US Approves Torture

[Gary Sisco]

U.S. Can Use Evidence Gained by Torture

2 hours, 3 minutes ago White House - AP Cabinet & State


By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Evidence gained by torture can be used by the U.S. military in deciding whether to imprison a foreigner indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an enemy combatant, the government concedes.


Statements produced under torture have been inadmissible in U.S. courts for about 70 years. But the U.S. military panels reviewing the detention of 550 foreigners as enemy combatants at the U.S. naval base in Cuba are allowed to use such evidence, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle acknowledged at a U.S. District Court hearing Thursday.


Some of the prisoners have filed lawsuits challenging their detention without charges for up to three years so far. At the hearing, Boyle urged District Judge Richard J. Leon to throw their cases out.


Attorneys for the prisoners argued that some were held solely on evidence gained by torture, which they said violated fundamental fairness and U.S. due process standards. But Boyle argued in a similar hearing Wednesday that the detainees "have no constitutional rights enforceable in this court."


Leon asked whether a detention based solely on evidence gathered by torture would be illegal, because "torture is illegal. We all know that."


Boyle replied that if the military's combatant status review tribunals "determine that evidence of questionable provenance were reliable, nothing in the due process clause (of the Constitution) prohibits them from relying on it."


Leon asked whether there were any restrictions on using torture-induced evidence.


Boyle replied that the United States never would adopt a policy that would have barred it from acting on evidence that could have prevented the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks even if the data came from questionable practices like torture by a foreign power.


Several arguments underlie the U.S. court ban on products of torture.


"About 70 years ago, the Supreme Court stopped the use of evidence produced by third-degree tactics largely on the theory that it was totally unreliable," Harvard Law Professor Philip B. Heymann, a former deputy U.S. attorney general, said in an interview. Subsequent high court rulings were based on revulsion at "the unfairness and brutality of it and later on the idea that confessions ought to be free and uncompelled."


Leon asked whether U.S. courts could review detentions based on evidence from torture conducted by U.S. personnel.


Boyle said torture was against U.S. policy and any allegations of it would be "forwarded through command channels for military discipline." He added, "I don't think anything remotely like torture has occurred at Guantanamo" but noted that some U.S. soldiers there had been disciplined for misconduct, including a female interrogator who removed her blouse during questioning.


The International Committee of the Red Cross said Tuesday it has given the Bush administration a confidential report critical of U.S. treatment of Guantanamo detainees. The New York Times reported the Red Cross described the psychological and physical coercion used at Guantanamo as "tantamount to torture."


The combatant status review tribunals comprise three colonels and lieutenant colonels. They were set up after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the detainees could ask U.S. courts to see to it they had a proceeding in which to challenge their detention. The panels have reviewed 440 of the prisoners so far but have released only one.


The military also set up an annual administrative review which considers whether the detainee still presents a danger to the United States but doesn't review enemy combatant status. Administrative reviews have been completed for 161.


Boyle argued these procedures are sufficient to satisfy the high court.


Noting that detainees cannot have lawyers at the combatant status review proceedings and cannot see any secret evidence against them, detainee attorney Wes Powell argued "there is no meaningful opportunity in the (proceedings) to rebut the government's claims."





Leon suggested that if federal judges start reviewing the military's evidence for holding foreign detainees there could be "practical and collateral consequences ... at a time of war."

And he suggested an earlier Supreme Court ruling might limit judges to checking only on whether detention orders were lawfully issued and review panels were legally established.

Leon and Judge Joyce Hens Green, who held a similar hearing Wednesday, said they would try to rule soon on whether the 59 detainees may proceed with their lawsuits.

***********************************

Nothing like taking the moral highground in a truly xian manner. Let's all get right-wing with God!

[Coda]

Isn't this in part due to the Red Cross claiming that the detainees were tortured? They defined torture as being held for an exceedingly long time without having formal charges levied against them. They also claimed that the conditions were too cold, and that's also considered torture. Cuba cold? If that's the defination being used, then I agree with the finding.

