PS FAQ:  Torture, Abuse, and Rendition II:  2005
Also see Gonzales and Abu Ghraib for 2004
and
See Torture/Abuse III: 2006-08

It turns out to be generally accepted that about 90% of Abu Ghraib prisoners are innocent and released, at least during the 2005 time period. 

In early 2005, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote about shipping detainees to countries known for torture, including Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, a practice in use before Bush became President, but expanded after 9/11.  Termed "extraordinary renditions" by the administration, Herbert responds, "It may be that most Americans would prefer not to know about these practices, which are nothing less than malignant cells that are already spreading in the nation's soul.  Denial is often their fist response to the most painful realities.  But most American also know what happens when a cancer is ignored."

This new CIA policy was again detailed in the New York Times in early March. Former officials state that the CIA has flown 100-150 suspected terrorist in between Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan. "Each of those countries has been identified by the State Department as habitually using torture in its prisons."  An official also said, "We get assurances, we check...and double check...to make sure that people are being handled properly in respect to human rights."  CIA Director Porter Goss added, "But of course once they're out of our control, there's only so much we can do."  
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines05/0306-01.htm

Outside of Herbert's thorough coverage of renditions, other papers did not start picking up the story until March.  Post columnist David Ignatius wrote of "'Rendition' Realities" (3/9/05) that the policy assumes that torture works but in his 30 years of writing about intelligence, "I've never encountered a spook who didn't realize that torture is usually counterproductive.  Professional intelligence officers know that prisoners will confess to anything under intense pain.  Information obtained through torture this way tends to be unreliable, in addition to being immoral."  One way the policy is used is with "family pressure" in one's home country, threatening to harm one's family.

Imperial Hubris author Michael Scheuer, a long-time CIA veteran, and head of the bin Laden desk, defended rendition.  Policies were in place by at least 1998, before Bush was elected.  The policy was closely scrutinized by NSC and Congressional intelligence committees.  "America is better protected because of renditions...Perfection is never attainable in the fog of war, and any errors should not distract from the overwhelming success of the program."

The President spoke publicly of rendition in his March 16, 2005 press conference by linking the policy to 9/11. :  "In the post-9/11 world, the US must make sure we protect our people and our friends from attack...And one way to do so is arrest people and send them back to their country of origin with the promise that they won't be tortured.  That's the promise we receive.  This county does not believe in torture. We do believe in protecting ourselves.  We don't believe in torture."

The US State Department has criticized Egypt for "numerous , serous, human-rights abuses" during interrogations, including cases of torture that resulted in death, reported the Tribune.

However, on March 17, CIA Director Porter Goss, according to the front page Times report by Douglas Jehl, said that "he could not assure Congress that the CIA's methods of interrogation terrorism suspects" since 9/11 "had been permissible under federal laws prohibiting torture."  Goss did assure Congress that "at this time" all interrogations are legal and do not constitute torture.

Goss was asked a question from former Vietnam POW and torture victim Sen. McCain on washboarding, in which a prisoner is held under water and "made to believe that he will drown." (NYTimes).  Goss replied that the approach fell into "an area of what I will call professional interrogation techniques" which are an important tool in efforts against terrorism.  On other techniques, Goss explained. "...I know for a fact, that torture is not--it's not productive.  That's not professional interrogation.  We don't do torture."  

After Goss' statement the agency released a statement saying, "All approved interrogation techniques, both past and present, are lawful and do not constitute torture."   For more on 2004 investigations, include the Red Cross, see Abu Ghraib.

In 2005 the CIA was getting more nervous about being involved in the harsh questioning/abuse.  In a front page story by Douglas Jehl, the New York Times reported at the end of February that "There is widening unease within the CIA over the possibility that career officers could be prosecuted or otherwise punished for their conduct during interrogations and detentions of terrorism suspects," according to current and former government officials who would not say whether these reviews were limited to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Red Sox jet was allegedly used to move suspects around the world.  The baseball team said it had no idea how its leased plane was used. The jet leases for $128,000 for 24 hours or $900,000 for a week. The costs would set back taxpayers nearly $14 million.  The jet Gulfstream made 51 visits to Guantanamo. 

Reported the front-page Tribune, Abu Omar was abducted in Italy and the Egyptian was flown to Cairo where he claims he was tortured. The US House voted 420-2 in March of 2005 to prohibit the use of federal money for sending detainees to countries that practice torture. Omar is also known as Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr. Renditions were US policy under CIA leader Tenet, a total of 70 in 7 years with 30 renditions since he resigned in 2004. 

It turns out that CIA agents wanted for the Omar kidnapping in Italy lived the high life, staying at expensive hotels, ordering $9 cokes.  Two agents rang up $9000 in room charges in a few weeks.  Over a five week period in early 2003, the Tribune front page story (12/25/05) describes room charges for the 20 operatives of $20,000 or more at three hotels.  It total, room charges of $158,000 were charged by 20 operatives staying from between 5 and 42 days. 

The Omar story was updated in April 2006, when Italy's justice minister decided to to seek extradition for the 22 CIA agents.  However, prosecutors have not given up their efforts. Another Omar update came in December of 2006 which Italy seeking indictments of CIA operatives. Trials would likely take place in absentia. As Christmas 2006 approached, we waited to see if a judge would send the cases to trial.

See more on Omar in "Torture/Abuse III: 2006-07"

In other torture/abuse news, The Granger trial made the news in mid-January 2005  His defense strategy, as a member of the military police,  was that he was only following orders. Higher level military refused to testify.  Granger was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years in jail.

The Tribune editorial worried that Granger's "reprehensible actions did incalculable damage to America's reputation as a country that respects individual rights.  His conviction and sentence should help to put to rest accusations that torture is an accepted part of American military strategy in Iraq...yet...shouldn't close the book on this incident...Whether the soldiers directly involved acted on their own, or under orders from superiors, key questions remain." ("Preventing another Abu Ghraib," 1/18/05). 

In late January 2005 still more documents and accusations became public.  The ACLU and other groups sought release of documents.  They include accusations of rape of a teenage Iraqi boy and of murder.  The British, who had a better reputation among Iraqis were accused of their own prisoners abuse.  The "lurid" photos were strikingly similar to Abu Ghraib. 

Doctors began telling their stories.  One told investigators that some prisoners were psychotic and out of control.  

Return to Top

In mid-February still more documents were released to the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act.  These showed evidence of widespread abuse, making the "just a few bad apples at Abu Ghraib" defense look wrong.  These new documents included allegation of mock executions.  The ACLU has 20,000 of the 40,000 pages they are expecting.  Many pages have major sections deleted.  With the torture and abuse rarely leaving the news, we learned that week that a sergeant alleges that many photos were destroyed after the April 2004 disclosures at Abu Ghraib.  These photos included "uniformed soldier pointing rifles and pistols at the heads of hooded detainees and posing detainees in awkward positions,"  according to a New York Times article by Neil Lewis and Douglas Jehl. 

"Time for an Accounting" was the lead New York Times editorial (2/19/05) which is still concerned about the continuation of secret detentions.  The policy has "become embarrassing enough for the CIA to fret publicly about it."  What is the paper's advice?  "We strongly agree with the American Bar Association, which wrote to President Bush on Feb. 2 to urge the appointment of an independent, bipartisan commission with subpoena power.  The bar association talked about Iraqi civilians in military custody, but we believe that a panel should look at all detention centers and all government agencies."  The editorial concludes, "Only a full accounting can begin to heal the nation's image in the world, clarify the rules, punish those responsible, and clear the names of the hundreds of thousands of  other uniformed Americans who risk their lives to preserve human dignity and the rule of law." 

The March 3 editorial from the Times questions the veracity of the State Department report and officials who claims the US "does not look the other way.  But the report did look away--from American involvement in the mistreatment it decried.  In the end it was another sad reminder of the heavy price the nation has paid for ignoring fundamental human right is Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo; in the secret cells where the CIA holds its unaccounted-for prisoners.  The administration's refusal to remedy these abuses--or even acknowledge most of them--leave the 2004 human rights report have with irony and saps its authority."  The editorial concludes that "Mr. Gonzales continues to cling to the fiction that combating terrorism somehow gives Mr. Bush the power to violate American's constitutional rights." 

