.  Mr. Frederick was sentenced to eight years in prison, the toughest sentence yet handed down.  Would the story gain any traction as the election approached?  Would any higher-ups be held accountable?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47301-2004Oct20?language=printer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51044-2004Oct21?language=printer

A Washington Post editorial, "Mr. Kerry on Prisoners" (10/20/04)was pleased that he will abide by the Geneva Accords, in contrast to Mr. Bush.  The paper had yet to made an endorsement for President.  The paper recalled that several Abu Ghraib investigations 'have found, these techniques [from Guantanamo Bay] soon 'migrated' to US field units in Iraq and Afghanistan, leading to hundreds of cases of torture, homicide and other  abuse, and a shameful stain on the international reputation of the U.S.  Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld still reuse to acknowledge the terrible consequences of the decisions they made, much less correct their mistakes...Without any change in policy, there is every reason to expect that a second Bush term would produce more scandals like Abu Ghraib.  As the history of the past three year demonstrates, such abuses result when the rule of law is set aside." 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46565-2004Oct19?language=printer

In November of 2004 photos of Navy Seals shows new torture, some possibly dating from spring of 2003. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33555-2004Dec3?language=printer

The story from mid-December was that the CIA was so concerned about the treatment of detainees that it barred its officers form taking part in the interrogations, effective August 2003.  

New allegations of abuse continued to be reported on December 21, partly thanks to the ACLU.  In another of a series of disclosures "that have increasingly contradicted the military's statements that harsh treatment of prisoners happened only in limited, isolated cases" (NYTimes)

The Washington Post editorial "War Crimes" criticized the administration for denying a much greater problems than "a few bad apples."  The abuse in Iraq continued even after the Abu Ghraib photos first became public.  The memo was dated June 24, 2004. For this web site, I have chosen to not include the most graphic pictures or the most graphic descriptions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20986-2004Dec22?language=printer

One op-ed reaction to the new torture is from Times columnist Derrick Jackson.  "On the very day Bush played up Rumsfeld's touchy-feely side, the ACLU released yet more documents suggesting that there was widespread knowledge and concern over alleged torture of war detainees in Iraq..."  The FBI director had been warned of testimony of "'numerous physical abuse incidents of Iraqi civilian detainees' including 'strangulation, beatings, and placement of lit cigarettes into the detainee's ear openings...detainees being dropped onto barbed wire, having Israeli flags wrapped around them, spat on and knocked unconscious, and shackled until they defecated on themselves...'  No one at the top has been held accountable."

The New York Times Editor, Andrew Rosenthal, reacted to the "legal breach" at the of 2004.  He wrote than when Rumsfeld approved "the initial list of interrogation methods for Guantanamo Bay in late 2002--methods that clearly violated the Geneva Conventions and anti-torture statues--there were no pretest from the legal counsels for the secretary of defense, the attorney general, the president and CIA or any of the civilian secretaries of the armed services...It took an internal protest by uniformed lawyers from the Navy to force the pentagon to review the Guantanamo rules and restrict them a bit."  

In June 2004 we learned that the Army was investigating a total of 91 cases of possible misconduct.  This was greater than any previous number given. We also learned of 2002 White House memos which seemed to allow for torture.  

Attorney General Ashcroft, pressed by the Senate, would not release the memos on torture.  Ashcroft might be cited for contempt of Congress.  The advise for the Present seemed to be to label Guantanamo prisoners as enemy combatants and thus not on the anti-torture Geneva Conventions.  The "broad guidelines" for interrogations in Iraq, set by the President, made more likely the torture. Others saw the memos as putting the President above the law.

The memorandum also said that executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reason, including a belief by interrogators that they were acting on orders from superiors 'except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful.'  Another memorandum said the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan." (12/16/04). 

The first news of 2005 was that the U.S. had publicly spelled out its new definition of torture.  The front page Times article emphasized that the new definition was broaden and was a retreat from an August 2002 memo which defined torture very narrowly and said that President Bush "could ignore domestic and international prohibition against torture in the name of national security."  It was leaked in 2004. 

The paper pointed out that this comes one week before Gonzalez will be questioned by the Senate as the likely new Attorney General.  The 2002 memo asserted, according to the Times,  that mistreatment "rose to the level of torture only if it produced severe pain equivalent to that associated with organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death."

"Ugly Truths About Guantanamo" was Richard Cohen's (Washington Post) first commentary of 2005. The new revelations coming out of the Cuban base "soils us as a nation.  It's as if the government is ahistorical, unaware of how communist and fascist also stained language and ushered the world into torture chambers made pretty for the occasion.  We now keep some pretty bad company." 