However, if they define torture as physically harming or what most would consider to be high levels of psychological torture, then this is simply wrong. Here I'm referring to withholding food, being forced to do dengrating acts, etc.

This does raise an intersting topic about the Red Cross. It seems to me that they've been less than equal in applying standards across the world.

[Gary Sisco]

Have you done any time, Coda?

Have you ever spent an apparently limitless time in a cage made of chainlink fence, under armed guard, without trial or even charge, never mind evidence?

Cold? Yes. I froze my ass off in Nicaragua, many times. Have you even traveled?

Finally, is there anything you will not apologize for?

[Darryl G. Thomas]

The jist of the article's about an Assistant A.G. arguing that evidence obtained by torture is usable. It's not about the veracity of the Red Cross.

Also, could you provide some examples of the Red Cross ignoring torture?

[Gary Sisco]

I like how the article very carefully begs the question: What torture? Who is doing the torturing?

Seems like someone must be using torture as an interrogation technique or the question of evidence derived from its use would be moot. No?

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

I like how the article very carefully begs the question: What torture? Who is doing the torturing?

Seems like someone must be using torture as an interrogation technique or the question of evidence derived from its use would be moot. No?

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the practice of outsourcing torture in order to not have domestic bloody hands. There are many many reports of "suspected terrorists" being sent to third countries, such as Syria or Saudi Arabia in order to be interrogated, where torture is an accepted practice.

Originally Posted by Gary

Have you ever spent an apparently limitless time in a cage made of chainlink fence, under armed guard, without trial or even charge, never mind evidence?

Have you?

[Dr Dave]

That's our boy Scott. Always questing after authenticity.

[Gary Sisco]

No. That's the point, Dolan. The Constitution very specifically calls for fair and speedy trial, as a right. And it says nothing about citizenship being required for those rights to have effect in the US. Guantanamo is US territory; therefore, the Constitution applies there as well as it does anywhere else over which an American flag flies. All embassies, all military bases, are the legal territory of what every country they belong to, regardless of its geographic location. This has always been so.

I have, on the other hand, not for apparently limitless time but for long enough, been locked up without charge or trial or evidence -- and have also been released afterwards, again without charge, trial or evidence. So, yeah, I have been locked up under those circumstances, minus the unlimited time. It sucks. And since you've done time, you know it sucks, so don't start, just because you're on the street today. If anyone had locked you up under similar circumstances for years at a time, you'd be whining worse than the most whining liberla who ever lived and you know it.

In addition to the Constitution, there are also things we call human rights. And these are things that the US has continuously punished other countries for abusing -- often by killing thousands and even millions of people. For the US to now insist that it has some right to ignore any and all human rights, just because it has the firepower to do so, is not exactly a moral position, never mind a democratic position. It has the characteristics of neither.

[sonic1]

No matter what your political creed, you cannot let the government fly with its torture scandal. If we do, we will seal the fate of American credibility.

[moneyp]

"U.S. approves torture."

It's about time!



Suffer, Nagel!

[Nefertiti]

Originally Posted by Coda

Isn't this in part due to the Red Cross claiming that the detainees were tortured? They defined torture as being held for an exceedingly long time without having formal charges levied against them. They also claimed that the conditions were too cold, and that's also considered torture. Cuba cold? If that's the defination being used, then I agree with the finding.

However, if they define torture as physically harming or what most would consider to be high levels of psychological torture, then this is simply wrong. Here I'm referring to withholding food, being forced to do dengrating acts, etc.

This does raise an intersting topic about the Red Cross. It seems to me that they've been less than equal in applying standards across the world.

Ex-Guantánamo Bay workers claim prisoner abuse was widespread (Guardian UK, October 18, 2004)

One "regular procedure" was making prisoners strip to their underwear, sit on a chair while their hands and feet were shackled to a bolt on the ground, while they were subjected to strobe lights, loud music (reportedly by Limp Bizkit, Rage Against The Machine and Eminem) and cold. Such sessions could go on for up to 14 hours, with a few breaks.