The executive directory of Michigan "Peaceworks" wrote about the soul of our nation.  "The question of whether torture produces reliable information notwithstanding, we must ask:  in trying to safeguard our lives, are we, as Americans, losing our collective soul?...We claim to be fighting terror, but are terrorizing hundreds, if not thousands of people, in the process."  

How well is the military investigating itself?  The Chicago Tribune reported that the Army began dozens of investigation in the past two years "but case after case was closed with US troops facing no charges or only minimal punishment" according to military records.  These new documents "challenge the government's claims last year" that Abu Ghraib was the result of "isolated pranks of a few low-ranking solders."  The allegations have spread throughout other prisons in Iraq.

As of September 2004, there were 71 completed cases of substantiated detainee abuse, including 20 that involved mistreatment during interrogations. The Army has taken 120 actions against 109 solders, including 32 court-martial, and 88 other forms of punishment, "including reprimands and dismissal from the service."

The Church report is detailed on the front page New York Times story of March 10, 2005. The report  finds that "early warning signs of serious abuses did not receive enough high-level attention as the abuses unfolded, and that unit commanders did not get clear instructions that might have halted the abuses.  

Return to Top 

Albert Church is a Vice Adm, the naval inspector general.  Rumsfeld's feels that this sixth investigation proves there have been sufficient studies. Also in mid-March, US commanders in Iraq are ordering the first major changes to interrogation  procedures in nearly a year to try to prevent future abuses. 

However, critics such as Democrats and Human Rights Watch wonder when some of the "higher ups" will be held responsible.  Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) feels that "this failure of accountability of senior leaders sends the wrong signal to our troops and to the American people."  Other critics are calling for an independent investigation.  

For example, ACLU leader Anthony Romero says, "It seems the military can only look down the chain of command, not up, when it comes to holding people accountable." Lt. Gen. Sanchez, who has since left Iraq, may be having his case reviewed. 

To some degree, the previous report by Schlesinger did hold that Rumsfeld "contributed to confusing over techniques permissible," according to the Times. 

The Times quotes two senior defense officials that "the most sticking warning signs were reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross to American military officials...of serious mistreatment" of the prisoners, especially a briefing in October 2003.  The report criticized some US medical personal who "may have attempted to misrepresented the circumstances of [a] death, possibly to disguise detainee abuse."  

Author of Torture and Truth, Mark Danner criticized the Church report for not interviewing Secretary Rumsfeld.  He sees the torture as immigrating from Guantanamo.  The key question, Danner feels, is "How did the policy of decision makers effect actions?"  

Editorial reaction to the Church report included the New York Times writing about "whitewash".  The paper was concerned that it took the military more than a year to implement new rules after first hearing about the abuse.  "Admiral Church...must have missed the pictures of prisoners in hoods, forced into stress positions and threatened by dogs.  All of those techniques were approved at one time or another by military officials, including Mr. Rumsfeld.  Of course, no known Pentagon policy orders the sexual humiliation of prisoners.  But that has happened so pervasively that it clearly was not just the perverted antics of one night shift in one cellblock..."  The editorial concludes, "the only real solution is for Mr. Bush to follow the American Bar Association's advice and appoint an independent, bipartisan commission."

"More Excuses" was the Washington Post editorial in reacting to the Church report.  The editorial opens with some background:  "The Pentagon's investigations of its own abuses of detainees...have taken on a predicable pattern.  Officials compile voluminous reports-there have been ten now--detailing shocking mistreatment, widespread violations of laws and the Geneva Conventions, and failures by senior military commanders and civilian officials up to Defense Secretary ...Rumsfeld. They then conclude there was 'no policy of abuse' and duck the question of whether anyone above the low-ranking personnel now being prosecuted should be held accountable."  

The Post adds that Pentagon leaders were not held directly responsible by the 368 page study based on 800 interviews and ordered by Rumsfeld.  "A blatant example of whitewashing" and "bureaucratic cover-up" should be put to a stop by Congress to whose "Republican leadership appears not to have the stomach to do so."  The piece concludes, "Willingly or not, congressional Republicans are identifying themselves as a party ready to accept systemic American violations of human rights." 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30319-2005Mar12?language=printer

Rumsfeld was sued over abuse in a case brought by the ACLU and Human Rights First.  The case was filed in early March in federal court on behalf of 8 men who say they were tortured in US custody.  The case read, "...They were subjected to torture and other cruel and degrading treatment, including severe and repeated beatings, cutting with knives, sexual humiliation and assault, mock execution, death threats, and restrain in contorted and excruciating positions."  Also see "Will Rumsfeld Resign?" FAQ

The Reuters piece reminds readers that an August 2004 report of a four-member panel appointed by Rumsfeld stated that "he and other top Pentagon leaders contributed to an environment in which prisoners suffered sadistic abuse at Abu Ghraib."  Also See Abu Ghraib/Gonzales '04

Return to Top

In "Stripping Rumsfeld and Bush of Impunity"  The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild's 9 page article looks at the likelihood and investigation of possible war crimes. Amnesty International points to "prima facie" evidence against Rumsfeld and Bush for war crimes and torture.  In fact, they suggest that other countries should consider arresting the two leaders. Writes Rothschild, "And we have to ask ourselves, where is the accountability?" Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the ACLU, the American Bar Association, and Human Rights First have joined in a call for a special prosecutor or a special commission like 9/11.  
http://63.247.66.90/~progress/?q=mag_impunity

In early March video tapes became public from a Florida National Guardsman.  Called "Ramadi Madness", the AP reported that "they appeared to show a soldier kicking a wounded, cuffed prisoner" yet Army investigators found no cause to charge anyone with abuse.  An ACLU attorney called the Army documents "further evidence that abuse of detainees was widespread in Iraq and Afghanistan...It's increasingly difficult to understand why no senior official, civilian or military, has been held accountable." (Chicago Tribune, 3/5/05). 

Detention centers are crowded beyond capacity. As of early March, the US is holding about 9000 detainees in the three major prisons, 100 more than in late January.  Abu Ghraib was 3160, well above the 2500 level considered ideal.  

The military further reported in June 2005 that of the about 12,000 detainees, about half are at the southern Camp Bucca, near Basra and about one-fourth are at Abu Ghraib. 

More bad news followed the Church report.  In mid-March the Times front page reported that the US military has admitted that 26 inmate death may be criminal homicide since 2002.  17 of these were in Iraq. Since only one of the deaths occurred at Abu Ghraib this shows "how broadly the most violent abuses extended...and contradicting early impressions that the wrongdoing was confined to a handful of military police on the prison's night shirt."  The CIA employees could be prosecuted.  

One reaction to the new admissions is from Human Rights Watch:  "This just reflects an overall failure to take seriously the abuses that have occurred." The military asserts that it is vigorously investigating all accusations.  

In perspective, as of spring 2005, at least 8 army soldiers have been convicted of crimes in the deaths of prisoners and 13 Army soldiers are being tried.  Over all, the Times story adds, "the Army's criminal investigators have examined 308 cases involving allegation of mistreating detainees.  They include the 68 deaths investigations. Announced in the March 26 papers was that the Pentagon would not try the 17 GI's implicated in prisoners' deaths.  These came despite the recommendations by Army investigators.  The charges included murder, conspiracy and negligent homicide  One of these 17 received a letter of reprimand and another was discharged.  The Times front page article adds that three dozen soldiers have been prosecuted in relations to the 28 deaths.  In one case the Army determined that the  soldier involved "had not been well informed of the rules of engagement."  In another case the prisoner's resistance to his captors' instructions "had caused them to gag him and to lift him to his feet with the baton, actions that contributed to his death," reported the Times.  A spokesman added, "US Army Special Forces Command takes all allegations of detainee abuse and homicide very seriously."   