Gonzales's testimony at the Senate took place on January 6, 2005.  The Post's editorial reaction was less than positive, speaking of "missed opportunities to rectify his position."  The Post followed a week later with its suggestion that Gonzalez not be confirmed as Attorney General stating "this reluctance to hold Mr. Gonzalez accountable is shameful." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54854-2005Jan6?language=printer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12606-2005Jan15?language=printer

The Wall Street Journal had a different emphasis and a more positive take. The paper's January 6 "'Torture' Shadow" felt that it does some good by "forcefully responding to all the glib and dangerous abuse of the word 'torture."  Democrats believe in "unilateral disarmament."  Gonzalez actions are "entirely defendable."  

Other reaction to the Gonzales' nomination and testimony came from the New York Editorial, "Rewarding Mr. Gonzales."  Comparing him to Rumsfeld, the piece argues that he "shamed the nation and endangered American soldiers who many be taken prisoner in the  future by condoning the sort of atrocious acts the US has always condemned."  They were concerned that Geneva Conventions were "rendered obsolete" by Gonzalez-crafted memories.  The future Attorney General's turnaround on torture was welcome but "too late."  

Steve Chapman, syndicated columnists who appears in the Chicago Tribune wrote on the Bybee memo on "organ failure...or death".  Bybee was assistant Attorney General.  "When asked about the Bybee memo, which he had solicited, he admitted, "'I don't have a disagreement with the conclusion then reached by the department."

When Sen. Feingold asked Gonzales about "forced nudity, the threatening of detainees with dogs and 'water boarding'--a method designed to simulate drowning, Gonzales said we 'should avoid the use of such harsh methods of questioning if possible."  If possible?"  Chapman points to Sen. Durbin reminds us that we condemn such methods when used by other countries. 

Sen. Russ Feingold, who supports Republican nominees as a policy, could not support Gonzales.  "Time after time...[he] has been a key participant in developing secret legal theories to justify policies that, as they have become public, have tarnished our nation's international reputation."

What is the role of the CIA in questioning or suspects?  After his testimony, Gonzales provided written statements to the Senate.  He acknowledged according to a Times report, that the White House "did not consider the CIA bound by the same rules as military personal."  A former Justice Department lawyer, Martin Lederman, felt it was notable that "Gonzales is not willing to tell the senators or anyone else just what techniques the CIA has actually been authorized to use."  Gonzales would argue that he doesn't want al Qaeda to know what limits the US would impose.

Senate debate of the Gonzales nomination continued past the President's State of the Union message of Feb. 2. Republican supporter Orin Hatch accused Gonzales critics of "mob mentality to make him a "scapegoat" for polices outside his control.   Hatch said that "all Hispanics" are watching this vote and added, "He's a man of integrity, decency, honor."  Another Senator argued that Gonzales was "not someone who deserves to be maligned and castigated and subject to this sort of cruel process."

Democrats referred to the 2002 Justice Department memo that referred to parts of the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" and "obsolete".  The administration  disavowed the memo prior soon before Gonzales was nominated.

The New York Times lead editorial of Feb. 4 labeled Gonzales as one who "has come to represent the administration's role in paving the way for the abuse and torture...Giving him the nation's top legal post is a terrible signal to send the rest of the world, and to American citizens concerned with human rights." While the value of diversity is indisputable "it is irrelevant here.  Mr. Gonzales was a bad choice...because of his record, not his ethnic background...[He] argued that intelligence agents could 'abuse' prisoners as long as they did it to foreigners outside the US."

Another New York Times lead editorial, "The Wrong Attorney General", expressed deep concern.  Gonzales's' record "makes him unqualified to take on this role of to represent the American justice system to the rest of the world...The biggest strike against Mr. Gonzales is the now repudiated memo that gave a disturbingly narrow definition of torture, limiting it to physical abuse that produced pain of the kind associated with organ failure or death.  {His] attempts to distance himself form the memo have been unconvincing, especially since it turns out he was the one who requested that it be written...These actions created the legal climate that made possible the horrific mistreatment of Iraq prisoners."  The administration often talks about "its desire to mend fences with the rest of the world, particular the Muslim world.  Making Mr. Gonzales the nation's chief law enforcement officer would set this effort back substantially." 

Senator Edward Kennedy called it "a sad day for the Senate" to confirm a person "who was at the heart of the policy on torture that has so shamed American in the eyes of the whole world and has so flagrantly violated the values we preach to the world."