"It fried them," one official was quoted as saying. Another said: "They were very wobbly. They came back to their cells and were completely out of it."

[Enforcer]

Every time someone posts one of those images of him (lowercase out of profound disrespect), it goes in a spreadsheet for future payback considerations.

Moné, you look like you're contemplating "which rook?" in your avatar. I can *so* identify.

[Gary Sisco]

Credibility? Where would that reside? In Tony Blair's tortured brain?

[Gary Sisco]

Interesting how so many Christoids seem to have no problem with torture.

Do unto others, motherfuckers, as you would have them do unto you.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Interesting how so many Christoids seem to have no problem with torture.

Do unto others, motherfuckers, as you would have them do unto you.

I agree. How can we possibly expect the Iraqis to treat our soldiers and civilian workers with respect if we routinely subject the Iraqis to torture and, perhaps as damaging, systematic indignities, in the mistaken belief that this will result in useful intelligence??
Torture, by it's very nature, mostly results in the person being tortured telling their interrogators whatever they want to hear, whether it's true or not, simply to stop the pain and humiliation.
I keep remembering the anger at the American captives, early in this debacle, being shown on television, as if that were the same as the pictures and news stories coming out of Abu Ghraib and from other locations in Iraq. Double standard?? I guess if you're the "good guys", anything goes.

[john williams]

Originally Posted by patricia

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the practice of outsourcing torture in order to not have domestic bloody hands. There are many many reports of "suspected terrorists" being sent to third countries, such as Syria or Saudi Arabia in order to be interrogated, where torture is an accepted practice.

Yes, there is a great euphemism for it too - Extraordinary Rendition. I don't really understand this term. Now if it the torturers were playing the Kenny G Xmas album at extremely high volume at terror suspects it might make some sense.

[crawjo]

I agree that U.S. policy regarding the torture of prisoners is shameful and embarrassing.

[Gary Sisco]

The truth is, and even the gubmint has openly admitted it, no one knows who most of the prisoners are, or whether they are terrorists or not, or any of that. What is known is known by everyone. They were all armed men rounded up in the opening days of the Afghanistan attacks. But all men are armed in Afghanistan and have been for thousands of years.

Not that it matters, because in the US or in any democratic society, people have rights -- including very much a right not to be locked up sans charges, trial or evidence, and also an ironclad right to face one's accusers in an open, public court -- even the Nazis were granted these rights in Nuremberg *because* they were Nazis and they were given them to show the value of fair and open trials -- and these rights are being purposefully violated by the US gubmint in Guantanamo and elsewhere *as a matter of policy.*

So, if anyone here thinks he or she knows who these people are and what they deserve or not, they ought to at least give the gubmint a call with their privileged knowledge -- the origins of which will need to be explained, if their arguments are worthy of a nanosecond's concern.

[Gary Sisco]

FBI Agents Allege Prisoner Mistreatment in Guantanamo
Complaints About Tactics Used in 2002 Were Noted in Letter Sent to Army Official

By Paisley Dodds
The Associated Press
Tuesday, December 7, 2004; 9:22 AM

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- FBI agents witnessed "highly aggressive" interrogations and mistreatment of terror suspects at the U.S. prison camp in Cuba starting in 2002 -- more than a year before the prison abuse scandal broke in Iraq -- according to a letter a senior Justice Department official sent to the Army's top criminal investigator.

In the letter obtained by The Associated Press, the FBI official suggested the Pentagon didn't act on FBI complaints about the incidents, including a female interrogator grabbing a detainee's genitals and bending back his thumbs, another where a prisoner was gagged with duct tape and a third where a dog was used to intimidate a detainee who later was thrown into isolation and showed signs of "extreme psychological trauma."

One Marine told an FBI observer that some interrogations led to prisoners "curling into a fetal position on the floor and crying in pain," according to the letter dated July 14, 2004.