On a more positive front, other news of March 2005 was that the number of reported detainee abuse cases declined sharply after Abu Ghraib was first revealed in the spring of 2004.  The Post reported that incident reports dropped "more than 75%" with the number of death investigation also waning. The military emphasized that this decrease "is the result of lesson learned...and a tightening of US detention practices."  However, some polices were not changed for months after Abu Ghraib was first revealed.  The Army also focused on the 70,000 detainees who have been processed, so less than 1/2 of 1% have allegedly been abused.  

Return to Top

At the end of March, we saw the latest Freedom of Information Act documents which the ACLU worked to get released.  The ACLU said the Pentagon initially  refused to release the memo on the grounds of national security.  A September 2003 memo from Lt. Gen Ricardo Sanchez authorized harsh tactics, harsher than accepted Army practice.  These included using guard dogs to exploit "Arab fear of dogs." Some of these tactics were disallowed the next month "because of opposition from some military lawyers," reported the New York Times of March 30.   The Sanchez memo was known, but not its exact contents.  

MWD (Military Working Dogs) were allowed during interrogation.  The memo also permitted isolated "stress positions") and "environmental manipulation" such as making a room very hot or very cold or using an "unpleasant smell" or disrupting normal sleep patters.  Said an ACLU lawyer, "It is apparent that the government has been holding this document not out of any genuine concern that it will compromise national security, but to protect itself from embarrassment." 

Why does the military release documents?  According to a report on NPR's "On the Media" (May 9, 2005), the military releases new information only when forced to do so in a law suit, usually because of the ACLU's use of the Freedom of Information Act (FIA).  The ACLU's media relations spokesman told the program that the Army has more pictures and video which it will not release.  Yet the steady stream of new document releases has continued for months. 

Military leaders were cleared in an internal army inspector investigation released in late April, 2005.  Critics such as Human Rights Watch felt the conclusions were in error. This was to be "the final word" from the military investigations.  A few days later we learned that General Karpinski was demoted one level in rank as her penalty.  No other leaders have received any punishments or reprimands. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10546-2005Apr22?language=printer

See much more on Karpinski at Torture '04 FAQ.

Colonel Thomas Papas was reprimanded and fined for his role in Abu Ghraib.  He was in charge of the intelligence unit during the abuse.  No criminal charges were pursued by the army. 

Late April of 2005 marked the one year anniversary of the Abu Ghraib photos first becoming public.  In retrospect, it seems like much longer than just one year ago.  That week, Lynndie England pleaded guilty.  However, the judge decided to reject her plea, saying it was not believable when she claimed she knew she was wrong in her actions. Since there were then no charges pending against her, she was to be assigned office duties at Fort Hood.

England is infamous for action such as those in the picture above and the "pyramid" pose. She admitted that she "mistreated or conspired to mistreat prisoners" and "committed an indecent act."  The front page Tribune article describes her "smug smile and casual poses in photographs that depicted naked, cowering Iraqi prisoners [which] became symbolic of the scandal."

Return to Top

Richard Cohen of the Post, labeling England "the pointer", examines her case this way:  "For a while, there was no more famous face in all the world than this Army reservist's.  She was some sort of anti-Statue of Liberty, the female personification of what some people insisted America had become.  There she was holding the dog leash or posing with the pathetic nude men or climbing on them with her alleged lover and ringleader, then-Cpl. Charles Graner Jr., since busted to private and serving a 1-year sentence in a military jail.  It was Graner who gave England the alibi she apparently did not want:  She was, really and truly, only following orders." 

In a new trial, England was found guilty in September 2005 and sentenced to three years in prison and dishonorable discharge.  The jury determined in late September that it was irrelevant if her boyfriend (Charles Graner) pressured her to commit the infamous acts. England apologized for abusing the prisoners.

Englands' defense suggested that the harsh treatment stemmed for military intelligence personnel who wanted prisoners "softened up."  Graner admitted that none were present on November 7, 2003. Though the story was front page news in the New York Times, the public seemed tired of the prison abuse news.

After England's first trial, the next military personnel to make the front pages was Sabrina Harmon, involved in forcing the prisoner to stand on a box in fear of being electrocuted.  Though the Army prosecutors wanted 3 years, she received six months in prison and a bad conduct discharge.   She is only the second Abu Ghraib guard convicted by a military panel, after Graner.  She was convicted on all but one of the seven charges. Six other soldiers have reached plea deals receiving some time in jail.

How many have been investigated?  As of late April 2005 Army officials told the Times, as part of its long 2-part investigation, that "367 cases had been opened into alleged abuse or homicide in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002.  Of those, 218 had been resolved, including 35 courts-martial and 105 administrative or other non-judicial punishments against 129 soldiers." We learned in June that prison capacity had increased from about 5000 to 10,000 in the past year, and was expected to rise at the three military complexes, to 16,000.  About 4000 non-Iraqis are among those being held at either Abu Ghraib, Camp Bucca, and Camp Cropper. As of October, 9 guards have been convicted of abusing detainees.

Return to Top

A new army manual, the first revision in 13 years, does not include CIA detentions but it prohibits the CIA from keeping unregistered prisoners, called ghost detainees, at army prisons.  The manual does specifically prohibit practices like "stripping prisoners, keeping them in stressful positions for along time, imposing dietary restrictions, employing police dogs to intimidate prisoners, and using sleep deprivation as a tool to get them to talk." (front page NYTimes, 4/28/05). 

A Columbian artist made this and other paintings in the spring of 2005.

The bad news continued into May 2005, with a Newsweek story alleging that the Quran was being disrespected, including once when it was flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo  This small story got little attention until riots broke out in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other Muslim nations.  At least 15 protestors were killed.  The U.S. government blamed Newsweek and the magazine withdrew its story.  There have been numerous accusations of insulting treatment of the Quran, some of which were later confirmed by the FBI.  Some of the admissions were not by accident.  Supporters of Guantanamo emphasize that these instances are rare, given the hundreds of detainees, and that those who do wrong are punished. One such writer is Charles Krauthammer, syndicated in the Tribune and originating in the Washington Post (see below)  

Using Nazis and Gulags and Guantanamo in the same paragraph got Illinois Senator Dick Durbin in hot water. 

Reaction to the Newsweek allegations included strong criticism of the magazine.  On the other hand, a Times editorial May 18, noted that it took the magazine two weeks to retract its report. "It has been a year since the very real problem behind the article--the systematic abuse and deliberate humiliation of mainly Muslim prisoners--came to light through the Abu Ghraib disaster."

"And the Bush administration has not come close to either openness or accountability.  The White House and the Pentagon have refused to begin any serious examination of the policymaking that led to the abuse, humiliation, torture and even killing of prisoners taken during antiterrorist operation and the invasion of Iraq.  Meanwhile, the administration has stonewalled outside efforts to accomplish that task.  No senior officer or civilian official has been held accountable for policies that put every American soldier at greater risk.  The men who wrote the memos of legalize torture and evading the Geneva Conventions have been promoted."

The next week columnist Frank Rich condemned the hypocrisy of the State Department and Pentagon.  "Richard Boucher, the State Department spokesman whose preview boss, Colin Powell, delivered a diction recitation of Saddam Hussein's weapon capabilities before the UN Security Council (see Pre-War FAQ for many details) said it's "shocking" that Newsweek used "facts that have not been substantiated."  Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, attack Newsweek for hiding "behind anonymous sources," yet it was an anonymous source, an Iraqi defector known as Curveball, "who fed the fictions that Mr. Powell spouted to gin up America for war.  Psychological displacement of this magnitude might give even Freud pause."  See post-war FAQ for more on Curveball.

Should Guantanamo be shut down?   A few weeks after Newsweek retracted its story, the FBI admitted that the Quran had in fact been abused, but not flushed down the toilet.  "Just Shut It Down" was Thomas Friedman's returns to Middle East topics after his book tour on globalization. Echoing the wishes of former President Jimmy Carter, Friedman wrote on May 27, "Tell me, how is it that over 100 detainees have died in US custody so far?  Heart attacks?  This is not just deeply immoral, it is strategically dangerous."  Guantanamo Bay is becoming the anti-Statue of Liberty."