Thomas Harrington, an FBI counterterrorism expert who led a team of investigators at Guantanamo Bay, wrote the letter to Maj. Gen. Donald J. Ryder, the Army's chief law enforcement officer who's investigating abuses at U.S.-run prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and at Guantanamo.

Harrington said FBI officials complained about the pattern of abusive techniques to top Defense Department attorneys in January 2003, and it appeared that nothing was done.

Although a senior FBI attorney "was assured that the general concerns expressed, and the debate between the FBI and DoD regarding the treatment of detainees was known to officials in the Pentagon, I have no record that our specific concerns regarding these three situations were communicated to the Department of Defense for appropriate action," Harrington wrote.

The American Civil Liberties Union planned Tuesday to release internal government memos that underscore the friction between the FBI and the military over interrogation methods. The documents are among 5,000 the New York-based ACLU received under two Freedom of Information Act requests, said Anthony Romero, the union's executive director.

In one ACLU-obtained letter from an FBI agent to Harrington and dated May 10, for example, the agent questioned whether harsh interrogation techniques turned up good information.

"In my weekly meetings with the Department of Justice we often discussed techniques and how they were not effective or producing intelligence that was reliable," according to the exchange, which was heavily redacted to remove references to dates and names.

"I finally voiced my opinion ...," the FBI agent says. "It still did not prevent them from continuing the ... methods."

Romero said the information in the FBI letter "raises questions about the government's willingness to be forthcoming in these legal proceedings and shows that even the FBI has been uncomfortable with some of the tactics used at Guantanamo."

In the letter obtained by AP, Harrington told Ryder he was writing to follow up a meeting he had with the general the week before about detainee treatment, including "highly aggressive interrogation techniques being used against detainees in Guantanamo."

"I refer them to you for appropriate action," Harrington wrote.

Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, the current commander of the mission in Guantanamo, said allegations of mistreatment and abuse are taken seriously and investigated. "The appropriate actions were taken. Some allegations are still under investigation," Hood told the AP.

[patricia]

I believe that had the photographs taken at Abu Ghraib not been seen by ordinary citizens when published in the popular press, world-wide, NOTHING would have been done. This, even though these were not the only instances and not the only location at which torture has been used.
Even now, the memory is fading. Short attention spans work in the Bush Administration's favour, as evidenced by the second term given to those who were shown to have lied to take the country to war in the first place.

[Gary Sisco]

Well, you don't have to "believe" anything, Pat, because your thesis has already been confirmed, since no one did do anything before the pictures became public. And precious little has been done since, in fact -- apart from fucking with lowly grunts, as usual. Its always enlisted pukes that do the time. Not the officers.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Well, you don't have to "believe" anything, Pat, because your thesis has already been confirmed, since no one did do anything before the pictures became public. And precious little has been done since, in fact -- apart from fucking with lowly grunts, as usual. Its always enlisted pukes that do the time. Not the officers.

Exactly so. Interesting how showing pictures of captured American soldiers was considered unacceptable when torture of those who resist the American occupation is perfectly fine. I agree that the grunts should not be the ones to take the fall, but those who gave them orders and those, above those, who condoned this unacceptable behavior. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush and the rest of the gang said nothing, until the photographs were seen by everybody in the world.
Not long ago, Shoshanna [I forget her surname], who was one of the captured American soldiers displayed on television, early in this war, said in an interview that she and her fellow soldiers were not tortured. Indeed, she said that they were fed well and treated respectfully, then released.
In contrast with the treatment of captured Iraqis, I'm thinking of the summarily shot, wounded prisoner for expediency ["He's dead now"] and that the good guys don't look so good.

[sonic1]

Just how sure are we all, that we are against torture??

[hearsay]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Boyle said torture was against U.S. policy and any allegations of it would be "forwarded through command channels for military discipline." He added, "I don't think anything remotely like torture has occurred at Guantanamo" but noted that some U.S. soldiers there had been disciplined for misconduct, including a female interrogator who removed her blouse during questioning.