Return to Top

Carter, outspoken for human rights during his Presidency,  had said at a news conference,  "Despite President George W. Bush's bold reminder that America is determined to promote freedom and democracy around the world, the US continues to suffer terrible embarrassment and a blow to our reputation as a champion of human rights because of reports concerning abuses of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo."

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel also felt closing the base would help our reputation.  Joe Biden, veteran Democratic Senator of Delaware, concurred.  "This has become the greatest propaganda tool that exits for the recruiting of terrorists around the world...Those that we have reason to keep, keep.  And those we don't, let go."  Biden declared in June that he was strongly considering a run for the Presidency in 2008.

The columnist continues, "The US ought to say what it has done and what it has not done, and not simply surrender to rumor...Is there any other county that would give a prisoner precisely the religious test that the prisoner and those affiliated with him invoke to justify the slaughter of innocents?"  He concludes the June 6 column, "Then we should get over it, stop whimpering and start defending ourselves." 

At a spring California speech by Condoleezza Rice, protests dressed as hooded detainees, to show to Abu Ghraib tactics by the U.S.

In a June 2005 Post/ABC poll, six in ten Americans are confident that the US was not violating the rights of detainees in Guantanamo. There are 520 prisoners.  It took a few weeks for the administration to respond to the suggestion by Jimmy Carter and others.  

Prisoners are not charged, do not generally have access to a lawyer, and have not been brought to trial. The administration has fought the courts on these issues, including the US supreme court. 

Return to Top

In December 2005 Guantanamo news, reports were of widespread hunger strikes.  A lawyer for one of the detainees charged that US military were force feeding detainees by forcing feeding tubes down their noses, leading to bleeding and defecation.  The descriptions are gruesome and are separately described by the German citizen who was wrongfully detained and tortured in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The force feeding story didn't make some papers until February 2006, when a US military commander confirmed the allegations. 

Wrote the Times in "The Trust Gap" editorial (2/12/06), "Administration officials were concerned that if a prisoner died, it could renew international criticism of Gitmo. They should be concerned.  This is not some minor embarrassment.  It is a lingering outrage that has undermined American credibility around the world." 

Guantanamo stayed in the news in early 2006, as a draft UN report (2/13/06) concludes that treatment violates their right to physical and mental health and, "in some cases", according to the Tribune, "constitutes torture."  The UN urges that the US close the prison.  Ordered by the UN Commission on Human Rights, the investigation took 18 months. The final UN report of late February came during the same week as the release of new Abu Ghraib abuse/torture photos.

However, other allegations (see above) consistently harm the U.S. reputation.  Just a few days later, the New York Times ran two lengthy specials about torture of prisoners at Bagram Air Force base in Afghanistan which resulted in two murders.  One of those beaten to death was a taxi driver who most U.S. guards knew was innocent.  He was tormented and chained to a ceiling for most of five days.

The detailed report by Tim Golden (5/22/05) showed that some of these soldiers later moved to Iraq's Abu Ghraib.  Investigations were stopped short and key personnel were never interviewed.  

In late May the trial for Navy Seals began.  An Iraqi had died in custody at Abu Ghraib under "intense" CIA questioning.  Allegations were of beatings by Lt. Ledford, who faces up to 11 years in jail. Part of his defense is that he was improperly trained. Ledford was found innocent on all charges  in late May.  A photograph of the victim, Mandel al-Jamadi, wrapped in plastic and packed in ice, became "a dominant image in the Iraqi prison abuse scandal.  His death, hours after the Seal team turned him over to CIA custody and he was taken to Abu Ghraib for interrogation, spawned investigation by both the military and the CIA," reported the Times. 

We didn't hear much about further prosecutions until December 2005, when five soldiers from the Army were sentenced to 30 days to six months confinement for abusing Iraq detainees.  Two of those in the 75th Ranger Regiment were receive dishonorable discharged after serving their sentences. 

"Patterns of Abuse" was the May 23 lead editorial from the New York Times.  Critical of the President's denial of any problems, the piece opened, "President Bush said the other day that the world should see his administration's handling of the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison as a model of transparency and accountability.  He said those responsible were being systematically punished, regardless of rank.  It made for a nice Oval office photo-op...Unfortunately, none of it is true.  The administration has proved nothing remotely like a full and honest accounting" in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo.  "it has withheld internal reports and stonewalled external inquires, while clinging to the fiction that abuse was confined to isolated acts."  They have prevented "any serious investigation of policy makers...by orchestrating official probes so that none could come even close to the central question of how the prison polices were formulated and how they led to the abuses."  

The two-part Times series by Tim Golden "provides a horrifying new confirmation that what happened at Abu Ghraib was no aberration, but part of a widespread pattern.  It showed the tragic  impact of the initial decision by Mr. Bush and his top adviser that they were not going to follow the Geneva Conventions, or indeed American law, for prisoners taken in antiterrorist operations...the mistreatment of prisoners was routine...This pattern should not surprise anyone by now."  The same general who used the techniques at Guantanamo was moved the Iraq and those who tortured in Afghanistan later came to Iraq.  "Guards at both the Iraq and Afghani prisoners were sent to their new duties from civilian life, with no experience and little training."

We learned (or were reminded) in March 2006 that many prisoners of Guantanamo were picked up as "bounty" by US forces.  Rewards were given.  

Amnesty International issued a scathing annual report in late May, accusing the US of "Thumbing Its Nose" at rights and labeling Guantanamo as "the gulag of our times."  The report accused the Bush administration of condoning "atrocious" human rights violations, thereby diminishing its moral authority and setting a global example encouraging abuse by other nations.

It focused on Guantanamo , Abu Ghraib, and the policy of rendition, while urging an independent investigation, and for Congress to appoint a group much like the 9/11 Commission.  "When the US government calls upon foreign leaders to bring to justice those who committee or authorize human rights violations in their own counties, why should those foreign leaders listen?"  Added Human Rights Watch leader Kenneth Roth, "It's not because the US is the worst human rights abuser in the world but because it's the most influential."  

Return to Top

Reaction to Amnesty came from the administration spokesman Scott McClellan:  "The US is leading the way when it comes to protecting human rights and promoting human dignity.  We have liberated 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan...and protected women."  President Bush added , "When there's accusation made about certain actions by our people, they're fully investigated in a transparent way.  It's just an absurd allegation."   

Also reacting to the report was the Chicago Tribune.  It focuses on the word "gulag" and the larger substance of the Amnesty report.  "Such cheap hyperbole demeans Amnesty's mission.  It's easy to dismiss such theatrics.  That's not to dismiss how the US treats the prisoners." The editorial concludes, "The war against terror is fought on many fronts.  It can be won on the battlefield but set back significantly with images from Abu Ghraib or claims of abuse of the Koran by guards.  In the war if ideas--freedom versus Islamic fundamentalist--image can be as important as substance, perception as crucial as munitions."

As might be expected, the New York Times was more critical of US policy than the Tribune.  Their June 5 editorial suggests that Guantanamo exemplifies "harsh indefinite detention without formal charges or legal recourse" and agreed with Thomas Friedman's ideas to close it.  "It is a propaganda gift to American's enemies; an embarrassment to our allies; a damaging repudiation of the American justice system; and a highly effective recruiting tool for Islamic radicals including future terrorists."  The "paper of record" concludes, "It is time to return to the basic principles of justice that served American so well even in the most perilous times of the past.  Shutting down Guantanamo is just a first step,  but it is a crucial step that would pay instant dividends around the world, not only toward repairing America's reputation but also toward enhancing its overall security." 

Doug Cassel, a human rights advocate at Northwestern University felt the gulag analogy was wrong "but the substance" has "been right on for years."  Bush's reaction is termed "spin control." 

Later, Cheney said prisoners there have been "well treated, treated humanly and decently" and that some accusations to the contrary are lies.

New prison pictures and even video were to be released as early as late June of 2005, but had not been released by late July. A federal judge ordered the 87 photos and four videos released by July 22, but the Pentagon refused.  The ACLU sought their release under the Freedom of Information Act.  While the ACLU accused the government of stonewalling, the Government worried that the photos "could result in harm to individuals" and would soon give detailed rationale.  The photos were turned over by Specialist Joseph Darby, the original Abu Ghraib whistle-blower.  By 2006, no new pictures had been released.

Also of note in the summer of 2005, we received details of the use of U.S. military doctors to help in torture, as reported on the front page of the June 24 New York Times. Specifically, behavioral scientists had previously helped train US forces to withstand the stress from techniques such as water boarding, abuse of a holy book, and sexual humiliation.  It was reported in July that these techniques were then used at Guantanamo, and the scientists and/or doctors were advised as to how to use them most effectively and how to refine the techniques to increase stress and fear.  Medical associations in the U.S. condemned U.S. doctors from participating in such actions. The source for this information is former interrogators. 

Return to Top

What role do US military women play at Guantanamo?  The New York Times sheds some gruesome light on an editorial, "The Women of Gitmo" (7/15/05).  Though some of the details are too lurid to repeat here, the editorial opens, "There are countless reasons to be outraged about the abuses of detainees at American military prison.  But there is one abuse about which there can surely be no debate, even among the die-hard supporters of President Bush:  the exploitation and debasement of women serving in the US military . This practice must come to an immediate end, and the Pentagon must make it clear that such things will never be tolerated again.  Surely no one can approve turning American soldiers into a pseudo-lap-dancer...These practices are as degrading to the women as they are to the prisoners.  They violate America moral values--and they seem pointless...If devout Muslim become terrorists because they believe Western civilization is depraved does it make sense to try to unnerve them by having Western women behave like trollops...Women in uniform had been turned into sex workers...

"...Indeed, the abuse interrogation...were developed under Maj. Lt. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who later reorganized Abu Ghraib.  To their credit , the authors of the report suggested that general Miller should be 'admonished' over the interrogating of the 20th hijacker.  But they were overruled by his commanding officer."

The US Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that detainees must receive a court hearing, and challenge their detention, but in some cases that had not occurred by the summer of 2005. However, a federal appeals court OK'ed tribunals, as the Tribune headline blared on July 16.  This was a Bush victory for a controversial policy.  Some of those in Guantanamo come from Iraq. The court ruled that they do not qualify for POW status under the Geneva Conventions.  Attorneys for the prisoners attacked the ruling. 

For much more on related topics, see "Torture III: 2007" FAQ.

In September 2005 a three-judge federal appeals panel ruled unanimously that President Bush "had the authority to detain as an enemy combatant", Jose Padilla, a US citizen who allegedly fought the US on foreign soil. He was arrested in May 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare airport. He was the alleged "dirty bomber."  Padilla is a native of Chicago and had been held for three years, mostly at a Navy brig in Charleson, South Carolina.   The military has claimed that Padilla is an Al Qaeda operative, was trained by a 9/11 planner, and considered plots against the US.

The large headline in the papers on November 23 was that the administration was changing tactics and charging Padilla in a civilian, criminal court.  After being held for 3 1/2 years for a "dirty bomb" plot, the administration acted days before a Supreme Court deadline. 

One year later in November 2006, Padilla alleged he was tortured, through his lawyer. Specific charges, as described in the Nov. 2 Tribune, included:
--Being threatened with "imminent execution" or with painful cuts;
--Forced to wear a hood and stand in "stress positions" for long periods (as used in Abu Ghraib)
--Given a form of "truth serum" drug that may have been LSD or PCP
--Extreme heat and cold and noxious fumes
--Not provided with a Koran for almost two years.

He had been held for about 3 1/2 years, without being charged.

To further confuse the issue, that same federal appeals court, from Virginia, "delivered a sharp rebuke to the Bush administration," according to the front-page Times story of Dec. 22.  The court reused to allow the transfer of Padilla to civilian court because it gave the appearance that the administration was trying to avoid a review by the Supreme Court.  

Return to Top

The Padilla news of 2007 was that lawyer arguemnts in court about whether he was fit to stand trial. His attornies argued that due to torture and abuse he suffered from PTSD. Hearings in late February provided contrasting views. Was he tortured? Was he fit? On the first day of March we learned that Padilla was ruled competent to face trial. The charges were conspiracy. Reaction came from the Times in their lead editorial: "There were so many reason to be appalled by President Bush's decision to detain people illegally and subject them to mental and physical abuse. The unfolding case of Jose Padilla reminds us of one of the most important: mistreating a prisoner makes it hard, if not impossible, for a real court to judge whether he has committed real crimes." The judge refused to allow evidence that Al Qaeda manual instructs captives to claim torture even if none occurred. Only twice did the Brig psychologist speak with Padilla, once when first detained and then two years late through a skip in his cell door. The last videotpae of his interrogation is "missing," we learned in March. The paper recalls that the administration changed the charges when it appeared the Supreme Court would rule against him. "This trial has...confirmed the world's suspicions of the US's stooping to the very behavior it once stood against."

The prosecutors most convincing evidence was a faded applicaton form which Padilla had allegedy filled out to attend an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan in 2000.

In August of 2007, Padilla was found guilty on all conspiracy charges and could face life in prison. This was the lead story in most newspapers and was seen as a significant victory for the Bush administration. He had been released in 2006 from military confinment and not charge with anything relating to a dirty bomb.

Reaction to the Padilla verdict came from the Tribune editorial of August 19. The "bizarre" case has been "an opportunity for both sides...to err. The Bush administration went wrong from the outset...Now it's the turn of the administration's critics to get carried away...What's needed is a system to assures a fair trial and due process even to enemy combatants, while protecting vital secrets."

In January of 2008, Padilla was finally sentenced by a federal judge. Rather than put him in jail for life as requested by the administration, he could be free before he is 50. Said the judge of Padilla, now 37, "There is no evidence that these defendants personally maimed, kidnapped, or killed anyone in the US or elsewhere." The story made the front page of the Chicago Tribune.

For much more on related topics, see "Torture III: 2007" FAQ.

Another military report came out on July 13, 2005 in response to FBI complaints of abuse at Guantanamo.  It concluded that while the treatment was sometimes degrading it was not inhumane or torture.  The Schmidt report included the military's first admission, according to a Times story "that it had used dogs to intimidate prisoners at Guantanamo on a few occasion, as was done later" at Abu Ghraib.  The alleged 20th hijacker, a Saudi,  was made to wear a bra and told he was a homosexual and that other prisoners knew it.  They threatened him with dogs, put a leash on him, and forced him to act like a dog.  In addition, he was interrogated for up to 20 hours at a time, forced to dance with a male interrogator, and had his mother and sisters insulted. This treatment was the subject for a Time Magazine cover story. 

Some of these techniques, as we know, migrated to Iraq.  Pentagon officials say the techniques were only temporarily approved by Rumsfeld, were creative and aggressive but did not amount to torture.  The FBI later claimed that the techniques were abusive. Schmidt termed the techniques "safe, secure and humane." Schmidt had recommend that Maj. Gen Miller be reprimanded but this was overruled from a higher commander.

Reaction to the report came from Republican Senator Inhof (OK) and Democratic Senator Levin (MI): Said Inhof, "It's hard to see why we're so wrapped up in this investigation.  We have nothing to be ashamed of."  Replied Levin, "It is clear from the report that detainee mistreatment was not simply the product of a few rogue military police on a night shift."  

Added John McCain (R-AZ), prisoner of war in Vietnam, "I hold no brief for the prisoner.  But I do hold a brief for the reputation of the United States of America as to adhering to certain standards of treatment of people, no matter how evil or terrible they might be."

Senator McCain also is considering a provision to "prohibit the practice of seizing people and sending them abroad for interrogation.  McCain is one of three Republicans supporting these amendments. Democrats Levin and Reid will also offer an amendment for an independent commission like the 9/11 panel.

A few weeks earlier some Republicans sought an independent commission to investigate prison abuse. The White House opposes further investigations, citing at least 10 previous reports. Scott McClellan concluded, "They continue to look into allegation of abuse.  People are being held to account." 