What the is this, "Police Academy 7"?

The fact that the suspected "dirty-bomber" (which is a whole other Orwellian scare tactic) Jose Padilla, who is an American citzen, has been held by authorities for a few years as an "enemy combatant", with no charges against him, and not permitted to see his lawyer is scary as hell. What happenned to his rights as a citzen, why hasn't he been charged and tried for anything? By this logic anyone can be called an "enemy combatant" in a conceptual war and held for any indeterminite amount of time. Where is the 5th amendment? It doesn't say no American shall be held for a crime without due process of law, it says no person. Apparently it's not supposed to extend to Guantanamo bay.

[Uli]

Originally Posted by hearsay

What the is this, "Police Academy 7"?

It certainly looks like. Whenever stories of the acts of the so called "bad apples" are reported the *pattern* is the same. Some sexual weirdo shit.*

Of course not funny like Police Academy, if you excuse my juvenile humour.


*No offense intended to any of you guys. anything goes as long as it's consensual, imho.

Originally Posted by hearsay

The fact that the suspected "dirty-bomber" (which is a whole other Orwellian scare tactic) Jose Padilla, who is an American citzen, has been held by authorities for a few years as an "enemy combatant", with no charges against him, and not permitted to see his lawyer is scary as hell. What happenned to his rights as a citzen, why hasn't he been charged and tried for anything? By this logic anyone can be called an "enemy combat" in a conceptual war and held for any indeterminite amount of time. Where is the 5th amendment? It doesn't say no American shall be held crime without due process of law, it says no person. Apparently it's not supposed to extend to Guantamo bay.

It *is* really scary and smacks of well known "Uebermensch" mentality.

[Gary Sisco]

But it does legally extend to Guantanamo -- and to every other military base or embassy or consulate anywhere on the planet -- all of which are US territory, where US law applies, in full.

Doesn't mean it's obeyed, of course, especially by those who are supposed to enforce it and defend it.

[Gary Sisco]

Iraqi Prisoner Abuse Reported After Abu Ghraib Disclosures
By NEIL A. LEWIS

Published: December 8, 2004


ASHINGTON, Dec. 7 - Two Defense Department intelligence officials reported observing brutal treatment of Iraqi insurgents captured in Baghdad in June, several weeks after disclosures of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison created a worldwide uproar, according to a memorandum disclosed Tuesday.

The memorandum, written by the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency to a senior Pentagon official, said that when the two members of his agency objected to the treatment, they were threatened and told to keep quiet by other military interrogators.

The memorandum said the Defense Intelligence Agency officials had seen prisoners being brought in to a detention center with burn marks on their backs and complaining about sore kidneys.

The document was disclosed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which obtained it as part of a cache of papers from a civil lawsuit seeking to discover the extent of abuse of prisoners by the military.

Other memorandums disclosed this week, including some released by the A.C.L.U., showed that the interrogation and detention system at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had drawn strong objections from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which argued that the coercive techniques used there were unnecessary and produced unreliable information.

The Associated Press reported Monday that one F.B.I. official had written in a memorandum of witnessing a series of coercive procedures at Guantánamo, among them a female interrogator squeezing the genitals of a detainee and bending back his thumbs painfully.

The June 25 memorandum, written by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was addressed to the under secretary of defense for intelligence, Stephen Cambone. Admiral Jacoby wrote that one of his officers had witnessed an interrogator from the Special Operations unit known as Task Force 6-26 "punch a prisoner in the face to the point the individual needed medical attention." The admiral said that when the D.I.A. official took photos of that detainee, the pictures were confiscated.

The memorandum said the two D.I.A. officials, who were not identified, had found the keys to their vehicles confiscated, and been instructed "not to leave the compound without specific permission, even to get a haircut"; they were also threatened, and told their e-mail messages were being screened. It said they had persevered and provided their accounts to superiors in the agency; the accounts reached Admiral Jacoby on June 24. The memo suggests that the incidents experienced by the officials occurred earlier in June.