Reports the Tribune, "The abuses also took place after new military police and intelligence units arrived...and after the ten-US commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen Ricardo Sanchez, approved a set of interrogation practices recommended by Miller.  Those tactics were later scaled back at the recommendation of the US Central Command." One wonders if he was trying to cover for any senior Pentagon official(s). 

It took us until late July to learn that military officers had originally warned against the harsh tactics.  Despite these warning, harsh tactics were approved by Pentagon leadership in 2002.  

Reacting to the Miller story and the "shameful story" was the Washington Post editorial (7/29/05), "The Truth About Abu Ghraib."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/28/AR2005072801745_pf.html

Miller and the summer of 2005 came back into the news in 2006. He pleaded the 5th and refused to testify at a Abu Ghraib investigation.  The Washington Post's editorial was entitled "A General's Dishonor."  Careful readers of this site will recall that Miller was recommended to be reprimanded by a military inquiry but the matter was referred to the Army inspector general.

Miller pleaded the 5th shortly after Col. Pappas was given immunity from persecution to testify at  dog handler courts marital trials.  Pappas' military intelligence unit was in charge of interrogation at Abu Ghraib.  Miller recommend bringing dogs to Iraq in the fall of 2003.  Where does Gen. Sanchez fit into this picture?  That same week, he announced his retirement.  The Kay report (see Torture 2004) concluded that "the manner in which [the dogs] were used on some occasions clearly violated the Geneva Convention." 

Return to Top

In the fall of 2005, just before the amendment overwhelming passed about treatment of prisoners, came the revelations of Captain Ian Fishback who tried for 17 months to get his superiors to take seriously his stories of torture at Abu Ghraib.  Fishback feels that the Army is more concerned about taking down young soldier who reported misconduct that investigating whether high-ranking officers knew of the abuses.  Fishback finally wrote a letter to Senator McCain.  According to the Times, (9/28/05) "when the Army learned he was talking to Senate aides, Captain Fishback said that Army investigators suddenly intensified their interest in his complains."  Moving up the chain of command, the Captain could not get clear guidance on how the Geneva Conventions applied to Iraq. 

Unfortunately, Americans are not the only forces abusing prisoners in Iraq.  British soldiers face abuse trials, we learned in late July 2005.  The three would be charged on war crimes, among the 11 charged in Basra, the UK headquarters with most of their 8500 troops.  In a separate charge, reported by the Times, four solders are accused of manslaughter.

A older story surfaced again in late September, as the Army was investigating gruesome photos of Iraq dead posted by US military on the internet.  This could violate the Uniform Code of Military justice and the Geneva Convention.  On the web site, reported the New York Times, "under the headline 'Cooked Iraqi,' a posted photograph show uniformed men posing in front of what appear to be charred remains."  The Pentagon acknowledged that such behavior "could severely damage the American war effort in Iraq."  This story comes within weeks of the probable release of new photos from Abu Ghraib, worse than any we've seen. 

In Congress in the summer of 2005 VP Cheney was actively lobbying Republicans against any legislation to change treatment of detainees.  The President has threatened to veto the defense bill if these amendments are approved. The legislation could "bar the military from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, and use only interrogation techniques authorized in a new Army field manual," according to the July 24 Times.

Reaction to the McCain- led changes in US policy was Bob Herbert, New York Times columnist who writes frequently about Iraq ("Who We Are", 8/1/05).  He mentions Sen. Jeff Session (R-AL) who sees no need for new legislation because detainees are not prisoners of war, "they are terrorists."  Replies McCain, the debate "is not about who they are.  It's about who we are."  Americans "hold ourselves" to higher standards.  Military leaders and former POWs who back McCain's ideas argue: "The abuse of prisoners hurts America's cause in the war on terror, endangers US service members who might be captured by the enemy, and is anathema to the values Americans have held dear for generations."

Back in October 2005 the Senate voted overwhelming to attach an amendment to a $440 billion military appropriations bill.  The amendment, sponsored by McCain and others, seeks to put official limitations on treatment of prisoners, including their detention and interrogation.

This proposed bill would ban "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishments," but would not cover techniques used by the CIA.  The amendments received the endorsement of two dozen retired senior military officers, including Powell and Shalikashvili, two former Joint Chiefs.  The White House has threatened to veto the entire bill if it makes it through both houses, arguing that it "ties the hands" of the President in the "War on Terror."

Return to Top

Cheney was asked in a December "Nightline" if he was troubled at all "that more than 100 people in US custody have died--26 of them now being investigated as criminal homicides--people beaten to death, suffocated to death, died of hypothermia in US custody?" The Vice President responded, No.  I won't accept your numbers." 

An Army spokesman said that allegations against at least 250 military members have been addressed in courts-martial, non judicial punishment and other administrative penalties.   Human Rights First emphasized different statistics, saying that over 1000 detainees have now died in US hands since the fall of 2001, 27 have been identified by the army as suspected or confirmed homicides. 

A November 1, 2005, Tribune editorial reasons against torture, besides being a violation of the law.  It "doesn't as a rule generate good information and dehumanized not just those who are abused, but also those who mete out such unspeakable punishment.  Torture puts our soldiers at risk for retribution.  Twenty-nine military officers, including ...Powell, support McCain's amendment."

In mid-November the Pentagon released a document which officially bans torture and have detainees treated humanely.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801616_pf.html

Within the week the front page New York Times story told of a classified report issued back in 2004 by the CIA which "warned that interrogation procedures approved by the CIA...might violate some provisions of the International Convention Against Torture" especially those tactics which included waterboarding.  This technique dates back at least to the Middle Ages (at left.) Torture is also prohibited under US law.  The paper reminds readers that the convention drafted by the UN, bans torture which is defined as "the infliction of 'severe' physical or mental pain or suffering, and prohibits less abuses that fall short of torture if they are 'cruel, inhumane or degrading.'  The US is a signatory, but with some reservations set when it was ratified...in 1994."

A better drawing of waterboarding only appeared in November 2007.

Return to Top

Waterboarding continued in the news into 2006. In October, Cheney admitted that US forces did use waterboarding, but said that it does not constitute torture. A radio talk show host asked, "Would you agree that a dunk in water is a no-brain er if it can save lives?" The Vice President responded, "Well, it's a no-brainer for me. But for a while there I was criticized as being the vice president for torture. We don't torture." White House Spokesman Snow intervened the next day, saying that Cheney was not referring to waterboarding, which is more than a "dunk" in the water. The subject's face is covered with a soaked cloth to make breathing difficult. It's purpose it to simulate drowning. Based on the full evidence of the past year, it seems that the U.S. does waterboard and that Cheney does not consider it to be torture.

The pro and con torture arguments were often in the headlines and editorials in the fall of 2005, leading up to the Dec. 15 Iraqi elections.  In a lead editorial, the New York Times' "Illegal, Immoral and Pointless" (12/10/05), listed five reasons not to torture:
1.  Torture is morally wrong
2.  It is illegal 
3.  It damages the nation's image
4.  It puts American soldiers who are taken prison in mortal peril, and
5.  It usually doesn't work, because those being tortured "will tell their tormentors what they want to hear."

McCain told the press, "We've sent a message to the world that the US is not like the terrorists.  What we are is a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people no matter how evil or bad they are." 

A December 16 Times editorial, the day after the Iraqi elections, is entitled, "Ban Torture.  Period."  When Bush announced his agreement with McCain "It should have been unmitigated good news...But this is the president who scraped the rules on the decent treatment of prisoners in the first place and whose lawyers concocted memos on legalizing torture.  On closer inspection, the feeling of relief faded fast."  The paper surmises that the agreed on policy allowed coerced evidence.  Attorney General Gonzales "made it crystal clear that the administration would define torture any way it liked" and would not say whether weatherboarding was torture or not.

That day "A Blow Against Torture" was the Post editorial.  Passage of McCain's amendment "will not end waterboarding or curtail the administration's policy of abuse unless there is aggressive follow-up by Congress.  There must be an independent check on the administration's  legal interpretations...In short, restoring the rule of law over an administration that deliberately chose lawlessness in its treatment of detainees may be an arduous process.  And yet the McCain amendment is a vital, and hard-won opening move." 