A Defense Department spokesman said Tuesday in response to the document's disclosure: "U.S. policy condemns and prohibits torture. U.S. personnel are required to follow this policy and applicable law."

The spokesman did not say what action, if any, had been taken by Mr. Cambone, but said: "We have said all along that we do not tolerate any mistreatment of detainees. We investigate thoroughly any credible allegations and take appropriate action if they are substantiated. The same process applies to these allegations."

Late Tuesday, a Pentagon spokesman, Maj. Michael Shavers, said many of the documents provided to the A.C.L.U. by the Pentagon already "are either part of previous inquiries or are informing inquiries yet to be completed."

One Pentagon official said that when Mr. Cambone received the complaint from Admiral Jacoby, he immediately raised the matter with his senior staff and officers at the military's Special Operations Command. The incidents are under investigation.

The Pentagon has also said the activities disclosed earlier this week about Guantánamo, including the account of the actions of the female interrogator, were under investigation.

The place in Iraq where the events described by Admiral Jacoby occurred is referred to in his memorandum as the Temporary Detention Facility in Baghdad. Task Force 6-26 is a special unit that is devoted mostly to capturing and interrogating what the military calls high-value detainees involved in the Iraqi insurgency, officials said.

It is not known whether the members of the task force involved in the incidents were military or civilian.

The situation of the prisoners likely to be interviewed by such Special Forces teams differs from that of those held at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, military officials said. The prisoners in custody at the Temporary Detention Facility are more likely to be interrogated about some activity that just occurred, in the hope that fresh intelligence might be obtained immediately after an incident.


Thom Shanker contributed reporting for this article.

[Gary Sisco]

Memo: Workers Threatened Over Iraqi Abuse

1 hour, 41 minutes ago U.S. National - AP


By PAISLEY DODDS, Associated Press Writer

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - U.S. special forces accused of abusing prisoners in Iraq (news - web sites) threatened Defense Intelligence Agency personnel who saw the mistreatment, according to U.S. government memos released Tuesday by the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites).



The special forces also monitored e-mails sent by defense personnel and ordered them "not to talk to anyone" in the United States about what they saw, said one memo written by the Defense Intelligence Agency chief, who complained to his Pentagon (news - web sites) bosses about the harassment.


In addition, the special forces confiscated photos of a prisoner who had been punched in the face.


Prisoners arriving at a detention center in Baghdad had "burn marks on their backs" as well as bruises and some complained of kidney pain, according to the June 25, 2004 memo.


FBI (news - web sites) agents also reported seeing detainees at Abu Ghraib subjected to sleep deprivation, humiliation and forced nudity between October and December 2003 — when the most serious abuses allegedly took place in a scandal that's remains under investigation.


The release of the ACLU documents comes a day after The Associated Press reported that a senior FBI official wrote a letter to the Army's top criminal investigator complaining about "highly aggressive" interrogation techniques at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay dating back to 2002 — more than a year before the scandal broke at the Iraqi prison.


The memos reveal behind-the-scenes tensions between the FBI and U.S. military and intelligence task forces running prisoner interrogations at Guantanamo and in Iraq as the Bush administration sought better intelligence to fight terrorists and the deadly Iraq insurgency.


"These documents tell a damning story of sanctioned government abuse — a story that the government has tried to hide and may well come back to haunt our own troops captured in Iraq," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the New York-based ACLU.


The documents were released only after a federal court ordered the Pentagon and other government agencies to comply with a year-old request filed under the Freedom of Information Act filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace.


A spokesman for U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida, which directs special military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites), declined to comment on specific allegations.


"We take all issues of detainee abuse very seriously and where there is the potential that these abuses could have taken place, we investigate them," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nick Balice.