American citizens are being held in Iraq.  News of early July 2005 included the announcement of the detainment in Iraqi prisons of five American citizens.  This only became apparent following the filling of an ACLU case on behalf of Cyrus Kar.  Born in Iran, Kar came to the US at age two, attended college in California and received a Masters from Pepperdine.  He late served in the US Navy and the Naval Reserve.

In Iraq, this film maker who got into a taxi, was pulled over with suspicious material in the trunk.  Kar was held for two months at the same prison as Saddam Hussein, (Camp Cropper at the Baghdad airport) almost incommunicado, without access to a lawyer and without being charged.  He was held in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. After Kar was cleared, he was still held.  Kar describes the ordeal as a mix of "Orwell or Kafka with flashes of the comical and the ab surd.." For example, in a crowded processing room, according to a detailed New York Times report of July 24, guards yelled and cursed at him and his assistant, shouting, "'You terrorist!.  You here to kill Americans?'" Concluded Kar, a former serviceman in the US military, "I couldn't have more respect for the rank-and-file soldiers, but the system is broken. When an Iraqi is detained there, he comes out angry and wanting payback." 

Return to Top

When the Kar case hit the papers and a hearing was scheduled, he was released within 48 hours, in mid-July.  Complained his lead lawyer, "It shouldn't take  lawsuit to free an innocent man whose only crime was to get in the wrong cab."  

Four other American citizens were still being held.  

Why was Kar in Iraq?  He wanted to complete a documentary film on his namesake Cyrus the great.  A visit to Babylon was his goal.  Cyrus had conquered Babylon in 539 BCE and freed the Jewish captives.

On November 2, 2005, the Washington Post broke a story that there were numerous secret torture locations in Europe and the Middle East used by the U.S.  A total of eight countries have reportedly been used for their secret CIA prisons. Some were upset with the new information and others were upset that it was leaked by the Washington Post.

During the next week, Congress debated torture, the role of the CIA, and the rights of those held at Guantanamo, in terms of judicial review and habeas corpus. We later learned that the European sites were probably Poland and Romania. Europeans were upset with flyover and landing rights.  Spain, which withdrew its forces from Iraq, is especially upset. This issue grew during the first week of December. US officials assured the world that all actions were legal.  

A spokesman of the British Liberal Democratic party said, "If , in fact, people are being moved from a jurisdiction where torture is illegal to a jurisdiction where torture is permissible, that seems to me to be wholly contrary to international law...If we are allowing facilities for aircraft carrying out these actions, we are at the very least facilitating, and we may even be complicit in it." 

Reports show that more than 100 prisoners are suspected of being transferred, with over 300 CIA flights in Europe since 9/11.  Germany, with 94 flights, has the most, followed by Britain and Ireland.  The new German Chancellor, Merkel, appeared satisfied with the assurances of Secretary of State Rice, who traveled to Europe in early December.

An investigator concluded in mid-December that those suspects held in Europe were quickly moved to North Africa, after the story became public on November 2.  Morocco is one of the suspected countries they were moved to. 

It must be admitted that waterboarding of alleged 9/11 mastermind did provide some intelligence. The Tribune reports on Dec. 28, 2005 that after Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured in Pakistan, he gave information.  Intelligence operatives say that while waterboarding "can break through a suspect's initial resistance it isn't effective for long-term interrogation." 

Return to Top

Charles Krauthammer's cover story of The Weekly Standard (Dec. 5) endorsed torture in certain very limited circumstances, and argued that torture was in fact morally necessary.  "Once you have gone public with a blanket ban on all forms of coercion, it is going to be very difficult to publicly carve out exceptions." Krauthammer is often seen as a hawkish spokesman for the administration.  Given how quiet Cheney became on torture, my guess is that he wrote with Cheney's approval.  Both were part of the PNC which advocated war with Iraq before 9/11.

In response to Krauthammer, Andrew Sullivan, also a conservative, wrote in The New Republic.  "What minuscule intelligence we might have plausibly gained from torturing and abusing detainees is vastly outweighed by the intelligence we have forfeited by alienating many others sympathetic Iraqis and Afghans, by deepening the divide between the democracies, and by sullying the West's reputation in the Middle East." (New York Times, 12/11/05)

Joseph Nye, a former assistant secretary of defense, wrote in his Tribune op-ed (12/6/05), "We cannot win unless the Muslim moderates win.  While we need hard power to battle the extremists, we need the soft power of attraction to win the hearts and minds of the majority of Muslim.  Polls throughout the Muslim world show that we are not winning this battle....One graphic image is worth more than a million official words or the billion dollars that we spend annually on public diplomacy." 

"Secretary Rice's Rendition" was the Times editorial of December 7.  "Pesky facts keep getting in the way of Ms. Rice's message."  A German who was abducted for five months and tortured is suing the US.  Most Americans expect public trials.  "That's what most Americans think when they hear talk about 'bringing the terrorist to justice'--not predawn abductions, blindfolded prisoners on plane rides and years of torture in distant lands without any public reckoning." 

"'Policy Is Not Enough" editorialized the Post (12/8/05).  When Rice says our policy is not to torture, it is not consistent with practice.  "Mock executions, prolonged shackling, 'cold cell', in which prisoners are held naked in low temperatures and doused with cold water...the CIA's own inspector general concluded in a secret report in 2004 that the methods violated the treaty standard...It may be 'policy,' in other words, but any policy allows for exceptions." 

Eugene Robinson's commentary in the Post  (12/9/05) wondered if this was a new policy or not, because top administration sources disagree.  Did the new policy "apply not only to US personnel but also to civilian contractors working for the military or the CIA?  Just as I was starting to get lost in the tall weeds of the UN Convention Against Torture, the White House helpfully explained that Rice's comments didn't represent a change of policy at all."

In early January 2006 the Times wonders why the administration said the initial reporting of the secret prisons has damaged America's image.  "Actually, the secret detentions and torture did that.  Illegal spying [NSA] and torture need to be investigated, not whistle-blowers and newspapers" (1/4/06). 

The Council of Europe's inquiry into the secret detention centers in Eastern Europe turned up no evidence of the centers but the inquiry will continue.  The Council also concluded that it was "highly unlikely" that European governments were unaware of 100 or so renditions, many through their countries. (1/25/06)

Europeans aren't the only ones upset of "torture flights" or secret prisons in their country.  Pope John Paul II was vigorously against the war.  See more on pre-war Pope and Church. Now his successor, Pope Benedict has spoken out against torture in all situations. Torture, the Church leader said, is never justified.

That week Britain's top court declared that evidence obtained through torture--no matter by whom--was not admissible in British courts.

Also that week an investigation of CIA prisons in Europe concluded that human rights and the Geneva Convention, and the rule of law are not being respected (Chicago Tribune, 1/14/06).  The Swiss lawyer conducting the study also pointed to the Egyptian cleric kidnapped by the CIA off the streets of Milan, Italy in 2003. Italy has issued arrest warrants for the CIA officers and they could be detained if they travel in Europe. See "Allies" for more.

Return to Top

EU officials in April and May came up with conflicting studies as to the CIA flights. 

Rice's policy, new or not, (official said both) did not address the policy of rendition.  Human Rights Watch, a leader on the issue of torture, stated that the ban "against cure, inhumane or degrading treatment has to be more than a 'policy' which can be changed by the president at any time.  For months, Sen. McCain has been asking for this international ban to be strengthened under US law, and the administration should stop resisting his efforts."  We are reminded that for a few months in 2002 the Justice Department policy was that it would not be torture if interrogation methods  stop short of those that might cause pain comparable to "organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death."

A March 2006 report on world wide abuses by the State Department criticized the torture of countries like Egypt and Jordan.  These are two countries the US has sent prisoners with "rendition."   An assistant Sec. of State defended the policy:  "We do not send detainees to countries if we believe that they will be subjected to torture.  That has been our policy."  One wonders if it is still the policy.  

In April EU lawmakers concluded that there were 1000 secret CIA flights through Europe since 2001. Also that month an alleged CIA-leaker was fired.  Mary McCarthy, a senior intelligence officer allegedly told reporters about the oversea prisoners operated by the CIA.  She denied leaking anything classified. The Washington Post receive a Pulitzer Prize for the articles. In mid-May we learned that McCarthy became convinced that the CIA was lying in briefings to Congress.  She felt the agency had conducted abusive interrogation and authorized treatment which was "cruel, inhumane, or degrading" according to a Tribune/Post report.

Administration critic and former CIA officer Larry Johnson reacted, "It looks to me like Mary is being used as a sacrificial lamb."  A McCarthy colleague feels that her public firing was not only intended to block leaks but to suppress dissent that has "led to these leaks. The aim was to have a chilling effect, and it will probably work for a while"  

A European Parliament report in November 2006 bluntly rejected European denials of CIA prisons. The actions included suspects being secretly abducted, transported, and detained. Britain, Italy, Germany, and eight others countries knew. The report asserted that at least 1240 CIA-operated flights passed through Europe's airspace or stopped at its airports, and listed Poland, according to the Times, as "among the counties least cooperative with its inquiry." Read below for President Bush's eventual admission of the prisons in September of 2006.

Hawkish Veteran and Democrat Murtha spoke out in the fall of 2005: "Torture does not help us win the hearts and minds of the people it's used against...If we allow torture in any form, we abandon our honor." Murtha appeared at Evanston's Northwestern University on May 7, 2006.

Back in November 2005 came commentators comparing Abu Ghraib to the My Lai massacre in terms of their similar effects on the reputation of US forces.  For more on My Lai, see "Another Vietnam?" FAQ.

After the NSA spying story, (See US Politics '06) the secrecy was deemed relevant to the torture issue.  For example,  "Going Too Far" Post editorial (12/20/05) wondered if there was another attack would we still be complaining about torture, secret detentions or spying on Americans?  "Fair to ask; and the answer is yes, we would be complaining , and not just because of the damage done to core American values and traditions...The overreaching began with the administration's refusals to hold hearings, as called for the the Geneva Conventions, to determine whether captured fighters deserved POW status and with its decision to set aside Army procedures for holding prisoners under those conventions."  

Return to Top

The President claimed his right to "kidnap people, even inside allied democracies, to transport them anywhere and to hold them as 'ghost prisoners' again indefinitely, without allowing the...Red Cross any access.  Perhaps most shamefully, Mr. Bush has insisted on his right to inflict on detainees treatment that most people would regard as torture.  Now added to the list is eavesdropping on US citizens without a warrant.  And there is probably more than we don't yet know."  One of the "threads" that run through these issues are US prestige. 

Outside of the torture and rendition issues, Iraqis are abusing fellow Iraqis.  The State Department back in early March detailed "an array of human rights abuses last year by the Iraqi government, including torture, rape, and illegal detentions by police officers and functionaries of the interim administration."  Details included reports that police officers killed 10 Baath party members in Basra and killed 12 kidnappers of police officers.  The reports said that enough evidence had been gathered "to prosecute police offers in Baghdad who were systematically raping and torturing female detainees."  Two were given prison time and four were demoted and reassigned.  Coerced confessions were a favored method.  Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan were also criticized, with new sharp language for allies Saudi Arabia and Egypt.  The report focused on "the larger accomplishments of the Iraqi people" but noted that Iraqis are not in denial of the abuse. 

Another front-page December 2005 story was the torture of Iraqis by Iraqis forces at the Iraqi Interior Ministry, led by Shiites against Sunnis.  After at least 75 years of being put down by Sunnis, now the tide has turned and the Shiites appear to be the torturers. Sunnis were very upset by evidence of accusations we had been hearing about for months. 175 prisoners were discovered in the basement of the Ministry.  The Times reported that "two appeared paralyzed and other had some of the skin peeled off their bodies by their abusers."  Prime Minister Jaafari promised an official inquiry.  American spokesman ironically insisted that this situation "will not be tolerated." and they will not accept torture of Iraqis.   The US Ambassador called the discovery "reprehensible."  At least 1100 sites will be probed where Iraqi security forces and justice officials are holding prisoners.  Those accused are of the Badr Organization, sponsored by the powerful  Shiite Party, Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)  

The Interior Minister head, Bayan Jabr, said the claims of torture were exaggerated.  He defended the ministry by saying that "only seven" suspects were tortured. "It wasn't a secret bunker," continued Jabr, "but rather a complex officially designated, with American knowledge, to hold the 'worst of the worst.'"

The Chicago Tribune feels that the investigation  of the Ministry will not be a "whitewash." ("What happened in the bunker", 11/26/05) 

Within a few days two Shiites mosques had been attacked, on a holy Friday, by suicide bombers.  Over 50 died. We once again asked in mid-November, "Is Iraq already in a civil war?"

Return to Top

The US/Iraqi investigation uncovered a second detention center with likely torture.  13 more prisoners were abused, some allegedly with electric shock and having fingernails pulled out.  This center, first discussed on December 12, just three days before the election, was also run by the Interior Ministry. The Interior Ministry denied any torture, despite firm US assertions. The next day we learned that more than 120 abuse victims had been found.  The Iraqi government has not acknowledged what the US Ambassador claims as fact. How might this impact the election?

On Christmas we leaned, that new US policy was to not turn over detainees to Iraqis for fear of torture.   Iraqis must meet US standards "for the care and custody of detainees." After Abu Ghraib and other abuses/torture, this seemed ironic.  One hopes the standards have improved. As Gen. Garner commented, "Abu Ghraib was criminal and I was appalled.  We've come a long way since then." 

It turns out to be generally accepted that about 90% of Abu Ghraib prisoners are innocent and released, at least during the 2005 time period. 

On December 30 the US announced that more soldiers would be advising Iraqi police, in hopes of reducing abuse.  This is a change in the policy of "giving Iraqis the lead role" strategy. Human Rights Watch says Shiite units may be, according to the front page Times article, "guilty of murdering and torturing hundreds, and possibly thousands of Sunni Arab men of military age."

Prisons are overcrowded.  The four American-run prisons have doubled in population in the past year to 13,000 and Iraqi jails are packed with 12,000.  On the Iraqi side, rights groups say there is little oversight and it is impossible to tell how many detention centers exist, reports the front-page Times story of November 25. 

Data from the December 25 Times added to the prison picture. Prisons are at 119% of capacity, with Abu Ghraib at over 40% of capacity.  Nearly 5000 are being held there with nearly 8000 at Camp Bucca in the south.  Rules from June 2004 state that US must release detainees "after 18 months unless the Iraqi prime minister and Gen. Casey agree to continue to hold them for a specific period."  It was unclear how often this extension was granted. 

Does torture bring good WMD intelligence?  Sometimes, just the opposite, it appears.  A man ironically named Libi (not Scooter Libby) was tortured by Egyptians and admitted that Iraq gave chemical weapons instruction and poison gases to Al Qaeda.  Libi's testimony was used by Powell and others before the war.  Before the war the DIA warned that his testimony was suspect. As the Times editorial of 12/10 wrote, "But the president and his team went ahead anyway and presented Mr. Libi's fairy tale as one of the justification for invading Iraq."  One presidential speech which referred to Libi came in fall of 2002, just days before Congress voted for war. Libi recanted in January 2004 and is nowhere to be found, perhaps in a secret prison.  See more at "Where are WMD?" PS FAQ.  Libi's case, adds the Times, like others under illegal detention, "has been so compromised by this treatment that it would probably be thrown out of court." 

What torture does to torturers is the topic of author and ethicist Rushworth Kidder's op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor.   I heard Kidder speak in Chicago a few years before the Iraq War began. "An Iraqi Interrogators Nightmare" is a vivid description by a US soldier, in early 2007. He was recurring nightmares about his actions, for which he feels guilty.

Also see Gonzales and Abu Ghraib for 2004
and
See Torture/Abuse III: 2006-08