Joe Navarro, a retired FBI agent who teaches interrogation techniques to the military and is familiar with interrogations at Guantanamo, said using threats during interrogations only stands to taint information gleaned from the sessions.


"The only thing that torture guarantees is pain," Navarro told AP Tuesday. "It never guarantees the truth."


Many memos refer to Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, whose mission as head of the Guantanamo prison from October 2002 was to improve the intelligence gleaned from terror suspects. In August 2003, Miller was sent to Iraq to make recommendations on interrogation techniques to get more information out of prisoners. He was posted to Abu Ghraib in March 2004.


One FBI e-mail released by the ACLU said Miller "continued to support interrogation strategies (the FBI) not only advised against, but questioned in terms of effectiveness."


Miller left Iraq on Tuesday for a new assignment in Washington, with responsibility for Army housing and other support operations, and could not be reached for comment.


According to the memo from the Defense Intelligence chief, Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, a special forces task force in Iraq threatened defense personnel who complained about abuses. Some had their car keys confiscated and were ordered not to leave the base "even to get a haircut."





Balice refused to describe the task force, which could include Army Rangers, Delta Force, Navy SEALs and other Special Forces' soldiers working with CIA (news - web sites) operatives.

Another June 25 memo describes how a task force officer punched a prisoner in the face "to the point he needed medical attention," failed to record the medical treatment, and confiscated photos of the injuries. The date of the incident wasn't clear as the memo — like others released by the ACLU — have been heavily redacted to remove dates and names.

An e-mail to Thomas Harrington, an FBI counterterrorism expert who led a team of investigators to Guantanamo, records "somewhat heated" conversations in which Pentagon officials admitted that harsh interrogations did not yield any information not obtained by the FBI.

Another December 2003 e-mail notes the FBI's Military Liaison and Detainee Unit, which "had a longstanding and documented position against use of some of DoDs interrogation practices," requested certain information "be documented to protect the FBI."

In the July 14 letter obtained by the AP, Harrington suggested that the Pentagon didn't act on FBI complaints about four incidents at Guantanamo, including a female interrogator grabbing a detainee's genitals and bending back his thumbs, another where most of a prisoner's head was covered with duct tape and a third where a dog was used to intimidate a detainee who later was thrown into isolation and showed signs of "extreme psychological trauma."

The Harrington letter was addressed to Maj. Gen. Donald J. Ryder, the Army's chief law enforcement officer who's investigating abuses at U.S.-run prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and at Guantanamo. He said FBI officials complained about the pattern of abusive techniques to top Defense Department attorneys in January 2003, and it appeared that nothing was done.

The U.S. military says prisoners are treated according to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit violence, torture and humiliating treatment. Still, at least 10 incidents of abuse have been substantiated at Guantanamo, all but one from 2003 or this year.

Many detainees at Guantanamo have been held without charge and without access to attorneys since the camp opened in January 2002. The United States has imprisoned some 550 men accused of links to Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime or al-Qaida; only four have been charged.

___

Associated Press writer Vickie Chachere contributed to this report from Tampa, Florida.

___

[Gary Sisco]

My man Sullivan nails it again:

TORTURE: Many readers keep cavilling that the evidence of torture and prisoner abuse committed by U.S. forces is non-existent. They are tragically wrong. Recall this part of the Taguba report, the official investigation at Abu Ghraib. Here's some of what happened:
Breaking chemical lights and pouring phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall of his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.
There is incontrovertible evidence of actual rapes and murders. Prisoners under U.S. command have been killed. Now we hear the following:
The memorandum said that the Defense Intelligence Agency officials saw prisoners being brought in to a detention center with burn marks on their backs and complaining about sore kidneys.
This was after the Abu Ghraib scandal came to light. Some Defense Intelligence Agency officials witnessed one Special Force officer "punch a prisoner in the face to the point the individual needed medical attention." And part of the response to the complaints was to threaten the investigators. Just put it all together. We have a problem here.
- 1:36:37 AM